Agenda packet — Laguna Beach City Council, May 13, 2026 (part 1 of 8)

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MAY 13, 2026
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 505 FOREST AVENUE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 SPECIAL MEETING 3:00 P.M.

MARK ORGILL, Mayor
HALLIE JONES, Mayor Pro Tem
SUE KEMPF, Councilmember
ALEX ROUNAGHI, Councilmember
BOB WHALEN, Councilmember
DAVE KIFF, City Manager
MEGAN GARIBALDI, City Attorney
LAURA PARISI, City Treasurer
ANN MARIE McKAY, City Clerk
LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the City Council is required to disclose on the record any campaign contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 commencing on January 1, 2025, made by the party or the party’s agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official.

Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure should be made when the agenda item is called and must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution, the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made. Council Members are also required to make such disclosures and recuse themselves.

Public Participation: You may submit comments in person on any agenda item or any item not on the agenda. You may also submit written comments on any agenda item or on any item not on the agenda via mail to the City Clerk at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 or by email to [email protected]. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your written comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public meeting is scheduled. Written comments WILL NOT be read aloud during the City Council Meeting. Please note that written comments are posted on the City’s website, so do not include any personal information you do not want posted on the web. Any comments received after the deadline for submittal may not become part of the public record for that meeting. For comments submitted on a topic not on the agenda, please indicate that you would like your comments included in the official record for this meeting. 1 of 1554
[email protected]. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your written comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public meeting is scheduled. Written comments WILL NOT be read aloud during the City Council Meeting. Please note that written comments are posted on the City’s website, so do not include any personal information you do not want posted on the web. Any comments received after the deadline for submittal may not become part of the public record for that meeting. For comments submitted on a topic not on the agenda, please indicate that you would like your comments included in the official record for this meeting.

Courtesy Virtual Broadcast: Please take notice that the City also plans to broadcast the meeting via the below listed mediums. These virtual broadcast mediums are also provided as a courtesy only and are not guaranteed to be technically feasible or uninterrupted. Thus, in order to guarantee livetime viewing, members of the public are encouraged to attend in person.

1. Online on the City of Laguna website: www.lagunabeachcity.net/meetings

2. Cox cable channel 852

3. Online on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQsj8cEM7IvTH6p4uf3NUzQ CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FOR APPEALS HEARINGS
********************************************************** A. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR APPEALS. This section is specifically for appeals of determinations of the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board, or other Boards or Commissions. Public Hearings (Appeals) are different from other public hearings in two ways: (1) In some cases, the City Council can only consider whether a lower body abused its discretion in granting or denying a project application. In other cases, the Council can conduct the hearing “de novo,” meaning that it can consider old and new information and make a determination unbound by the lower body’s decision.

The item’s staff report will clearly state which review standard applies to each appeal item; and (2) public comment generally occurs this way: Staff presents a report about the appeal, Council members ask questions about the report. Then the presiding officer opens the public hearing, inviting the person who filed the appeal (the appellant) to speak first, followed by persons supporting the appellant’s position. Then the presiding officer invites persons disagreeing with appeal to speak. When all speakers have spoken, the presiding officer invites the appellant up a second time to address any comment and to conclude their argument. Following that, the presiding officer closes the public hearing, and the Council deliberates further and ultimately votes on a motion. The City Council conducts all Public Hearings in accordance with the provisions of applicable Laguna Beach procedure and State law. The Mayor shall have discretion to establish the time allocated for persons who wish to speak, often allowing more time for the appellant and/or the applicant.

A. 31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 240658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 240657 FOR A NEW SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD IN THE R1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
Recommendations:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 240658 and Coastal Development Permit 240657 and the California Environmental Quality Act categorical exemption under Section 15303 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 2 of 1554
Q
SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
Recommendations:

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 240658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 240657 FOR A NEW SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED TWOCAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD IN THE R1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)”, upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 24 0658 and Coastal Development Permit 240657, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

B. APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 20260148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET Recommendations:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Coastal Development Permit 20260148 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 20260148 FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE R2, 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 20260148, and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA.

C. 31985 AND 31987 COAST HIGHWAY: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 20260024, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 20260025, AND VARIANCE 20260026, FOR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A TWOCAR GARAGE AT 31985 AND 31987 COAST HIGHWAY IN THE R1 ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) Recommendations:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, receive a staff report and take public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 20260024, Coastal Development Permit 20260025, and Variance 20260026, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15303 of the state CEQA Guidelines; 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 APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 20260024, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 20260025, AND VARIANCE 20260026 FOR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A TWOCAR GARAGE AT 31985 AND 31987 COAST HIGHWAY IN THE R1, RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303”, upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 20260024, Coastal Development Permit 20260025, and Variance 20260026, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

ADA ACCOMMODATIONS
*************************
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disabilityrelated modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (949) 4970705 (telephone) or (949) 4970771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.5
********************************************************* Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packets are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California, during normal business hours. 4 of 1554

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

May 13, 2026
APPEAL
A
SUBJECT: 31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657 FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING,

ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND

LANDSCAPING, AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657 and the California Environmental Quality Act categorical exemption under Section 15303 of the state CEQA Guidelines; 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

DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657 FOR A NEW SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING,

AND LANDSCAPING, AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE

SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)”, upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Adele Chang, Architect (“Applicant”)1, for 31526 Valido Road (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24- 0657 for a new single-family dwelling, attached two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, and landscaping, and demolition of an existing single-family dwelling pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040 and Section 25.07.004.

On July 11, 2024, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the entitlement applications, consisting of DR 24-0658 and CDP 24-0657 (the “Original Project”). During the 1 The Project’s owner is Chuanjie Zhou, who is within the definition of Applicant. 1 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 2 of 37 ends

hearing, the Board evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on the mass, scale, articulation, and height of the project, privacy from decks and windows, and view impacts. Following discussion, the Board directed the Applicant to reorient the structure, reduce the appearance of mass, provide further articulation using materials and landscaping, and address privacy by utilizing opaque glass and redesigning the decks. The Board voted 5-0 to continue the hearing to September 26, 2024, to allow the Applicant time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with neighboring property owners. (The July 11, 2024 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Minutes, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 14 through 18, respectively.) On September 19, 2024 the City received a letter from Ann Christoph suggesting that the subject Property may have historical significance. (The September 19, 2024 letter is included in Attachment 6, pages 1 and

2.) As a result, on September 26, 2024, staff requested and the Board granted a continuance to November 14, 2024 to allow for further evaluation of the project site. On November 14, 2024, the Board continued the public hearing to December 12, 2024, when, at the Applicant’s request, the project was tabled.

In response to the public comment about historicity, City staff contacted Historic Resources Group (HRG), one of the City’s contracted historic consultants, to prepare a historic assessment of the property. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the subject property for potential historic significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). HRG worked with Ms. Christoph to obtain information regarding the history of the site. The initial Historic Resources Assessment, entitled “Historic Resources Assessment of 31526 Valido Rd, Historic Resources Group, November 22, 2024” was completed on November 22, 2024 (the “Initial HRG Report”).(Attachment 9.) In response to the Initial HRG Report, Ms. Christoph provided a response, including corrections to historic details within the Initial HRG Report. These corrections did not affect the conclusions regarding the property. HRG provided a revised report on February 12, 2025, entitled “Historic Resources Assessment of 31526 Valido Rd, Historic Resources Group, February 12, 2025” (the “Final HRG Report”). (Attachment 10.) The Final HRG Report concluded that the property is significant under Criterion A/1 for its association with the Homestead Act of 1862. To be eligible for the California Register, property must be significant under one or more of four specified criteria, as discussed below. The Final HRG Report found the property significant under California Register Criterion 1, as the property is “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.” Therefore, under the Initial HRG Report and Final HRG Report, it is eligible for listing in the California Register. Further, HRG determined the property is a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA.

In response to the Initial HRG Report and Final HRG Report, the Applicant commissioned their own study, which was prepared by Chronicle Heritage, entitled “Historic Resource Assessment of 31526 Valido Road, 2 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 3 of 37 ends

Chronicle Heritage, April 2025” (the “Chronicle Report”) (Attachment 11.) The Chronical Report was also prepared to determine whether the subject property may be considered as an historical resource pursuant to CEQA and to evaluate whether the property is eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR.

The Chronical Report stated “the surrounding area that was once part of the larger homestead has been completely developed and does not retain the feeling and association with the Homestead Act period in the City, and thus it does not retain integrity of feeling and association. Furthermore, due to the substantial surrounding development, the integrity of setting has been lost. Due to the completed alterations, the subject property also does not retain integrity of design, materials, or workmanship.” With that, the Chronical Report concluded the subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, nor does it appear to be eligible for listing under any of the local criteria. Therefore, the building does not appear to be a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.

City staff requested HRG review the Chronical Report and comment on the report’s conclusions. HRG provided a supplemental memo evaluating the Chronicle Report, entitled “Historic Assessment Memo, Historic Resources Group, June 3, 2025” (the “HRG Memo”) (Attachment 12.) The HRG Memo noted that “Chronicle Heritage did not find fault with HRG’s methodology or research conclusions; however, [it] did not agree with the finding that the subject property appears eligible for listing in the National Register at the local level and the California Register” and rebutted the Chronicle Heritage report findings. The HRG Memo noted that “urbanization of South Laguna follows twentieth century planning and land use policies seen throughout Southern California (and the United States) and the change in setting alone is not reason enough to disqualify the property from association with homesteading.” Further, the HRG Memo noted, in part, “to our knowledge, the Egan property may be the last remaining property associated with homesteading in all of Laguna Beach.” (Collectively, the Initial HRG Report, Final HRG Report, Chronicle Report, and HRG Memo shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Historic Resource Assessment Reports”).

To resolve these contrasting conclusions, the City commissioned an independent, qualified, historic consultant, GPA Consultants, to evaluate and peer review the Historic Resource Assessment Reports.

GPA Consultants conducted a thorough and objective analysis of the Historic Resource Assessment Reports to determine whether they met accepted professional and technical standards and prepared a report, entitled “Peer Review of Historic Resource Assessment Reports for 31526 Valido Road, Laguna Beach, GPA Consulting, July 28, 2025” (the “GPA Peer Review”). (Attachment 13.) The GPA Peer Review concluded, “Based on our review of the two independent historic resource assessments prepared by qualified professionals, GPA does not find sufficient evidence to support that the property at 31526 Valido Road 3 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 4 of 37 ends

meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places.”
GPA continued, “While HRG identified a potential association with early homesteading, the broader historic context presented does not convincingly support eligibility under Criterion 1, particularly in light of the compromised integrity of setting and the lack of rarity or comparative analysis. That said, GPA acknowledges there may be some potential for local historical significance under a more narrowly defined sub-context of early rural residential development in South Laguna, particularly given that the Egan residence is documented as one of the first homes constructed in the area. However, under the City's current ordinance—which requires owner consent for local designation—the property cannot be formally recognized unless the owner voluntarily elects to pursue local listing. Should the owner wish to do so in the future, the potential eligibility of the property under local criteria may warrant further exploration within this refined context.” As such, the property does not meet the definition of a “historical resource” under CEQA, nor does it appear to qualify as a historic resource under the City of Laguna Beach’s current Historic Preservation Ordinance, which requires that properties be either formally listed, eligible for listing, or voluntarily nominated by the property owner.” (Attachment 13, page 8.) Both HRG and GPA Consultants are firms that the City regularly retains for the evaluation of historic and potentially historic resources. Further, in engaging HRG and GPA Consultants, the City did not limit any scope of inquiry and let each professional analyze the issue independently.

On September 25, 2025, Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing and received public testimony regarding the revised project in response to prior Board direction. In response to the Board’s prior direction, the Applicant revised the project design by rotating the structure, adding colors and materials to all elevations, and proposing additional landscaping (the “Project”). Public testimony was received related to the design of the project, privacy and view concerns, and the historicity of the project. After deliberation, the Board voted 4-1 (Board member Bauta dissenting) to adopt Resolution No. 24-0658, conditionally approving the Project, determining the existing structures and property are not a historic resource, and finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 The Board added a condition requiring additional landscaping to provide privacy for the neighbor’s lower bedroom (Appellant 1) and to screen views from any windows on the “right elevation” from which the bedroom is visible (collectively, the “Board Approval”). (The September 25, 2025 Staff Report, Resolution No. 24-0658, Plans, Public Correspondence, Minutes, Transcript, Initial HRG Report, Final HRG Report, Chronical Report, HRG Memo, and GPA Peer Review are attached as Attachments 3-13, respectively).
4 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 5 of 37 ends

On October 6, 2025, neighboring property owners Sofia and Jeffrey Chamberlain (“Appellant 1”), filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 1”) (Attachment 19). Appellant 1 contends that there were imbalanced focus and procedural concerns, privacy impacts, and a missed opportunity for a fair compromise.

On October 8, 2025, neighboring property owners Stan and Diane Leemon, with the South Laguna Civic Association and Village Laguna (“Appellant 2”), filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 2”) (Attachment 20). Appellant 2 contends that the Property contains a historic resource, that the City did not follow the appropriate procedure for evaluating the “dueling” historic assessments, that the neighbors had insufficient speaking time to address both historic preservation and the impacts of the Project on their properties, that the Board did not consider public views of the home from a nearby trail (Toovet Trail), and that the Board abused its discretion by finding the property is not a historic resource on the basis of irrelevant factors while failing to consider relevant factors. (Appeal 1 and Appeal 2 will be collectively referred to herein as the “Appeals”.)
LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeals of the Project at the November 18, 2025 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 2). The public hearing was thereafter continued to January 13, 2026. On January 13, 2026, the public hearing was continued to February 24, 2026. On February 24, 2026, the public hearing was continued to March 10, 2026. On March 10, 2026, the public hearing was continued to May 13, 2026.

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all land use 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.

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 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.) 5 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 6 of 37 ends

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. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for appeals of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(b) provides:

If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence. There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.

Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-0658, which was approved 4-1, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing. Rather, the City Council shall consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.

Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 24-0658, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the 6 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 7 of 37 ends

provision of new plans;5 in such event, remand is not required.

2. 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 CDP 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 approval of CDP 24-057 and a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA, 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.

C. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are as follows:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15303;

2. Adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 24-0658 and CDP 24-0657, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15303, but modifying the Resolution to impose more restrictive conditions of approval;

3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Board approval and denying the Project; or

4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 24-0658 and CDP 24-0657 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board. 5 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the DRB or Planning Commission for further consideration. 7 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 8 of 37 ends

DISCUSSION
The Board held three public hearings on July 11, 2024, September 26, 2024, and September 25, 2025. At the September 26th DRB meeting, staff requested a continuance to the November 14, 2024 DRB meeting to allow for further evaluation of the property. An additional continuance was requested to December 12, 2024, and the project was tabled at that meeting. The project was scheduled for the DRB meeting of September 25, 2025. At that meeting, the Board adopted Resolution No. 24-0658, conditionally approving the Project. A summary of the public hearings is set forth below.7 A. July 11, 2024 Design Review Board Hearing - The Original Project On July 11, 2024, the Applicant requested approval of Design Review and a Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing single-family residence and garage, and construct a new 4,002 square foot, two story single-family residence with elevated decks, grading, landscaping, tandem parking, and third covered parking space. Neighbors raised concerns regarding the design of the project, including size, mass, and orientation of the home, neighborhood compatibility, privacy from windows and decks, and view impacts.

After deliberation, the Board requested the Applicant reorient the structure, reduce the appearance of mass, add articulation using materials and landscaping, provide the proposed height and width of landscaping, add opaque glass, and adjust decks to address privacy concerns. The project was continued to the September 26, 2024 hearing.

B. September 26, 2024 Design Review Board Hearing
On September 19, 2024, prior to the scheduled hearing, the City received a letter from Ann Christoph suggesting that the subject Property may have historical significance (Attachment 6). As a result, on September 26, 2024, staff requested a continuance to the November 14, 2024 DRB meeting to allow for further evaluation of the property. An additional continuance was requested to December 12, 2024, and the project was tabled at that meeting, at the Applicant’s request.

C. September 25, 2025 Design Review Board Hearing - The Project

1. Staff Report
Introduction
The 14,071-square-foot project site is a residential property developed with a single-family dwelling and a detached garage which is accessed from Valido Road. The site slopes downward at the rear of the property with a small area mapped with a watercourse setback. The Project proposes demolition of the existing 1,278 7 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. 8 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 9 of 37 ends

SF single-family residence and garage, and construction of a new 3,811 square foot single-family residence, attached two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, landscaping.

Figure 1. Aerial Map of 31526 Valido Road
In the staff report published to the Board and public, staff noted revisions made by the Applicant in response to the Board’s direction and feedback since the prior hearing and summarized the changes as follows:
• The structure was rotated approximately 15 degrees;
• A third covered tandem parking space was removed;
• Upper-level area over the garage was pulled back;
• Additional materials, textures, and colors were added at each elevation; • Frosted privacy glass was added to bathroom number four; • A proposed deck between bathroom two and three was removed; • A balcony from bedroom three was removed;
• A five-foot frosted glass privacy panel was added at the deck on the left or south elevation; and • Proposed landscaping heights and widths were specified on the landscape plan.

Background
The Property is located on a remaining portion of an original 40-acre land grant. The land was granted to Willam F. Egan through the Homestead Act in 1910. The existing residence was constructed beginning in 9 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 10 of 37 ends

1909 and built out in 1928. The Final HRG Report stated that the period of significance is circa 1909 to 1928, which indicates the date when the original cabin was constructed to the date when the last significant addition was added in 1928 by the Egan family. This was also the period when William Egan claimed the homestead and was actively farming the land (Attachment 10).

A portion of the original 40-acre property was sold to the South Coast Water District in 1937 and 1944 to develop with a water reservoir. On June 21, 1948, track number 1243 was recorded, which subdivided the southeast portion of the original homestead lot north of West Street into 25 lots on Paseo Del Sur, Rico Road, and Valido Road. The remaining developed parcels that surround the subject property were sold off at various times. The undeveloped area in the northwest part of the original homestead is now owned by the County of Orange. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Original 40-acre homestead property with subject site highlighted Historic Resource Evaluation
As previously stated, on September 19, 2024 the Community Development Department received a letter from Ms. Christoph stating that the existing dwelling on the subject property was constructed in 1910, that the house is the oldest in South Laguna, and possibly the last remaining homestead house in the City of 10 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 11 of 37 ends

Laguna Beach. (Attachment 6). A copy of a letter from the South Laguna Civic Association from 2022 regarding the potential historic significance of the property was attached to the September 19, 2024 letter.

A resource is eligible for the California Register when it meets one of the criteria of significance and retains enough of its historic character or appearance or integrity to be recognizable as a historic resource and to convey the reason for its significance.

The criteria for the California Register are

1. that it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California's history and cultural heritage (Criterion 1); or

2. that it's associated with the lives of persons important in our past (Criterion 2); or

3. it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3); or

4. it has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion 4).

To assess the historic significance of the Property, several reports were prepared to determine whether it is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or the California Register of Historic Resources, or whether it is a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Pursuant to CEQA,9 for purposes of determining the significance of impacts to historical resources, the term “historical resources" includes the following:
(1) resources listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and
(3) any object, building, structure, site area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California 11 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 12 of 37 ends

Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Initially, historic resource assessments were prepared for the property by two qualified historic consultants.

Historic Resources Group (“HRG”) was retained by the Community Development Department and produced the Initial HRG Report, Final HRG Report, and HRG Memo, and Chronicle Heritage was retained by the Applicant. Both historic consultants evaluated the subject Property for potential historic significance and eligibility for the National Register and the California Register. The historic consultants reached differing determinations as to whether the property is eligible for listing on the California Register.

HRG determined the Property to be significant under the California Register Criterion 1, in that “it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States” and that the property is a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA11; whereas Chronicle Heritage concluded the Property did not appear eligible for listing on the National or California Register due to the progression of development over the course of time, the area surrounding the property that was once part of the Egan homestead no longer conveys an association with the Homestead Act12.

Thus, the City requested an independent professional evaluation of the Historic Resource Assessment Reports by a third qualified historic consultant, GPA. GPA conducted a thorough and objective analysis of 11 Final HRG Report (Attachment 10, p. 33)
12 Chronical Report (Attachment 11, p. 21).
12 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 13 of 37 ends

the reports. GPA did not find sufficient evidence to support that the Property meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register or the National Register. As such, the staff report to the Board indicated that the Property does not meet the definition of a historic resource under CEQA, nor does it appear to qualify as a historic resource under the City of Laguna Beach's current historic preservation ordinance. The ordinance requires that the property owner voluntarily agree to place their property on the City’s Historic Register, in addition to meeting one or more of the additional criteria for the City’s Historic Register in LBMC Section 25.45.006(C). A detailed discussion of the historic resource evaluations conducted is provided in the Board staff report (Attachment 3, [September 25, 2025 DRB Staff Report] p. 5-7). The assessment reports provided as attachments to the DRB staff report are as follows: Initial HRG Report, Final HRG Report, Chronical Report, HRG Memo, and GPA Peer Review, which are provided as Attachments 9-13, respectively.

2. Staff Presentation
City staff presented an overview of the proposed Project, provided a summary of the historic resource evaluations that were conducted for the Project, and staff’s recommendations in the staff report. City staff recommended the Board deliberate on privacy, view equity, and historic preservation matters to determine if these DR criteria were achieved, or if other project changes or conditions of approval were warranted.

Further, staff recommended the Board determine whether the property met the definition of a historic resource in accordance with CEQA.

3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
During the Board members’ review of the Project, the Board members toured the Property and met with the Applicant (Project architect), neighbors, and Ann Christoph. Specifically, the Board members made the following ex parte disclosures:

Commenter Summary of Comment
Transcript
[Attachment
8] Page Nos.

Chair Pro Tem
Gannon
Conducted a site visit, spoke with Ann Christoph, and corresponded with Steve Kawaratani.
p. 1 of 29
Board Member
Coveny
Had a site visit and met with the neighbor, Mr. Chamberlain p. 1 of 29 Board Member
Bauta
Had a site visit, met with both neighbors to the east, and spoke with Ann Christoph
p. 1 of 29
Board Member
Weil
Visited the site and spoke with Ann Christoph, Steve Kawaratani, and the neighbors.
p. 1-2 of 29
13 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 14 of 37 ends

Board Chair
Gibbs
Met with the architect, Adele Chang, Jeff Chamberlain, and another neighbor, and spoke with Ann Christoph
p. 1 of 29

4. Applicant Presentation
During the Applicant presentation, Adele Chang spoke on behalf of the Applicant. Her presentation is summarized below.

Applicant Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment
8] Page Nos.

Adele
Chang
(Applicant)
At the last hearing, the team listened carefully to the (Board) and neighborhood feedback and made several revisions to the project. The proposed home, surrounded by two-story houses, now fully complied with zoning ordinances and had been reduced by 200 square feet. Major changes included lowering the building pad, significantly reducing the second-floor size, removing all covered decks, and using frosted glass for windows facing downhill neighbors to address privacy concerns. The team also relocated the AC units at the request of uphill neighbors and agreed to plant and maintain trees and hedges to improve screening. After ongoing communication and adjustments, the downhill neighbors now supported the revised proposal.
pgs. 4-6 of
29 5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, seven individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment
Transcript
[Attachment
8]
Page Nos.

Ruben Flores Stated that Laguna Beach is losing its historic character as older, iconic structures are replaced by modern buildings that don’t reflect the town’s heritage. New attractive developments erase the unique, village-like charm that once defined the area. He emphasized the importance of preserving local history, and urged the Board to protect p. 6-8 of 29
14 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 15 of 37 ends

remaining historic buildings. He stated that once these pieces of history are gone, they can never be authentically recreated.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon asked whether this house had ever been on any historic tours, to which Mr. Flores answered yes.

Diane Leeman
(Appellant 2)
Expressed concern about losing a historic property that contributes to the City’s character and beauty. The site, including its original farm garage, was an important piece of local history that should not be replaced by new construction. Ms. Leeman expressed concerns about losing 75% of their ocean view and their privacy due to the proposed project. She raised concerns about potential geological impacts from grading and urged the Commission to preserve the historic property after reviewing the detailed report on its significance. p. 8 of 29
Jeff
Chamberlain
(Appellant 1)
Stated he met with the Applicant the day before the hearing, and that after the home design was rotated to address one neighbor’s privacy issues, it created new privacy problems for their own property. He stated that the revised design now placed several windows and a balcony directly facing their home, giving a clear view into their daughter’s bedroom and living areas. While they understood and respected the effort to protect others’ privacy, they felt it has come at their expense. He asked that the plans be revisited to find a balanced solution, suggesting both vegetation and structural measures to restore privacy for all parties.
p. 8-10 of 29
Ann Christoph
(Appellant 2)
Speaking for the South Laguna Civic Association and for herself, she stated that GPA did not find enough evidence to confirm the site’s historical significance, partly because they lacked context about surrounding homesteads. Ms. Christoph described their own research, which mapped 1885 and later USGS data showing historic homestead locations in South Laguna, revealing that the Egan structure is the only one still standing. She indicated that this mapping and additional research demonstrated the property’s historic value beyond what GPA reviewed. The speaker urged the City to request further study from GPA or HRG to ensure the site’s historical importance was fully documented and preserved.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon asked whether this house had ever been on any historic tours. Ms. Christoph answered no.
p. 10-12 of 29
15 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 16 of 37 ends

Cathy Jurca Stated she was a resident of South Laguna and served on the Heritage Committee, but that she was not representing that body. She stated that the GPA review did not claim there was insufficient evidence of historic significance, but rather that HRG’s report lacked enough supporting data. She argued that the City should have asked HRG to strengthen its report instead of accepting GPA’s findings, as the real goal was to determine true historical value, not just demonstrate CEQA compliance. Citing historian Francesca Smith’s volunteer research, she noted that this property was one of the only remaining original homesteads in Laguna Beach and possibly all of Orange County.

Smith’s analysis concluded that the site was eligible for both the National and California Registers, and Ms. Jurca urged preservation over demolition, suggesting rehabilitation.
p. 12-13 of 29
Nelda Stone Stated she managed the local history collection for the local library and was on the Laguna Beach Historical Society Board. She stated that Laguna was homesteaded from the downtown area through South Laguna, and that it was not part of the surrounding large land grants.

The home was the last original homestead house from that period, and if it was destroyed, the last tangible piece of evidence of that important period would be lost. She urged the Board to trust the facts that HRG presented, even though they may need some augmentation, and the backup information from Francesca Smith. She asked that the important historic structure not be demolished.
p. 13-14 of 29
Lisa Boshnack Stated she lives adjacent to the site and supported the project. She met with the Applicant and worked on privacy concerns from their master window. As to being historic, the house wasn’t seen from the street, it was in disrepair, and it presented a fire danger. She also stated that it was unlike some in the village downtown that can be seen when walking by.
p. 14 of 29

6. Applicant Rebuttal
Commenter Summary of Comments
Transcript
[Attachment 8]
Page Nos.
16 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 17 of 37 ends

Richard
McDonald
In July (2024), staff recommended a categorical exemption for the project, and no one initially objected. The matter was postponed to September (2024). A few days before that hearing, one individual submitted a letter. That individual collaborated with HRG, which raised doubts about HRG’s credibility. HRG’s report had been influenced by local historian Ann Christoph, who had already taken a position on the issue, prompting concerns about impartiality. As a result, an independent report was commissioned from Chronicle, which expanded the research scope and concluded the property did not meet the required historic criteria. A third consultant, GPA, supported this conclusion, noting that HRG failed to demonstrate how the property met the standards of significance outlined in Bulletin 15.
p. 14-15 of 29

7. Board Questions and Staff Responses
Commenter Discussion
Transcript
[Attachment
8] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Board Member
Bauta and
Board Chair
Gibbs
Asked who paid for the historic reports. Staff clarified the City paid for the HRG reports, the Applicant paid for the report by Chronicle, and the City paid for the GPA report.
p. 16 of 29
[Bauta,
Gibbs]
Board Member
Coveny
Asked why the City did not go back to the consultant to ask for more detail. Staff clarified that there were three reports from HRG and didn't believe that going back to HRG for a fourth report would be prudent.

Staff requested GPA do an independent evaluation of all four documents. Board Chair Gibbs clarified that if the Board didn’t think they had enough information to make the determination, they could require more.
p. 16 of 29
[Coveny,
Gibbs]
Board Member
Weil and Chair
Gibbs
Asked for clarification that this was the second hearing and asked for clarification of previous Board direction. Board Chair Gibbs clarified the historic issue did not come up at the first hearing. Staff clarified the Board's comments were related to the orientation of the building, removing some balconies, adding frosted windows, and that there was p. 16-17 of 29
[Weil, Gibbs]
17 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 18 of 37 ends

no information in City files at that time suggesting that the property may be historic. The continuance was intended to address design issues only.

Board Member
Coveny
Asked if the historic review was pursued purely from a public comment. Staff clarified it was initiated by the letter that Ms. Christoph provided to the City on September 19th (2024), about a week before the September (26, 2024) hearing.
p. 17 of 29
[Coveny]
Board Chair
Gibbs
Recalled the item was pulled because of the letter. Staff confirmed that a continuance was requested so staff could request HRG to prepare their first assessment.
p. 7 of 29
[Gibbs]

8. Board Deliberations
Topic Discussion
Related
Finding
Transcript
[Attachment 8]
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Appellant 1
Privacy
Gibbs discussed exposure of the windows on the
Appellant 1’s home and asked if the Applicant
would be amenable to a condition to say they
would work with staff for a landscape solution to
block the view of the bedroom windows. The
Applicant stated that they were proposing two
trees but needed to speak with the landscape
architect to determine tree types. They learned
about the concern one day prior to the hearing.

Gibbs expressed appreciation to the Applicant for
the adjustments made to address neighborhood
concerns—listening, scaling back the project.

Gibbs identified the remaining privacy issue for
Chamberlains (Appellant 1). He supported
approval of the project with a condition to require
planting trees to shield the windows, to be
coordinated between staff and the Applicant.

Privacy p. 17 and 20-21
of 29
[Gibbs]
18 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 19 of 37 ends

Appellant 1
Privacy
Coveny acknowledged the improved articulation
and visual integration of the house with the site
with the revised design. She suggested additional
measures to enhance privacy for the
Chamberlains (Appellant 1), such as strategic tree
planting or minor design adjustments to slightly
reconfigure the side of the home which is unlikely
to affect neighboring view corridors. After
further discussion, she agreed with the additional
landscaping condition.

Privacy p. 22-23 of 29
[Coveny]
Appellant 1
Privacy
Gannon supported the project, stating view equity
had been achieved. Further, the only privacy
concern was with the Chamberlains (Appellant
1), and suggested additional landscaping as a
condition of approval.

Privacy and
View Equity
p. 24 of 29
[Gannon]
Appellant 1
Privacy
Weil expressed concern for the privacy of the
neighbor. He suggested planting another tree or
adding additional articulation to the design to
limit exposure to the Chamberlains (Appellant 1)
and was supportive of the landscaping solution.

Privacy p. 25 of 29
[Weil]
Historic
Resource
Determination
Gibbs expressed appreciation for the detailed
reports provided, noting that sufficient
information was available to determine whether
the existing structure and property qualified as a
historic resource. He emphasized that the Board’s
role was to determine whether the project meets
criteria under CEQA and the City’s design
guidelines for historic resources.

Gibbs referenced both the National Register of
Historic Places and California Register of
Historic Resources and focused on two key
considerations: (1) historical significance
(association with events contributing to local or
regional history) and (2) historic integrity (the
ability of a property to convey its significance),
and discussed the National Park Service’s seven
Historic
Preservation
p. 18-21 of 29
[Gibbs]
19 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 20 of 37 ends

criteria (location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association). Gibbs
stated that after reviewing all reports and
conducting a site visit, he concluded that while
the house was old and tied to early homestead
history, it no longer retained the integrity or
setting necessary to qualify as a historic resource.

The original homestead context had been lost
through later development, and the remaining
structures exhibited substantial deterioration,
altered materials, and lack of design cohesion.

Historic
Resource
Determination
Bauta’s stated that the home was associated with
significant events and was one of the last original
homestead homes. Without more conclusive
evidence to differ from that, he indicated that
there was clear evidence of historical
significance. He stated that homesteading was a
big part of our culture as Americans and
Californians, and that the property was rare and
unique, and he wanted to see it preserved.

Historic
Preservation
p. 21 of 29
[Bauta]
Historic
Resource
Determination
Chair Gibbs stated there is ample information that
enables the Board to make a historic resource
determination. Gibbs referenced CEQA guideline
Section 15064.5, stating it uses the phrase
“historically significant”, which enables the
Board to consider whether it is (historically
significant), and if so, categorical exceptions do
not apply.

CEQA
Determination
p. 18 of 29
[Gibbs]
Historic
Resource
Determination
Coveny agreed with Chair Gibbs and did not
believe that the property was a significant
contribution on a national or California level and
was not architecturally significant. Coveny could
not support the historic finding.

Historic
Preservation
p. 22-23 of 29
[Coveny]
Historic
Resource
Determination
Gannon concurred with Gibbs and Coveny
regarding historic preservation.

Historic
Preservation
p. 23-24 of 29
[Gannon]
20 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 21 of 37 ends

Historic
Resource
Determination
Weil concurred with Gibbs, Coveny, and
Gannon’s deliberations and stated the project did
not meet the local, national or state criteria. Weil
emphasized two key considerations: historical
significance and design review. On the historical
question, Weil concurred with reports finding the
property was not historically significant, citing
lack of architectural integrity, alterations over
time, and absence of historic designation by prior
owners. He noted that surrounding development
and the site’s current context no longer reflect the
area’s original homestead character and
expressed support for the proposed new
construction.

Historic
Preservation
p. 24-25 of 29
[Weil]
The Board voted 4-1 (Board member Bauta dissenting) to adopt Resolution No. 24-2550, approving the Project and finding the Project exempt from CEQA pursuant to the state CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3). Approval was subject to the conditions presented in the resolution and the following projectspecific condition:
“Prior to permit issuance, the approved landscape plan shall be revised to include additional landscaping to provide privacy for the lower second bedroom at 31551 Toto Loma Lane. The landscaping shall screen the view from any windows on the “right elevation” of the Project facing said bedroom, or from which said bedroom can be seen, to satisfaction of Community Development Director of designee. In event that a solution cannot be reached, the plan shall be returned to the DRB.”

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEALS
As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit 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 approval of CDP 24-0657 and Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA finding, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 24- 0658, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, but is limited to considering whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Further, for DR 25-0658, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeals.
21 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 22 of 37 ends

RESPONSES TO APPEAL 1
As noted above, Appellant 1 submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 19).

Below are the grounds for Appeal and City staff’s response:

1. “Imbalanced Focus and Procedural Concerns” – A majority of the Board’s time was devoted to discussion of the historic merits of the original Egan homestead. The actual design review of the proposed new structure was rushed with only a few minutes of discussion. Several important issues raised were not adequately considered. The Board Chair appeared to exert undue influence over the other members.

Staff’s Response
The Board discussed the design of the Original Project thoroughly at the July 11, 2024 first public hearing before the Board. The Board gave direction to modify the design to comply with the Design Review findings and criteria, which resulted in the Project that was considered by the Board at the second substantive hearing on September 25, 2025. The issue of historicity did not arise until after the first substantive public hearing before the Board on July 11, 2024. While the second substantive hearing did focus on the issue of historicity significantly, the design of the Project was also heard and deliberated by the Board as reflected in the summary of proceedings and transcript. Indeed, in response to the Appellant’s comments, the Board imposed a more restrictive condition addressing the privacy concerns. While the chair of any decisionmaking body manages time, facilitates discussion, and maintains order, ultimately, the Board as whole body, found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 11 (Privacy) as follows:

Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.

Yes. At the prior hearing, the Board expressed concerns with privacy as created by proposed windows and decking. The Applicant has provided an updated design that utilizes frosted glass on the window of bathroom 4, proposes a 5-foot frosted glass privacy screen on the deck off the loft, and removes several of the proposed decks (deck square footage has been reduced from 464 SF to 399 SF). Two new trees are proposed at the southwest corner of the property, to be maintained at a maximum height of 15 feet, and the existing hedge will be maintained at 8 feet, to provide additional privacy for the adjacent neighbors to the southwest. Therefore, the project meets the privacy criterion.
22 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 23 of 37 ends

Further, the Board imposed the following project-specific condition of approval to address Appellant 1’s privacy concerns:

Condition No. 23: Prior to permit issuance, the approved landscape plan shall be revised to include additional landscaping to provide privacy for the lower second bedroom at 31551 Toto Loma Lane. The landscaping shall screen the view from any windows on the “right elevation” of the Project facing said bedroom, or from which said bedroom can be seen, to satisfaction of Community Development Director of designee. In event that a solution cannot be reached, the plan shall be returned to the DRB.

During the Board deliberations, four of the five Board members discussed solutions to the potential privacy concerns of Appellant 1 and discussed the options to resolve the privacy concerns which included modifications to the structure and additional landscaping. The Chair also spoke with the Applicant regarding their willingness to work with staff and the Appellant to provide a landscaping solution involving additional trees that would provide privacy from all of Appellant 1’s windows. The four Board members voted to approve the project with an additional condition to require additional landscaping. The hearing transcript (Attachment 8 [September 25, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 18-29 of 29, Bauta, p. 21 of 29, Coveny, p. 22-23 of 29, Gannon [p. 23-24 of 29], and Weil [p. 24-25 of 29]). The Board’s record demonstrates that Appellant 1’s privacy concerns were specifically addressed.

Staff finds that the Board appropriately applied the City’s privacy DR criterion, evaluated privacy in the manner required by the Design Guidelines, and imposed a special condition responsive to Appellant 1’s privacy concerns as reflected in the Board record. Staff also finds that the Chair of the Board did not exert undue influence over the remaining Board members. The approval, as conditioned, represents a lawful exercise of discretion intended to respect both the Applicant’s rights and the Appellant’s privacy concerns.

2. “Serious Privacy Intrusions” – As currently approved, the new structure directly compromises the Appellant’s privacy. The Appellant and Applicant will have direct views into each other’s interior living spaces and bedrooms which is not appropriate. The proposed mitigationplanting vegetation is vague and unvetted. Concerns include: lack of specificity for species. planting heights, or setbacks, which are critical for fire safety, and restoring privacy at the expense of impacting ocean views. Further, vegetation was introduced quickly during the hearing, without opportunity to fully consider or respond in terms of fire safety and the loss of our ocean views. Suggested vegetation is not a viable long-term solution. Current fire codes prohibit combustible vegetation within the first 5 feet of any structure and require extensive review for all fuel modification and landscaping plans. 23 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 24 of 37 ends

Staff’s Response
The Applicant proposed planting two additional trees based on their discussions with the neighbors prior to the Board hearing. Appellant 1 raised concerns related to privacy due to the potential direct views from the windows of the proposed home into their bedrooms. The Board considered the privacy impacts to the Appellant’s property in their deliberations. After public testimony and Board deliberations, the Board made a motion to approve the project with the following additional condition to address privacy concerns:
“Prior to permit issuance, the approved landscape plan shall be revised to include additional landscaping to provide privacy for the lower second bedroom at 31551 Toto Loma Lane. The landscaping shall screen the view from any windows on the “right elevation” of the Project facing said bedroom, or from which said bedroom can be seen, to satisfaction of Community Development Director of designee. In event that a solution cannot be reached, the plan shall be returned to the DRB.”
It should be noted that the condition, as written, will not be enforceable due to recent changes to the Fire Code. The Code requires the canopy of any tree to be maintained a minimum of 10 feet from any structure.

The side yard setback area at the “right elevation” of the proposed project will contain retaining walls, concrete access paths, and other improvements, and will not have adequate space to plant a tree specified location, while maintaining the minimum separation as required by the Fire Code. The Council can either remand the project to the Design Review Board to modify the condition, or the Council can impose a more restrictive condition, such as requiring opaque windows, privacy screens, or reduction in the deck size, to address the Appellant’s privacy concerns. City staff recommends that the City Council require an opaque privacy screen, 6 feet in height, be installed on the north side of the upper-level deck to prevent views into the neighbor’s windows. The screen can be frosted glass or another opaque material that conforms to the approved exterior materials for the Project.]. Such more restrictive condition is included in the draft City Council resolution. (Attachment 1.)
While Appellant 1 contends “loss of our ocean views,” the Board found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:

View Equity. The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City's "Design Guidelines." The "Design Guidelines" are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

At the prior hearing, adjacent neighbors to the east of the site expressed concerns with view equity due to the proposed height and orientation of the proposed structure. In response, the Applicant has 24 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 25 of 37 ends

reduced the size of the upper level, lowered areas of the structure, and reoriented the building.

Therefore, the project meets the view equity criterion.

3. “Missed opportunity for a Fair Compromise” – Appellant had asked that a structural change to the house be considered to better balance privacy concerns, however the request was not given due consideration. Previous revision to rotate the home to preserve privacy for another neighbor pushed the privacy impacts to the Appellant’s side. A balanced solution should be sought.

Staff’s Response
Appellant 1 provided correspondence on January 28, 2026 raising additional concerns regarding the Project before the second substantive Board hearing on September 25, 2025. This correspondence is available in Attachment 24, pages 1-3). The Board considered this correspondence and how the Project, as revised in response to the first substantive Board hearing, affected Appellant 1’s privacy and accordingly added a condition of approval to improve privacy for Appellant 1. As discussed above, the condition of approval appears infeasible due to Fire Code requirements and therefore the Council can either remand the project to the Design Review Board to modify the condition, or the Council can impose a more restrictive condition, such as requiring opaque windows, privacy screens, or reduction in the deck size, to address the Appellant’s privacy concerns. City staff recommends that the City Council require an opaque privacy screen, 6 feet in height, be installed on the north side of the upper-level deck to prevent views into the neighbor’s windows.

The screen shall be frosted glass or another opaque material that conforms to the approved exterior materials for the Project. Such more restrictive condition is included in the draft City Council resolution. (Attachment

1.)
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED IN APPEAL 2
As noted above, Appellant 2 submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Appeal 2, Attachment 20). Below is a summary of the appeal contentions and the staff response.

1. Request reversal of the DRB decision that the existing single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject property are not historic resources, … ask the Council to use its authority under Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14 § 15064.5(a)(4) to find that the property qualifies as a historic resource and that its demolition is therefore not categorically exempt from CEQA, and to overturn the project approvals including the Coastal Development Permit.

Staff’s Response
25 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 26 of 37 ends

As set forth above, the term “historical resources” is defined in State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5, which sets forth the following three categories:

1. Mandatory Historical Resources: If a resource is formally listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, then by law this is a historical resource.

2. Presumptive Historic Resources: There are two types of presumptive historical resources. These include: (i) a resource included in the City’s local register of historic resources pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution; and (ii) a resource identified as significant in certain surveys of historical resources. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 5020.1(k), 5024.1(g); Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1054.)

3. Discretionary Historic Resources: When a resource does not qualify as either mandatory or presumptive historical resource, the lead agency may independently determine whether it should be treated as a historic resource under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, §21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines, §15064.5(a)(4).)
A historical resource can range from objects, buildings, structures, sites, areas, places, records or manuscripts that are significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.

The Board discussed the potential historicity of the Property, and discussed that they considered the Initial HRG Report, Final HRG Report, Chronical Report, HRG Memo, and GPA Peer Review and the submitted public comments, and evaluated whether the existing structure and property qualified as a historic resource pursuant to CEQA and the City’s design guidelines for historic resources. (Attachment 8 [September 25, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 18-21 of 29, Bauta, p. 21 of 29, Coveny, p. 22-23 of 29, Gannon [p. 23- 24 of 29], and Weil [p. 24-25 of 29]).

After review of all documentation provided, including all historic assessment reports and public commentary, and consideration of all public testimony, the Board determined the single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject Property not to be “historically significant”, and further, that the Property did not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code 26 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 27 of 37 ends

5024.1, Title 14 CCRR, Section 4852), as a finding of historic significance was not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

2. “Dueling Reports” – In response to the HRG evaluation, the owner commissioned a separate report from another historic consultant which found that the property is not historic. City then hired GPA to examine both reports; GPA found that there was insufficient information to conclude the property is eligible for the National Register. HRG has not been given the opportunity to provide additional documentation requested in the GPA peer review. The City issued a staff report supporting demolition on grounds that there are facts to support a conclusion that the property does not qualify as historic. An independent historian confirms HRG’s conclusion that the property is eligible for the National and California registers.

Staff’s Response
Historic resource assessments were prepared for the Property by two qualified historic consultants, HRG and Chronicle Heritage, to evaluate the subject property for potential historic significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register and the California Register. The historic consultants reached differing determinations as to whether the property is eligible for listing in the California Register. While HRG found that the Property contained a historic resource, Chronicle Heritage did not.

Both HRG and GPA are firms that the City regularly retains for the evaluation of historic and potentially historic resources. Further, in engaging HRG and GPA, the City did not limit any scope of inquiry and let each professional analyze the issue independently.

GPA Consultants conducted a thorough and objective analysis of the historic reports submitted . In its GPA Peer Review, GPA noted “HRG concludes that the subject property qualifies for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion A/1 due to its association with early homesteading in the South Laguna area. In contrast, the Chronicle Heritage report asserts that the property does not retain sufficient integrity—particularly with respect to setting— and therefore does not meet eligibility criteria.” 15 In the GPA Peer Review methodology and scope, GPA states: “4. We also review whether the conclusions regarding historical significance (or lack thereof) are supported by substantial evidence, as defined in National Register Bulletin 15 and related relevant guidance. This includes assessing whether the property 15 GPA Peer Review (Attachment 13, p. 1).
27 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 28 of 37 ends

was evaluated for the correct area(s) and level(s) of significance (local, regional, state, or national), whether appropriate integrity aspects were considered, and whether the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance. We examine whether the subject property has been appropriately compared to similar properties within the same historic context and whether the narrative argument clearly establishes that the property is not only historic but significant under the applicable criteria.” “… While HRG identifies “Homesteading and Agricultural Development in South Laguna (ca. 1909– 1928)” as the relevant historic context for evaluating the property, this context may be overextended and insufficiently substantiated when measured against the evaluative guidance provided in National Register Bulletin 15, which also underpins the California Register criteria. 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 convincingly demonstrated that the Egan property rises to a level of distinctiveness, rarity, or illustrative clarity to justify significance under the broad theme of homesteading.”
17 In the GPA Peer Review methodology and scope, GPA states: “5. Lastly, we assess whether the consultant’s conclusions are well reasoned, factually supported, and internally consistent, and we provide recommendations for improvement in future submittals when applicable.” “Based on our review of the two independent historic resource assessments prepared by qualified professionals, GPA does not find sufficient evidence to support that the property at 31526 Valido Road meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. As such, the property does not meet the definition of a “historical resource” under CEQA, nor does it appear to qualify as a historic resource under the City of Laguna Beach’s current Historic Preservation Ordinance, which requires that properties be either formally listed, eligible for listing, or voluntarily nominated by the property owner. While HRG identified a potential association with early homesteading, the broader historic context presented does not convincingly support eligibility under Criterion 1, particularly in light of the compromised integrity of setting and the lack of rarity or comparative analysis. That said, GPA acknowledges there may be some potential for local historical significance under a more narrowly defined sub-context of early rural residential development in South Laguna, particularly given that the Egan residence is documented as one of the first homes constructed in the area. However, under the City's current ordinance—which requires owner consent for local designation—the property cannot be formally recognized unless the owner voluntarily elects to pursue 17 GPA Peer Review (Attachment 13, p. 7-8).
28 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 29 of 37 ends

local listing. Should the owner wish to do so in the future, the potential eligibility of the property under local criteria may warrant further exploration within this refined context.” 19 At the second substantive hearing before the Board on September 25, 2025, the Board discussed the historicity of the property, considered the Initial HRG Memo, Final HRG Memo, Chronical Report, HRG Memo, and GPA Peer Review and submitted public comments, and evaluated whether the existing structure and Property qualified as a historic resource pursuant to CEQA and the City’s design guidelines for historic resources. (Attachment 8 [September 25, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 18-21 of 29, Bauta, p. 21 of 29, Coveny, p. 22-23 of 29, Gannon [p. 23-24 of 29], and Weil [p. 24-25 of 29]). The Board members concurred with the reports that found the property was not historically significant, citing lack of architectural integrity, alterations over time, and absence of historic designation by prior owners. In addition, the surrounding development and the site’s current context no longer reflect the area’s original homestead character, and that the project does not meet local, national or state criteria. After review of all documentation provided, including all historic assessment reports and public commentary, and consideration of all public testimony, the Board determined the single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject property not to be “historically significant”, and further, that it did not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCRR, Section 4852), as a finding of historic significance was not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

3. Process of City Historic Review – Demolition of this historic building should not be authorized because there is information that can feasibly be obtained and added to the HRG report.

Staff’s Response
City staff incorporated its response to Appeal Contention Nos. 1 and 2 for Appeal 2 into this response to Appeal Contention No. 3.

4. “Neighbor Design Concerns Frustrated” – Immediate neighbors only had 3 minutes to speak to express support for the historic preservation of the house as well as state their concerns with the new design of the home, views, and other concerns.

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 30 of 37 ends

substantive public hearings were held for this project, at which members of the public provided extensive public comments to the Board. Pursuant to the Board bylaws, Section 9(A)(4)(b), “speakers not affiliated with the applicant will be given three minutes each to address the Board. The Chair may allow additional time at the request of the speaker.” A total of three members of the public spoke at the July 11, 2024 hearing, with one person representing three adjacent neighbors. A total of seven members of the public spoke at the September 25th hearing (see the summary of the public testimony above). Each person was given three minutes to address the Board.

Staff’s Response
Under the Coastal Act, historic resources are afforded protection. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act explicitly calls out “special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points.” Previous Coastal commission decisions as well as case law all support the idea that historic resources are afforded some protection under the Coastal Act. This is further supported by the City’s certified LCP – which has policies meant to protect historic resources. Historic resources are considered “visual resources” and are analyzed under CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3 (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)(3).

Given that the Board concluded, based on all of the evidence, that the property and existing structure are not a historic resource under CEQA, the Board properly did not consider the property or existing structure as a visual resource from which views from public locations are adversely impacted through its demolition The existing structure and the project site do not meet the definition of a “coastal resource”. Additionally, the Open Space and Conservation Element (“OSCE”), which is part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”), defines visual resources, including coastal visual resources or “coastal scenic resources” as shoreline features or the natural appearance of the coast, and hillside visual resources as undeveloped hillside lands. (OSCE, p. 33.)
The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal View Policies were evaluated as part of this project.

General Plan Land Use Policies related to preservation of coastal and canyon views are concerned with the impacts to views due to the siting of new development. The general plan policies related to preservation of public views do not include preservation of views of non-historic existing structures from public locations. 30 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 31 of 37 ends

LU Element Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.) Policy 2.10 includes:

Action 2.10.1 Discourage the addition of second stories in established neighborhoods where view equity has historically been achieved through one-story construction.

The Project meets this policy because it does not impact coastal or canyon views from public vantage points, such as Toovet Trail in the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park.

LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The Project meets this policy because it designed to be integrated with natural topographic features as it was proposed on the developed area of the site, and minimizes significant alteration of natural topography as it involves 3,019 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint, largely to lower the driveway from Valido Road and to create a turnaround area, and to lower the structure on the site. The Project protects public views as it does not impact coastal or canyon views from public vantage points, and does not adversely affect a visual resource as the Project does not involve demolition of a historic resource under CEQA.

The Board-adopted Resolution No. 24-1151 includes all required DR and CDP findings, including CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3 (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)(3) relating to coastal scenic resources and reflects that the Board found “[n]o impacts will occur to recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources in the area.” (Attachment 4).

6. “Abuse of Discretion” – Board members abused their discretion in making the finding that the property is not a historic resource, basing their decision on irrelevant factors while they failed to consider relevant factors… This issue requires more consideration than this Board gave it.
31 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 32 of 37 ends

Staff’s Response
City staff incorporates its response to Appeal Contention Nos. 1 and 2 for Appeal 2 into this response to Appeal Contention No. 6.

The Board considered and discussed evidence relating to historicity and evaluated whether the existing structure and property qualified as a historic resource pursuant to CEQA and the City’s design guidelines for historic resources. (Attachment 8 [September 25, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 18-21 of 29, Bauta, p. 21 of 29, Coveny, p. 22-23 of 29, Gannon [p. 23-24 of 29], and Weil [p. 24-25 of 29]). The Appellant contends that Chair Gibbs “relied heavily” on the quotation from National Park Service Bulletin 15 cited in the GPA Peer Review and that GPA’s quotation is not in the Bulletin, or in any other historic preservation publications. GPA stated “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.” 21 Although Chair Gibbs referenced the GPA quotation from Bulletin 15 (September 25, 2025 DRB Transcript, Attachment 8, page 15), this was not the only criterion that was evaluated in determining whether the property is a historic resource.

After review of all documentation provided, including all historic assessment reports and public commentary, and consideration of all public testimony, the Board members concurred with the reports finding the property was not historically significant, citing lack of architectural integrity, alterations over time, and absence of historic designation by prior owners. In addition, the surrounding development and the site’s current context no longer reflect the area’s original homestead character, and that the project does not meet local, national or state criteria. The Board members concurred with the conclusions in both the Chronicle Heritage and GPA Peer Review for the project. Both reports concluded that the project was not eligible for the California Register and was not a historic resource. Therefore, the Board determined the single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject property not to be “historically significant”, and further, that it did not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub.

Res. Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCRR, Section 4852), as a finding of historic significance was not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

The Board did not commit abuse of discretion.

7. “Property Owner Notification” – the Board ignored the document in the agenda package, a letter from Greg O’Loughlin, president of the South Laguna Civic Association dated July 22, 2022 to Marc Wiener, Director of Community Development informing the City of the 21 GPA Peer Review (Attachment 12, p. 8-9).
32 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 33 of 37 ends

historical significance of 31526 Valido Road and requesting that this information be added to the property file.

The letters from Ms. Christoph and Mr. O’Loughlin were provided to the Board prior to the September 25, 2025, as “Attachment 12-Correspondence” to the staff report (Attachment 6, September 25, 2025 DRB Public Correspondence). The Board considered the whole of the record in making its determination regarding the evaluation of the property as a historic resource, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Board ignored the document in the agenda package.

ADDITIONAL HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATIONS
Since the Board Approval on September 25, 2025, three additional historic review documents have been prepared.

On January 27, 2026, the Applicant submitted to City staff a “Historic Resource Technical Memorandum for 31526 Valido Road”, dated January 27, 2026 and prepared by ESA (Attachment 21). The memorandum was prepared in response to the Appeal of the Board Approval. ESA reviewed the Appeal and associated documents including the previous historic resource assessments by HRG and Chronicle Heritage, and the peer review by GPA prepared prior to the Board hearing on September 25, 2025. ESA reviewed available City records, Orange County Assessor Records, and conducted online archival research to further verify the accuracy of the previous studies and learn more about the history and use of the property.

Based on ESA’s evaluation of the subject property, “…while the Egan Homestead is part of this historical trend, it has not been convincingly demonstrated that the Egan Homestead rises to the level of significance necessary for designation within the broad theme of homesteading.”23 ESA concurred with the “Peer Review of Historic Resource Assessments for 31526 Valido Road”, prepared by GPA and dated July 28, 2025 (Attachment 13). ESA concluded that the subject Property does not meet the eligibility requirements of either the California Register or the National Register, and therefore does not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA.
23 “Historic Resource Technical Memorandum for 31526 Valido Road”, ESA, January 27, 2026 (Attachment 21, p. 32). 33 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 34 of 37 ends

Although the Property was determined not to be a historic resource under CEQA, the (ESA) memorandum recommends several measures to document and interpret the site’s history as project conditions. These include: (1) preparation of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) report to document the history and existing conditions of the subject property; (2) if feasible, commemorate the Property’s history with a historical marker at the trailhead of the City-owned Valido Trail that is located within the historically associated homestead tract; and (3) if feasible, relocate the original ca. 1909 portion of the existing residence for interpretive purposes such as a house museum. If relocation would not be feasible, select characterdefining historic materials could be salvaged and donated to an entity such as a historical society/museum.

These are industry-standard treatment measures that are used to preserve the significance of historical resources for the public benefit. (Attachment 21, pg. 35).

On March 23, 2026, the City’s historic consultant, HRG, provided a Historic Assessment Peer Review Response Memo (Attachment 22), which provides responses to the comments in the “Peer Review of Historic Resource Assessments for 31526 Valido Road”, prepared by GPA, dated July 28, 2025 (Attachment 23). In the latest memo, HRG provides additional historical research and facts related to the subject property and expands the historic context to include additional research on homesteading in Orange County. The memo includes discussion of the rarity of the Egan homestead, historic context, and integrity of setting. HRG states the residence appears to be the only surviving homestead residence in the whole of Orange County (pg.4) and states that although the immediate surrounding area has been developed, the majority of the Egan Homestead land has been retained as a wildlife conservation area in perpetuity (pg. 6), This information further substantiates HRG’s earlier conclusion that the single-family residence is eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1, and therefore, the property is a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA.

In preparing for this hearing, and consistent with the City’s prior use of GPA as a neutral third party on this matter, the City again retained GPA to evaluate all information provided to the City regarding the property’s potential historicity. This information included, but was not limited to, the ESA and HRG reports and public correspondence submitted to the City regarding the subject property, including letters from members of the public and local organizations, and a series of articles published in Stu News chronicling the history of the Property. (Attachment 23, “Second Peer Review-31526 Valido Rd”, dated April 5, 2026).

Based on GPA’s review of the expanded record, they did not find sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Property meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register or the National Register. GPA did not concur that HRG’s response clearly established that rarity alone “rises to the level of historical significance as required under National Register Bulletin 15” (pg. 4). Further, they stated “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. 34 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 35 of 37 ends

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” (pg. 5).

Further, GPA stated, “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.” 25 .

Staff acknowledge that differing conclusions were reached by qualified historic consultants regarding the status of the property. However, the majority of the consulted firms determined that the property does not qualify as a historic resource. The Design Review Board considered these differing professional opinions in its deliberation and, acting in its quasi-judicial capacity, determined that the property is not a historic resource based on the totality of the evidence presented.

Staff continues to support the Board’s determination and recommend approval of the project. Staff have reviewed the materials submitted as part of the appeal and did not identify any new information that would warrant a change in its original analysis or conclusion.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
25 “Second Peer Review-31526 Valido Road”, GPA Consulting, April 5, 2026 (Attachment 23, p. 6). 35 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 36 of 37 ends

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. This project fits within the Class 3 exemption because it is a new single-family dwelling on an existing legal building site. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment as the project is similar in scope to other developed properties in the surrounding developed neighborhood. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment as the project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site, or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that the existing single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject property are not a historic resource. Numerous Historic Resource Assessments were prepared for the project which evaluated whether the project met the eligibility requirements of either the National Register and/or State Register, the local register, and whether the project qualified as a historic resource for purposes of CEQA. Although some reports differed in their conclusions, all evidence in the whole of the record has been weighed and the City Council has found that the Property does not contain a historic resource. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of CEQA. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) with the County Recorder's Office and state Clearinghouse within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.

ATTACHMENTS
36 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 37 of 37 ends

1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 38-87)

2. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 88)

3. September 25, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 89-108)

4. September 25, 2025 DRB Resolution No. 24-0568 (Pgs. 109-123)

5. September 25, 2025 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 124-147)

6. September 25, 2025 DRB Public Correspondence (Pgs. 148-236)

7. September 25, 2025 DRB Minutes (Draft) (Pgs. 237-241)

8. September 25, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 242-270)

9. Initial HRG Report; Historic Resources Assessment of 31526 Valido Rd, Historic Resources Group, November 22, 2024 (Pgs. 271-336)

10. Final HRG Report; Historic Resources Assessment of 31526 Valido Rd, Historic Resources Group, February 12, 2025 (Pgs. 337-403)

11. Chronical Report; Historic Resource Assessment of 31526 Valido Road, Chronicle Heritage, April 2025 (Pgs. 404-443)

12. HRG Memo; Historic Assessment Memo, Historic Resources Group, June 3, 2025 (Pgs. 444-449)

13. GPA Peer Review; Peer Review of Historic Resource Assessments for 31526 Valido Road, Laguna Beach, GPA Consulting, July 28, 2025 (Pgs. 450-458)

14. July 11, 2024 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 459-470)

15. July 11, 2024 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 471-496)

16. July 11, 2024 DRB Public Correspondence (Pgs. 497-503)

17. July 11, 2024 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 504-507)

18. July 11, 2024 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 508-525)

19. Appeal 1 (Pgs. 526-532)

20. Appeal 2 (Pgs. 533-562)

21. Historic Resource Technical Memorandum for 31526 Valido Road, ESA, January 27, 2026 (Pgs. 563- 623)

22. Historic Resources Group Memorandum, March 23, 2026 (Pgs. 624-643)

23. Second Peer Review-31526 Valido Road, GPA Consulting, April 5, 2026 (Pgs. 644-649)

24. Public Commentary (Pgs. 650-730)

25. Order of Testimony (Pg. 731)
Submitted By: Matt Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff
Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
37 of 821
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
May 13, 2026

Page 38 of 37 ends

Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Heather Steven, Senior Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
38 of 821
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND

SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657 FOR A NEW

SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE,

ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, AND

DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING
AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE

CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND FINDING THE ACTION

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15303
WHEREAS, Adele Chang, Architect (“Applicant”)1, for 31526 Valido Road (the “Property”) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-0657 for a new single-family dwelling, attached two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, and landscaping, and demolition of an existing single-family dwelling pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040 and Section 25.07.004; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 2024, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the entitlement applications, consisting of DR 24-0658 and CDP 24- 0657 (the “Original Project”). During the hearing, the Board evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on the mass, scale, articulation, and height of the project, privacy from decks and windows, and view impacts. Following discussion, the Board directed the Applicant to reorient the structure, reduce the appearance of mass, provide further articulation using materials and landscaping, and address privacy by utilizing opaque glass and 1 The Project’s owner is Chuanjie Zhou, who is within the definition of Applicant.

Attachment 1
38 39 of 821
-2- Reso. #
redesigning the decks. The Board voted 5-0 to continue the hearing to September 26, 2024, to allow the Applicant time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with neighboring property owners; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2024 the City received a letter from Ann Christoph suggesting that the subject Property may have historical significance. As a result, on September 26, 2024, staff requested and the Board granted a continuance to November 14, 2024 to allow for further evaluation of the project site; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2024, the Board continued the public hearing to December 12, 2024, when, at the Applicant’s request, the project was tabled; and WHEREAS, in response to the public comment about historicity, City staff contacted Historic Resources Group (HRG), one of the City’s contracted historic consultants, to prepare a historic assessment of the property. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the subject property for potential historic significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The initial Historic Resources Assessment, entitled “Historic Resources Assessment of 31526 Valido Rd, Historic Resources Group, November 22, 2024” was completed on November 22, 2024 (the “Initial HRG Report”). HRG provided a revised report on February 12, 2025, entitled “Historic Resources Assessment of 31526 Valido Rd, Historic Resources Group, February 12, 2025” (the “Final HRG Report”). The Final HRG Report found the property significant under California Register Criterion 1. Therefore, under the Initial HRG Report and Final HRG Report, it is eligible for listing in the California Register. Further, HRG determined the property is a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA; and
39 40 of 821
-3- Reso. #
WHEREAS, in response to the Initial HRG Report and Final HRG Report, the Applicant commissioned their own study, which was prepared by Chronicle Heritage, entitled “Historic Resource Assessment of 31526 Valido Road, Chronicle Heritage, April 2025” (the “Chronicle Report”) The Chronical Report was also prepared to determine whether the subject property may be considered as an historical resource pursuant to CEQA and to evaluate whether the property is eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR. The Chronical Report stated “the surrounding area that was once part of the larger homestead has been completely developed and does not retain the feeling and association with the Homestead Act period in the City, and thus it does not retain integrity of feeling and association. Furthermore, due to the substantial surrounding development, the integrity of setting has been lost. Due to the completed alterations, the subject property also does not retain integrity of design, materials, or workmanship.” With that, the Chronical Report concluded the subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, nor does it appear to be eligible for listing under any of the local criteria. Therefore, the building does not appear to be a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on City staff requested HRG review the Chronical Report and comment on the report’s conclusions. HRG provided a supplemental memo evaluating the Chronicle Report, entitled “Historic Assessment Memo, Historic Resources Group, June 3, 2025” (the “HRG Memo”) The HRG Memo noted that “Chronicle Heritage did not find fault with HRG’s methodology or research conclusions; however, [it] did not agree with the finding that the subject property appears eligible for listing in the National Register at the local level and the California Register” and rebutted the Chronicle Heritage report findings. The HRG Memo noted that 40 41 of 821
-4- Reso. #
“urbanization of South Laguna follows twentieth century planning and land use policies seen throughout Southern California (and the United States) and the change in setting alone is not reason enough to disqualify the property from association with homesteading.” Further, the HRG Memo noted, in part, “to our knowledge, the Egan property may be the last remaining property associated with homesteading in all of Laguna Beach.” (Collectively, the Initial HRG Report, Final HRG Report, Chronicle Report, and HRG Memo shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Historic Resource Assessment Reports”); and
WHEREAS, to resolve these contrasting conclusions, the City commissioned an independent, qualified, historic consultant, GPA Consultants, to evaluate and peer review the Historic Resource Assessment Reports. GPA Consultants conducted a thorough and objective analysis of the Historic Resource Assessment Reports to determine whether they met accepted professional and technical standards and prepared a report, entitled “Peer Review of Historic Resource Assessment Reports for 31526 Valido Road, Laguna Beach, GPA Consulting, July 28, 2025” (the “GPA Peer Review”). The GPA Peer Review concluded, “Based on our review of the two independent historic resource assessments prepared by qualified professionals, GPA does not find sufficient evidence to support that the property at 31526 Valido Road meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places.” As such, the property does not meet the definition of a “historical resource” under CEQA, nor does it appear to qualify as a historic resource under the City of Laguna Beach’s current Historic Preservation Ordinance, which requires that properties be either formally listed, eligible for listing, or voluntarily nominated by the property owner.”; and WHEREAS, both HRG and GPA Consultants are firms that the City regularly retains for 41 42 of 821
-5- Reso. #
the evaluation of historic and potentially historic resources. Further, in engaging HRG and GPA Consultants, the City did not limit any scope of inquiry and let each professional analyze the issue independently; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2025, Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing and received public testimony regarding the revised project in response to prior Board direction. In response to the Board’s prior direction, the Applicant revised the project design by rotating the structure, adding colors and materials to all elevations, and proposing additional landscaping (the “Project”). After deliberation, the Board voted 4-1 (Board member Bauta dissenting) to adopt Resolution No. 24-0658, conditionally approving the Project, determining the existing structures and property are not a historic resource, and finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. The Board added a condition requiring additional landscaping to provide privacy for the neighbor’s lower bedroom (Appellant 1) and to screen views from any windows on the “right elevation” from which the bedroom is visible (collectively, the “Board Approval”); and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2025, neighboring property owners Sofia and Jeffrey Chamberlain (“Appellant 1”), filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 1”); and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2025, neighboring property owners Stan and Diane Leemon, with the South Laguna Civic Association and Village Laguna (“Appellant 2”), filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 2”). (Appeal 1 and Appeal 2 will be collectively referred to herein as the “Appeals”.); and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the January 13, 2026 City Council meeting; and 42 43 of 821
-6- Reso. #
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the February 24, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the March 10, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the May 13, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for Appeal 1 stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:

Staff’s Response
The Board discussed the design of the Original Project thoroughly at the July 11, 2024 first public 43 44 of 821
-7- Reso. #
hearing before the Board. The Board gave direction to modify the design to comply with the Design Review findings and criteria, which resulted in the Project that was considered by the Board at the second substantive hearing on September 25, 2025. The issue of historicity did not arise until after the first substantive public hearing before the Board on July 11, 2024. While the second substantive hearing did focus on the issue of historicity significantly, the design of the Project was also heard and deliberated by the Board as reflected in the summary of proceedings and transcript.

Indeed, in response to the Appellant’s comments, the Board imposed a more restrictive condition addressing the privacy concerns. While the chair of any decision-making body manages time, facilitates discussion, and maintains order, ultimately, the Board as whole body, found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 11 (Privacy) as follows:

Yes. At the prior hearing, the Board expressed concerns with privacy as created by proposed windows and decking. The Applicant has provided an updated design that utilizes frosted glass on the window of bathroom 4, proposes a 5-foot frosted glass privacy screen on the deck off the loft, and removes several of the proposed decks (deck square footage has been reduced from 464 SF to 399 SF). Two new trees are proposed at the southwest corner of the property, to be maintained at a maximum height of 15 feet, and the existing hedge will be maintained at 8 feet, to provide additional privacy for the adjacent neighbors 44 45 of 821
-8- Reso. #
to the southwest. Therefore, the project meets the privacy criterion.

Further, the Board imposed the following project-specific condition of approval to address Appellant 1’s privacy concerns:

The four Board members voted to approve the project with an additional condition to require additional landscaping. The hearing transcript (Attachment 8 [September 25, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 18-29 of 29, Bauta, p. 21 of 29, Coveny, p. 22-23 of 29, Gannon [p. 23-24 of 29], and Weil [p. 24-25 of 29]). The Board’s record demonstrates that Appellant 1’s privacy 45 46 of 821
-9- Reso. #
concerns were specifically addressed.

The proposed mitigation-planting vegetation is vague and unvetted. Concerns include: lack of specificity for species. planting heights, or setbacks, which are critical for fire safety, and restoring privacy at the expense of impacting ocean views.

Further, vegetation was introduced quickly during the hearing, without opportunity to fully consider or respond in terms of fire safety and the loss of our ocean views.

Suggested vegetation is not a viable long-term solution. Current fire codes prohibit combustible vegetation within the first 5 feet of any structure and require extensive review for all fuel modification and landscaping plans.

Staff’s Response
46 47 of 821
-10- Reso. #
The Applicant proposed planting two additional trees based on their discussions with the neighbors prior to the Board hearing. Appellant 1 raised concerns related to privacy due to the potential direct views from the windows of the proposed home into their bedrooms. The Board considered the privacy impacts to the Appellant’s property in their deliberations. After public testimony and Board deliberations, the Board made a motion to approve the project with the following additional condition to address privacy concerns:
“Prior to permit issuance, the approved landscape plan shall be revised to include additional landscaping to provide privacy for the lower second bedroom at 31551 Toto Loma Lane.

The landscaping shall screen the view from any windows on the “right elevation” of the Project facing said bedroom, or from which said bedroom can be seen, to satisfaction of Community Development Director of designee. In event that a solution cannot be reached, the plan shall be returned to the DRB.”
It should be noted that the condition, as written, will not be enforceable due to recent changes to the Fire Code. The Code requires the canopy of any tree to be maintained a minimum of 10 feet from any structure. The side yard setback area at the “right elevation” of the proposed project will contain retaining walls, concrete access paths, and other improvements, and will not have adequate space to plant a tree specified location, while maintaining the minimum separation as required by the Fire Code. The Council can either remand the project to the Design Review Board to modify the condition, or the Council can impose a more restrictive condition, such as requiring opaque windows, privacy screens, or reduction in the deck size, to address the Appellant’s privacy 47 48 of 821
-11- Reso. #
concerns. City staff recommends that the City Council require an opaque privacy screen, 6 feet in height, be installed on the north side of the upper-level deck to prevent views into the neighbor’s windows. The screen can be frosted glass or another opaque material that conforms to the approved exterior materials for the Project.]. Such more restrictive condition is included in the draft City Council resolution. (Attachment 1.)
While Appellant 1 contends “loss of our ocean views,” the Board found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:

At the prior hearing, adjacent neighbors to the east of the site expressed concerns with view equity due to the proposed height and orientation of the proposed structure. In response, the Applicant has reduced the size of the upper level, lowered areas of the structure, and reoriented the building. Therefore, the project meets the view equity criterion.

3. “Missed opportunity for a Fair Compromise” – Appellant had asked that a structural change to the house be considered to better balance privacy concerns, however the 48 49 of 821
-12- Reso. #
request was not given due consideration. Previous revision to rotate the home to preserve privacy for another neighbor pushed the privacy impacts to the Appellant’s side. A balanced solution should be sought.

Staff’s Response
As set forth above, the term “historical resources” is defined in State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5, which sets forth the following three categories:

2. Presumptive Historic Resources: There are two types of presumptive historical resources.

These include: (i) a resource included in the City’s local register of historic resources pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution; and (ii) a resource identified as significant in certain surveys of historical resources. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 5020.1(k), 5024.1(g); Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1054.) 50 51 of 821
-14- Reso. #

The Board members reach consensus based on the evidence that the property was not historically significant, citing lack of architectural integrity, alterations over time, and absence of historic designation by prior owners. In addition, the surrounding development and the site’s current context no longer reflect the area’s original homestead character, and that the project does not meet local, national, or state criteria. After review of all documentation provided, including all historic assessment reports and public commentary, and consideration of all public testimony, the Board 51 52 of 821
-15- Reso. #
determined the single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject Property not to be “historically significant”, and further, that the Property did not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCRR, Section 4852), as a finding of historic significance was not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

HRG has not been given the opportunity to provide additional documentation requested in the GPA peer review. The City issued a staff report supporting demolition on grounds that there are facts to support a conclusion that the property does not qualify as historic. An independent historian confirms HRG’s conclusion that the property is eligible for the National and California registers.

Given these materially opposed findings, the City determined that it was appropriate to retain GPA as a neutral third party to conduct an independent peer review of the two assessments and to evaluate the issue. Both HRG and GPA are firms that the City regularly retains for the evaluation of historic and potentially historic resources. Further, in engaging HRG and GPA, the City did not limit any scope of inquiry and let each professional analyze the issue independently.

GPA Consultants conducted a thorough and objective analysis of the historic reports submitted .

In its GPA Peer Review, GPA noted “HRG concludes that the subject property qualifies for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion A/1 due to its association with early homesteading in the South Laguna area. In contrast, the Chronicle Heritage report asserts that the property does not retain sufficient integrity—particularly with respect to setting— and therefore does not meet eligibility criteria.” 2

In the GPA Peer Review methodology and scope, GPA states: “4. We also review whether the conclusions regarding historical significance (or lack thereof) are supported by substantial evidence, as defined in National Register Bulletin 15 and related relevant guidance. This includes assessing whether the property was evaluated for the correct area(s) and level(s) of significance (local, regional, state, or national), whether appropriate integrity aspects were considered, and whether the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance. We examine whether 2 GPA Peer Review (Attachment 13, p. 1).
53 54 of 821
-17- Reso. #
the subject property has been appropriately compared to similar properties within the same historic context and whether the narrative argument clearly establishes that the property is not only historic but significant under the applicable criteria.”
“… While HRG identifies “Homesteading and Agricultural Development in South Laguna (ca. 1909–1928)” as the relevant historic context for evaluating the property, this context may be overextended and insufficiently substantiated when measured against the evaluative guidance provided in National Register Bulletin 15, which also underpins the California Register criteria.

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 convincingly demonstrated that the Egan property rises to a level of distinctiveness, rarity, or illustrative clarity to justify significance under the broad theme of homesteading.”3
In the GPA Peer Review methodology and scope, GPA states: “5. Lastly, we assess whether the consultant’s conclusions are well reasoned, factually supported, and internally consistent, and we provide recommendations for improvement in future submittals when applicable.” “Based on our review of the two independent historic resource assessments prepared by qualified professionals, GPA does not find sufficient evidence to support that the property at 31526 Valido Road meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register of Historical 3 GPA Peer Review (Attachment 13, p. 7-8).
54 55 of 821
-18- Reso. #
Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. As such, the property does not meet the definition of a “historical resource” under CEQA, nor does it appear to qualify as a historic resource under the City of Laguna Beach’s current Historic Preservation Ordinance, which requires that properties be either formally listed, eligible for listing, or voluntarily nominated by the property owner. While HRG identified a potential association with early homesteading, the broader historic context presented does not convincingly support eligibility under Criterion 1, particularly in light of the compromised integrity of setting and the lack of rarity or comparative analysis. That said, GPA acknowledges there may be some potential for local historical significance under a more narrowly defined sub-context of early rural residential development in South Laguna, particularly given that the Egan residence is documented as one of the first homes constructed in the area. However, under the City's current ordinance—which requires owner consent for local designation—the property cannot be formally recognized unless the owner voluntarily elects to pursue local listing. Should the owner wish to do so in the future, the potential eligibility of the property under local criteria may warrant further exploration within this refined context.” 4
At the second substantive hearing before the Board on September 25, 2025, the Board discussed the historicity of the property, considered the Initial HRG Memo, Final HRG Memo, Chronical Report, HRG Memo, and GPA Peer Review and submitted public comments, and evaluated whether the existing structure and Property qualified as a historic resource pursuant to CEQA and 4 “Peer Review of Historic Resource Assessments for 31526 Valido Road”, June 28, 2025” (Attachment 13, p. 8-9).
55 56 of 821
-19- Reso. #
the City’s design guidelines for historic resources. (Attachment 8 [September 25, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 18-21 of 29, Bauta, p. 21 of 29, Coveny, p. 22-23 of 29, Gannon [p. 23-24 of 29], and Weil [p. 24-25 of 29]). The Board members concurred with the reports that found the property was not historically significant, citing lack of architectural integrity, alterations over time, and absence of historic designation by prior owners. In addition, the surrounding development and the site’s current context no longer reflect the area’s original homestead character, and that the project does not meet local, national or state criteria. After review of all documentation provided, including all historic assessment reports and public commentary, and consideration of all public testimony, the Board determined the single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject property not to be “historically significant”, and further, that it did not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCRR, Section 4852), as a finding of historic significance was not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

3. Process of City Historic Review – Demolition of this historic building should not be authorized because there is information that can feasibly be obtained and added to the HRG report.

Staff’s Response
City staff incorporated its response to Appeal Contention Nos. 1 and 2 for Appeal 2 into this response to Appeal Contention No. 3.
56 57 of 821
-20- Reso. #

Staff’s Response
Prior to each of the Design Review Board hearings, neighboring property owners had opportunities to provide comments to the Board. In addition to providing written comments to the Board regarding their concerns, neighbors may request site visits from the Board members to discuss their concerns in person and allow for Board members to view the project site from their homes and properties. Additionally, two substantive public hearings were held for this project, at which members of the public provided extensive public comments to the Board. Pursuant to the Board bylaws, Section 9(A)(4)(b), “speakers not affiliated with the applicant will be given three minutes each to address the Board. The Chair may allow additional time at the request of the speaker.” A total of three members of the public spoke at the July 11, 2024 hearing, with one person representing three adjacent neighbors. A total of seven members of the public spoke at the September 25th hearing (see the summary of the public testimony above). Each person was given three minutes to address the Board.

5. “Views of the Property” – the property is not seen from Valido Road but is visible from a public vantage point on the Toovet Trail in the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park and the public view of the “historically significant property” should be considered a “coastal scenic resource”.
57 58 of 821
-21- Reso. #
Staff’s Response
Under the Coastal Act, historic resources are afforded protection. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act explicitly calls out “special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points.” Previous Coastal commission decisions as well as case law all support the idea that historic resources are afforded some protection under the Coastal Act. This is further supported by the City’s certified LCP – which has policies meant to protect historic resources. Historic resources are considered “visual resources” and are analyzed under CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3 (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)(3).

Additionally, the Open Space and Conservation Element (“OSCE”), which is part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”), defines visual resources, including coastal visual resources or “coastal scenic resources” as shoreline features or the natural appearance of the coast, and hillside visual resources as undeveloped hillside lands. (OSCE, p. 33.) The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal View Policies were evaluated as part of this project. General Plan Land Use Policies related to preservation of coastal and canyon views are 58 59 of 821
-22- Reso. #
concerned with the impacts to views due to the siting of new development. The general plan policies related to preservation of public views do not include preservation of views of non-historic existing structures from public locations.

The Project meets this policy because it does not impact coastal or canyon views from public vantage points, such as Toovet Trail in the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site 59 60 of 821
-23- Reso. #
new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

Staff’s Response
60 61 of 821
-24- Reso. #
City staff incorporates its response to Appeal Contention Nos. 1 and 2 for Appeal 2 into this response to Appeal Contention No. 6.

The Board considered and discussed evidence relating to historicity and evaluated whether the existing structure and property qualified as a historic resource pursuant to CEQA and the City’s design guidelines for historic resources. (Attachment 8 [September 25, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 18-21 of 29, Bauta, p. 21 of 29, Coveny, p. 22-23 of 29, Gannon [p. 23-24 of 29], and Weil [p. 24-25 of 29]). The Appellant contends that Chair Gibbs “relied heavily” on the quotation from National Park Service Bulletin 15 cited in the GPA Peer Review and that GPA’s quotation is not in the Bulletin, or in any other historic preservation publications. GPA stated “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.” 5 Although Chair Gibbs referenced the GPA quotation from Bulletin 15 (September 25, 2025 DRB Transcript, Attachment 8, page 15), this was not the only criterion that was evaluated in determining whether the property is a historic resource.

After review of all documentation provided, including all historic assessment reports and public commentary, and consideration of all public testimony, the Board members concurred with the reports finding the property was not historically significant, citing lack of architectural integrity, alterations over time, and absence of historic designation by prior owners. In addition, the surrounding development and the site’s current context no longer reflect the area’s original 5 GPA Peer Review (Attachment 12, p. 8-9).
61 62 of 821
-25- Reso. #
homestead character, and that the project does not meet local, national or state criteria. The Board members concurred with the conclusions in both the Chronicle Heritage and GPA Peer Review for the project. Both reports concluded that the project was not eligible for the California Register and was not a historic resource. Therefore, the Board determined the single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject property not to be “historically significant”, and further, that it did not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCRR, Section 4852), as a finding of historic significance was not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

The Board did not commit abuse of discretion.

7. “Property Owner Notification” – the Board ignored the document in the agenda package, a letter from Greg O’Loughlin, president of the South Laguna Civic Association dated July 22, 2022 to Marc Wiener, Director of Community Development informing the City of the historical significance of 31526 Valido Road and requesting that this information be added to the property file.

Staff’s Response
On September 19, 2024, the City received a letter from Ann Christoph (Attachment 6) suggesting that the subject property may have historical significance. The letter was received after the agenda packet for September 26, 2024 was posted. As a result, on September 26, 2024, staff requested a continuance to November 14, 2024 to allow for further evaluation of the project site. On November 62 63 of 821
-26- Reso. #
14, 2024, the Board continued the public hearing to December 12, 2024, when, at the Applicant’s request, the project was tabled. The letters from Ms. Christoph and Mr. O’Loughlin were provided to the Board prior to the September 25, 2025, as “Attachment 12-Correspondence” to the staff report (Attachment 6, September 25, 2025 DRB Public Correspondence). The Board considered the whole of the record in making its determination regarding the evaluation of the property as a historic resource, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Board ignored the document in the agenda package.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to Design Review 24-0658:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section

25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation.

Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

Yes. The site will maintain access from Valido Road. Since the street frontage is less than 50 feet, an on-street parking space is not required, pursuant to LBMC Section

25.53.006(C). At the previous hearing, the Board expressed concerns with the proposed tandem parking, which has since been removed. The applicant now proposes a two-car garage with the required third parking space being provided in the driveway. 63 64 of 821
-27- Reso. #

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.

Yes. At the prior hearing on July 11, 2024, the Board expressed concerns with the mass and scale of the proposed structure (Figure 1), with recommendations to provide further articulation. The applicant has provided an updated design that eliminates the living area above the garage and utilizes additional materials to reduce the appearance of mass, as shown in Figure 2 below.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

Yes. The modern/contemporary architectural style of the structure, with horizontal planes, is further achieved using a variety of materials and textures, including smooth stucco, horizontal siding, stone wall cladding, glass railings, and glazing.

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out64 65 of 821
-28- Reso. #
cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

Yes. The site does not contain significant natural features and no work is proposed within the watercourse area located on the site. The proposed grading includes 3,019 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint, largely to lower the driveway from Valido Road and to create a parking space and turnaround area in front of the proposed garage. Retaining walls will be constructed along the side property line and the driveway. Approximately 740 cubic yards of cut are proposed inside the building footprint to lower the structure on the site. No grading is proposed in the sloped area or within the watercourse setback area at the rear of the site. The proposed development is located more than 65 feet from the centerline of the watercourse/stream and no impacts are anticipated.

5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

Yes. The proposed Project complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan as evidenced in the findings below.

General Plan Policies
65 66 of 821
-29- Reso. #
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The proposed Project meets this policy as discussed in the design articulation, environmental context, and neighborhood compatibility Design Review Criteria.

LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The proposed Project meets this policy as discussed in the View Equity Design Review Criteria, Design Review Finding No. 4, and the CDP findings below.

LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural 66 67 of 821
-30- Reso. #
treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The proposed Project meets this policy as discussed in the view equity Design Review Criteria, Design Review Finding #4, and the CDP findings below.

LU Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.

Yes. The site is developed with an existing single-family residence, garage, and paved driveway. The existing slope at the rear of the site is undeveloped. A small area at the northern corner of the site is mapped with a watercourse setback. The proposed residence and garage will be constructed in the same location as the existing structures. The proposed grading will lower the elevation of the driveway area and allow the proposed structure to step with the natural topography. The site does not contain significant natural features or environmentally sensitive resources, and the proposed development is located more than 67 68 of 821
-31- Reso. #
65 feet from the centerline of the watercourse/stream, therefore, impacts are not anticipated.

LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.

The new single-family dwelling will replace the existing single-family dwelling in the same location on the site and will utilize the same access from the public street which minimizes environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.

7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.

No grading is proposed on the slope at the rear of the site. The proposed development is 68 69 of 821
-32- Reso. #
located more than 65 feet from the centerline of the watercourse/stream and impacts are not anticipated.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

Pursuant to LBMC Chapter 25.45.004, “historic resource” means a property or structure that (1) is listed on the City's historic register, (2) is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources, (3) has been officially determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources by the State Historical Resource Commission, (4) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, (5) has been officially determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the National Park Service, or (6) the City is mandated by law to treat as a historic resource based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.

Historic Resource Assessments were prepared for the property by two qualified historic consultants, Historic Resources Group and Chronicle Heritage, to evaluate the subject property for potential historic significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

The historic consultants reached differing determinations as to whether the property is eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHP.
69 70 of 821
-33- Reso. #
Thus, the City requested an independent professional evaluation of the Historic Resource Assessment reports by a third qualified historic consultant. GPA Consultants conducted a thorough and objective analysis of the reports. GPA did not find sufficient evidence to support that the property at 31526 Valido Road meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. As such, the property does not meet the definition of a “historical resource” under CEQA, nor does it appear to qualify as a historic resource under the City of Laguna Beach’s current Historic Preservation Ordinance, which requires that properties be either formally listed, eligible for listing, or voluntarily nominated by the property owner.” As such, the Project site and the existing structures are not historic. In addition, the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA because the existing single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject property are not historic resources.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes.

View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.
70 71 of 821
-34- Reso. #
Yes. The landscaping plan has been reviewed by the City’s landscape consultant for compliance with the City’s landscaping requirements and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. The proposed planting plan, provided as sheet L-3 (revised September 22, 2025), includes a mix of groundcover, shrubs, vines, and trees. The proposed trees include one Lemon Scented Tea Tree maintained at a 20’ height, two New Zealand Christmas Trees maintained at a 30’ height, and two Purple-leaved Eastern Redbud maintained at a 15’ height. An existing hedge along the southwest property lines will be maintained at a maximum of 8’.

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

Yes. All exterior lighting complies with the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70) and no reflective materials are proposed.

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including 71 72 of 821
-35- Reso. #
historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

Yes. The neighborhood is developed with single-family homes, with a variety of architectural styles, attached garages, and elevated decks. At the July 11, 2024 Design Review Board meeting, the Board identified concerns with the mass and scale of the proposed project. The applicant has provided an updated design that eliminates the living area above the garage and utilizes additional materials to reduce the appearance of mass.

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.
72 73 of 821
-36- Reso. #
Yes. At the prior hearing, the Board expressed concerns with privacy as created by proposed windows and decking. The applicant has provided an updated design that utilizes frosted glass on the window of bathroom 4, proposes a 5-foot frosted glass privacy screen on the deck off the loft, and removes several of the proposed decks (deck square footage has been reduced from 464 SF to 399 SF). Two new trees are proposed at the southwest corner of the property, to be maintained at a maximum height of 15 feet, and the existing hedge will be maintained at 8 feet, to provide additional privacy for the adjacent neighbors to the southwest. Therefore, the project meets the privacy criterion.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.
73 74 of 821
-37- Reso. #

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.

Yes. New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

No pool, spa, or water feature is proposed as part of this application.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the 74 75 of 821
-38- Reso. #
reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

Yes. At the prior hearing, adjacent neighbors to the east of the site expressed concerns with view equity due to the proposed height and orientation of the proposed structure. In response, the applicant has reduced the size of the upper level, lowered areas of the structure, and reoriented the building. Therefore, the project meets the view equity criterion.

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

The proposed project conforms to the development standards of the zone and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document, as explained above.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site. 75 76 of 821
-39- Reso. #
Yes. The Project design and architecture are appropriately scaled and diverse, as described in the Design Integrity and Neighborhood Compatibility Design Review Criteria above.

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

Yes. The Project site is not located within a specific plan and the R-1 zoning does not contain any other specific design review criteria. The Project conforms to the Architectural Guidelines, including avoiding major disparities of height and bulk with adjacent structures, use of appropriate colors, and appropriate scale, detail and articulation of the structure.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to Coastal Development Permit 24-0657:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:

1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.
76 77 of 821
-40- Reso. #
Yes. The proposed development will occur on a property accessible from an improved public street (Valido Road). The Project is not encroaching on a public accessway, and no new access is proposed.

2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

Yes. There are no known marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, archeological, or paleontological resources in the project area. The Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood. The proposed development is located more than 65 feet from the centerline of the watercourse/stream and impacts are not anticipated

3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

Yes. The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood and the Project will be completely on private property. The site is adjacent to the Aliso and Woods Canyon Wilderness Park property. However, the Project does not introduce new development in a visually prominent area and will not be visible from the public street. The Project will not displace or interfere with any recreational or visitor serving uses or facilities. No impacts will occur to recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources in the area.
77 78 of 821
-41- Reso. #

4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.

Yes. The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood and not immediate to environmentally sensitive habitats or scenic resources in adjacent areas. The proposed development is located more than 65 feet from the centerline of the watercourse/stream and impacts are not anticipated.

5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.

Yes. The Project site does not contain any significant natural landforms. Grading is mostly limited to the structure’s footprint and done so to create safe access to the property. The Project will not result in undue risk from flood or fire hazards.

6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
78 79 of 821
-42- Reso. #
Yes. The proposed Project is well-articulated and is architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in an area that is not visually degraded as described in Design Articulation (No. 2) and Neighborhood Compatibility (No. 9) Design Review Criteria and the facts in support are incorporated herein by reference.

7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.

N/A. There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources in the Project area.

8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.

Yes. The existing site and existing single-family dwelling are within an established residential neighborhood with connections to necessary utilities, drainage, and other facilities.

9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

Yes. The existing site is within an established residential neighborhood and the existing single-family dwelling has access to other public services. 79 80 of 821
-43- Reso. #
The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.

LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The proposed Project is designed to integrate with the existing topography of the site and there will be no impacts to any public views. No development is proposed within the watercourse nor the watercourse buffer area existing at the northeast corner of the property.

LU Element Policy 2.9 Require the use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and/or siting considerations to protect public views for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets.

The proposed Project meets this policy as discussed in the Design Integrity (No. 3) and Neighborhood Compatibility (No. 9) Design Review Criteria and the facts in support are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed Project will be architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The site is not visible from any major highways and arterial streets. No public views through or across the site exist, therefore there will be no impact to public views.
80 81 of 821
-44- Reso. #
LU Element Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.) Policy 2.10 includes: Action

2.10.1 Discourage the addition of second stories in established neighborhoods where view equity has historically been achieved through one-story construction.

The proposed Project meets this policy as discussed in the View Equity (No. 16) Design Review Criteria and the facts in support are incorporated herein by reference. The Project will not impact coastal views as no public views through or across the site exist.

LU Element Policies 7.3 and 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations.

The proposed Project meets this policy and the facts are discussed in the Environmental Context (No.4) and View Equity (No.16) Design Review criteria and LU Policy 10.2 (Coastal Development Permit Section) and they are incorporated herein by reference.

LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other 81 82 of 821
-45- Reso. #
significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

Policy 3.10 requires protection of public views as specified in the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines require View Equity for impacts to public views, and require maintenance of view corridors.

View Equity is defined as: View equity means achievement of a fair, reasonable and balanced accommodation of views and competing obstructions such as structures, trees and/or vegetation, privacy and the use and enjoyment of property.

The Design Review Guidelines refers to Public Views:

15.6 Maintain view corridors when feasible.
∙Consider opportunities for public views.
∙Locate a building to retain view opportunities through side yards. 82 83 of 821
-46- Reso. #
The Project is sited adjacent to a large open space area and few properties have views overlooking the Project. Therefore, the proposed single-family dwelling will not impact coastal views or view equity as described in “view equity” criteria above.

LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.

89.104)
Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

The Project site is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea and does not impact existing public access or public recreation facilities. Additionally, the subject site is zoned residential and is not suitable for recreational uses identified in Chapter 83 84 of 821
-47- Reso. #
3 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the finding that the project is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act can be made.

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

As described further herein, the Project does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, as discussed further herein.

SECTION 4. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. This project fits within the Class 3 exemption because it is a new single-family dwelling on an existing legal building site.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment as the project is similar in scope to other developed properties in the surrounding developed neighborhood. There will be no 84 85 of 821
-48- Reso. #
cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time.

There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment as the project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site, or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that the existing single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject property are not a historic resource. Numerous Historic Resource Assessments were prepared for the project which evaluated whether the project met the eligibility requirements of either the National Register and/or State Register, the local register, and whether the project qualified as a historic resource for purposes of CEQA. Although some reports differed in their conclusions, all evidence in the whole of the record has been weighed and the City Council has found that the Property does not contain a historic resource. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of CEQA. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) with the County Recorder's Office and state Clearinghouse within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Resolution No. 24-0658, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference subject to the following more restrictive condition of approval:

1. An opaque privacy screen shall be installed on the north side of the upper-level deck (accessed from the loft area) to prevent views into the neighbor’s windows. The screen 85 86 of 821
-49- Reso. #
shall be six feet in height above the finished surface of the deck and shall be frosted glass or another opaque material that conforms to the approved exterior materials for the Project.

ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
86 87 of 821
-50- Reso. #
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on May 13, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
87 88 of 821

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:

Appeal of approval of Design Review 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657, and CEQA Categorical Exemption for a new single-family dwelling at 31526 Valido Road in the R-1 zone. Design review is required for construction of a new single-family residence, additions that exceed a height of 15 feet above the adjacent ground elevation, elevated decks, grading, and landscaping. A Coastal Development Permit is required for the demolition of the existing single-family residence and for development within the coastal zone.

Applicant: LCRA Architects
Two parties have appealed the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to approve the project.

SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, November 18, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

For additional information, contact City staff: Heather Steven, Senior Planner (949) 497-0332 or [email protected]. Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in the Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.

CEQA: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

COASTAL: This project is located in the Coastal Zone. This project is located within an appealable area of the Coastal Zone.

The project is proposed as appealable development. The application was filed on March 27, 2023 by Gabriel Ponciano and is assigned application number DR-24-0658 and CDP-24-0657. The application was approved by the Design Review Board. The decision by the Design Review Board is appealable to the City Council upon the payment of $2,500 and in accordance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.070. The decision by the City Council can be appealed to the California Coastal Commission (no fee required) in accordance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.016(B). Further information regarding California Coastal Commission appeal processes can be found at https://www.coastal.ca.gov/cdp/cdp-forms.html Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ Property Posted/California Coastal Commission/Surrounding Public Agencies/Interested Persons List / Publish Date: 11/7/2025 Attachment 2
88 89 of 821

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
September 25, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.9
Case No: Design Review 24-0658, Coastal Development Permit 24-0657 Request: To demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new two-story singlefamily residence with an attached, two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, and landscaping.

Location: 31526 Valido Road | APN: 056-062-25
Applicant: LCRA Architects, Architect
626-449-9698 | [email protected]
Owner: Chuanjie Zhou
Staff: Community Development Department
Heather Steven, Senior Planner
(949) 497-0332 | [email protected]
Recommendation:

Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 24-0658 approving Design Review 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657 for property located at 31526 Valido Road and finding said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

CEQA:

The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures
Coastal Development Permit:

The project site is located in the Coastal Zone and is located within the coastal appealable area. The proposed demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence requires the approval of a coastal development permit pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section

25.07.004.

Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
Attachment 3
89 90 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The applicant, Gabriel Ponciano, requests Design Review 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24- 0657 approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new two-story, 3,811 square foot single-family residence with elevated decks, a two-car garage and one uncovered parking space, site grading to accommodate the home’s footprint, and new landscaping (the “project”).

The project was first heard on July 11, 2024. With the applicant’s consent, the Design Review Board (DRB) continued the project to September 26, 2024 to incorporate design direction.

On September 19, 2024 the City received a letter from Ann Christoph suggesting that subject property may have historical significance. As a result, on September 26, 2024, staff requested a continuance to November 14, 2024 to allow for further evaluation of the project site. The November 14, 2024, DRB hearing was then continued to December 12, 2024 where, at the applicant’s request, the project was tabled.

To assess the historic significance of the property, several reports have been prepared to determine whether it is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and whether it is an historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The September 25, 2025 Design Review Board meeting will be the second substantive hearing for this project.

Staff supports project approval noting that facts affirming the required findings can be made; however, given prior direction, the Design Review Board should deliberate on privacy and view equity, and historic preservation matters to determine if these have been achieved or if other project changes or conditions of approval are warranted.
90 91 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO

SITE PHOTO
91 92 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 4 ends

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density

ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below:

Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Conforms Site Coverage 35%, 4924.85
SF

14.9%,
2096.58 SF

22.86%,
3216.63 SF
Yes
Landscape Open Space 34.29%
4825 SF
79%
11,117 SF

55.18%
7,765 SF
Yes
Height (Lowest floor to top of roof) 29’ 11’8” 22’2” Yes Height (Above curb elevation) 17’6” 11’6” 17’6” Yes
Setbacks
Front
Side (South)
Side (North)
Rear
Required
20’
9’-3 ¾ “
9’-3 ¾ “
20’
Existing
3’-11 ½ “
12-’6”
21’-8”
69’-8”
Proposed
20’
9’-3 ¾ “
9’-3 ¾ “
58’
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Parking 3 spaces
(2 covered, 1
uncovered)
2 covered 3 spaces
(2 covered, 1
uncovered)
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Site History
The 14,071 square foot project site is a residential property developed with a single-family dwelling, and a detached garage which is accessed from Valido Road. The site slopes downward at the rear of the property with a small area mapped with a watercourse setback. The site does not contain significant natural features, and no work is proposed within the watercourse area.

The property is located on a remaining portion of an original 40-acre land grant. The land was granted to Willam F. Egan through the Homestead Act in 1910. The existing residence was constructed beginning ca. 1909 and built out in 1928. The City does not have any records regarding the construction of the home.

There are no active code enforcement cases for the property.

A portion of the original 40-acre property was sold to the South Coast Water District in 1937 and 1944 for a water reservoir. On June 21, 1948, Tract No 1243 was recorded which subdivided the southeast portion of the original homestead lot, north of West Street, into 25 lots on Paso Del Sur, Rico Road and Valido Road. The remaining developed parcels that surround the subject property were sold off at various times.

The undeveloped area in the northwest part of the original homestead lot is owned by the County of Orange. 92 93 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 5 ends

Figure 1, Original 40-acre homestead property with subject site highlighted Historic Resource Evaluation
Prior to the Design Review Board hearing of September 26, 2024, the Community Development Department received a letter from Ann Christoph stating the existing dwelling on the subject property was constructed in 1910, that the house is the oldest house in South Laguna, and possibly the last remaining homestead house in the city of Laguna Beach. A copy of a letter from the South Laguna Civic Association in 2022, regarding the potential historic significance of the property was also provided (Attachment 12).

Upon receipt of the above-mentioned letters, City staff contacted Historic Resources Group (HRG), one of the City’s contracted historic consultants, to prepare a historic assessment of the property. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the subject property for potential historic significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

HRG worked with Ms. Christoph to obtain information regarding the history of the site. The initial Historic Resources Assessment was completed on November 22, 2024 (Attachments 6). Ms. Christoph provided corrections to historic details within the report. These corrections did not affect the conclusions regarding the property. HRG provided a revised report on February 12, 2025 (Attachment 7). The HRG reports concluded that the property at 31526 Valido Road is significant under Criterion A/1 for its association with the Homestead Act of 1862. To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historic-period 93 94 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 6 ends

property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the four specified criteria. HRG found the property significant under California Register Criterion 1, that the property is “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.” Therefore, it is eligible for listing in the California Register. Further, HRG determined the property is a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA.

In response to the HRG report, the applicant commissioned their own study, which was prepared by Chronicle Heritage and dated April 2025 (Attachment 8). This historic assessment was also prepared to determine whether the subject property may be considered as an historical resource pursuant to the CEQA and to evaluate whether the property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

Chronicle Heritage stated “the surrounding area that was once part of the larger homestead has been completely developed and does not retain the feeling and association with the Homestead Act period in the City, and thus it does not retain integrity of feeling and association. Furthermore, due to the substantial surrounding development, the integrity of setting has been lost. Due to the completed alterations, the subject property also does not retain integrity of design, materials, or workmanship.” With that, the report concluded the subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR at the local level, nor does it appear to be eligible for listing under any of the local criteria. Therefore, the building does not appear to be a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines City staff requested HRG review the Chronical Heritage report and comment on the report’s conclusions.

HRG provided a supplemental memo, dated June 2025 (Attachment 9). HRG stated “Generally, Chronicle Heritage did not find fault with HRG’s methodology or research conclusions; however, they did not agree with the finding that the subject property appears eligible for listing in the National Register at the local level and the California Register” and rebutted the Chronicle Heritage report findings. HRG stated, “The urbanization of South Laguna follows twentieth century planning and land use policies seen throughout Southern California (and the United States) and the change in setting alone is not reason enough to disqualify the property from association with homesteading.” Further, HRG stated, in part, “to our knowledge, the Egan property may be the last remaining property associated with homesteading in all of Laguna Beach.” To resolve these contrasting conclusions, the City commissioned an independent professional evaluation of the Historic Resource Assessment reports by a third qualified historic consultant, GPA Consultants (Attachment 10).

GPA conducted a thorough and objective analysis of the reports to determine whether the historic resource assessments met accepted professional and technical standards. GPA’s conclusion states, “Based on our review of the two independent historic resource assessments prepared by qualified professionals, GPA does not find sufficient evidence to support that the property at 31526 Valido Road meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places.”
GPA continued, “While HRG identified a potential association with early homesteading, the broader historic context presented does not convincingly support eligibility under Criterion 1, particularly in light of the compromised integrity of setting and the lack of rarity or comparative analysis. That said, GPA 94 95 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 7 ends

acknowledges there may be some potential for local historical significance under a more narrowly defined sub-context of early rural residential development in South Laguna, particularly given that the Egan residence is documented as one of the first homes constructed in the area. However, under the City's current ordinance—which requires owner consent for local designation—the property cannot be formally recognized unless the owner voluntarily elects to pursue local listing. Should the owner wish to do so in the future, the potential eligibility of the property under local criteria may warrant further exploration within this refined context.”
As such, the property does not meet the definition of a “historical resource” under CEQA, nor does it appear to qualify as a historic resource under the City of Laguna Beach’s current Historic Preservation Ordinance, which requires that properties be either formally listed, eligible for listing, or voluntarily nominated by the property owner.” (Attachment 7, page 8). As a result, the project site is not considered a historic resource.

Proposed Project
Originally, the applicant proposed to demolish an existing 1,278 SF single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence (4,002 SF) with attached two-car garage (619 SF), elevated decks (461 SF), grading, landscaping, tandem parking, and third covered parking space.

The revised proposal continues to include demolition of the existing 1,278 SF single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence (3,811 SF) with attached two-car garage (540 SF), elevated decks (399 SF), grading, and landscaping. A third, uncovered parking space will be provided on the site.

When the Design Review Board met on July 11, 2024, it requested that the house be reoriented, that the appearance of mass be reduced and provide further articulation using materials and landscaping, that the proposed height and width of landscaping be provided, that opaque glass be utilized to address privacy concerns, and that decks be adjusted to respond to privacy concerns (please note that the Board varied on whether the deck should be removed, reduced, or incorporated into the structure).

In response to this direction, the following revisions were made to the project in response to the Board’s comments:
• The structure has been rotated approximately 15 degrees. • Additional materials, textures, and colors have been included at each elevation. • Proposed landscape height and width have been provided. • Frosted privacy glass has been added to bathroom 4.
• The proposed deck between bathroom 2 and bathroom 3 has been removed. • The balcony from bedroom 3 has been removed.
• A 5-foot frosted glass privacy panel has been proposed at the deck on the left (South) elevation. • Third covered, tandem parking space removed.

ENTITLEMENTS: Following is an analysis of the project’s design review and coastal development permit.
95 96 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 8 ends

Design Review
The following elements require Design Review: new single-family residence, elevated decks, grading, and landscaping. (See Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.05.040 (B)(1)(m)(p) and (3)(a)(ii)).

Design review is governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

Yes. The site will maintain access from Valido Road. Since the street frontage is less than 50 feet, an on-street parking space is not required, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.53.006(C). At the previous hearing, the Board expressed concerns with the proposed tandem parking, which has since been removed. The applicant now proposes a two-car garage with the required third parking space being provided in the driveway.

Figure 1: Previous Front Elevation Rendering
96 97 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 9 ends

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

Yes. The proposed Project complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan as evidenced in the findings below.

Figure 2: Proposed Front Elevation Rendering
97 98 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 10 ends

General Plan Policies
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The proposed Project meets this policy as discussed in the design articulation, environmental context, and neighborhood compatibility Design Review Criteria.

The proposed Project meets this policy as discussed in the View Equity Design Review Criteria, Design Review Finding No. 4, and the CDP findings below.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The proposed Project meets this policy as discussed in the view equity Design Review Criteria, Design Review Finding #4, and the CDP findings below.

Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.

Yes. The site is developed with an existing single-family residence, garage, and paved driveway.

The existing slope at the rear of the site is undeveloped. A small area at the northern corner of the site is mapped with a watercourse setback. The proposed residence and garage will be constructed in the same location as the existing structures. The proposed grading will lower the elevation of the driveway area and allow the proposed structure to step with the natural topography. The site does not contain significant natural features or environmentally sensitive resources, and the proposed development is located more than 65 feet from the centerline of the watercourse/stream, therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
98 99 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 11 ends

LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.

LU Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.

Yes. The site does not contain significant natural features or environmentally sensitive resources, and grading is mainly utilized to allow the structure to step with the natural topography. The Project proposes 3,019 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint. No grading is proposed on the slope at the rear of the site. The proposed development is located more than 65 feet from the centerline of the watercourse/stream and impacts are not anticipated.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

Thus, the City requested an independent professional evaluation of the Historic Resource Assessment reports by a third qualified historic consultant. GPA Consultants conducted a thorough and objective analysis of the reports. GPA did not find sufficient evidence to support that the property at 31526 Valido Road meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. As such, the property does not meet the definition of a “historical resource” under CEQA, nor does it appear to qualify as a historic resource under the City of Laguna Beach’s current Historic Preservation Ordinance, which 99 100 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 12 ends

requires that properties be either formally listed, eligible for listing, or voluntarily nominated by the property owner.”
As such, the Project site and the existing structures are not historic. In addition, the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA because the existing single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject property are not historic resources.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

Yes. The landscaping plan has been reviewed by the City’s landscape consultant for compliance with the City’s landscaping requirements and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

The proposed planting plan, provided as sheet L-3, includes a mix of groundcover, shrubs, vines, and trees. The proposed trees include one Lemon Scented Tea Tree maintained at a 20’ height and two New Zealand Christmas Trees maintained at a 30’ height.

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, highgloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

Yes. All exterior lighting complies with the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70) and no reflective materials are proposed.

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

Page 13 ends

Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

At the prior hearing, the Board expressed concerns with privacy as created by proposed windows and decking. The applicant has provided an updated design that utilizes frosted glass on the window of bathroom 4, proposes a 5-foot frosted glass privacy screen on the deck off the loft, and removes several of the proposed decks (deck square footage has been reduced from 464 SF to 399 SF). Staff recommends that the Board deliberate on privacy and consider whether additional conditions of approval are necessary to address any privacy concerns.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.

Page 14 ends

No pool, spa, or water feature is proposed as part of this application.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

At the prior hearing, adjacent neighbors to the east of the site expressed concerns with view equity due to the proposed height and orientation of the proposed structure. In response, the applicant has reduced the size of the upper level, lowered areas of the structure, and reoriented the building. Staff recommends that the Board deliberate on view equity and consider whether additional conditions of approval are necessary to address any view concerns.

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

Yes. The Project design and architecture are appropriately scaled and diverse, as described in the Design Integrity and Neighborhood Compatibility Design Review Criteria above.

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

Coastal Development Permit
The proposed new single-family Residence, elevated decks, grading, and landscaping requires the approval of a coastal development permit. (See LBMC Section 25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07. A Coastal Development Permit is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly-noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:
102
103 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 15 ends

Yes. The proposed development will occur on a property accessible from an improved public street (Valido Road). The Project is not encroaching on a public accessway, and no new access is proposed.

2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.

Yes. The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood and the proposed addition and remodel of the existing single-family dwelling will be on private property. No impacts will occur to recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources in the area.

5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.

6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

Yes. The proposed Project is well-articulated and is architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in an area that is not visually degraded as described in Design Articulation (No. 2) 103
104 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 16 ends

and Neighborhood Compatibility (No. 9) Design Review Criteria and the facts in support are incorporated herein by reference.

7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.

N/A. There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources in the Project area.

8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.

Yes. The existing site and existing single-family dwelling are within an established residential neighborhood with connections to necessary utilities, drainage, and other facilities.

9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.

Yes. The existing site is within an established residential neighborhood and the existing singlefamily dwelling has access to other public services.

The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.

Page 17 ends

private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.) Policy 2.10 includes: Action 2.10.1 Discourage the addition of second stories in established neighborhoods where view equity has historically been achieved through one-story construction.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The Design Review Guidelines refers to Public Views:

15.6 Maintain view corridors when feasible.
∙Consider opportunities for public views.
∙Locate a building to retain view opportunities through side yards.

The Project is sited adjacent to a large open space area and few properties have views overlooking the Project. Therefore, the proposed single-family dwelling will not impact coastal views or view equity as described in “view equity” criteria above.
105
106 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 18 ends

LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.

Land Use and Open Space/Conservation General Plan Elements Zoning Map
Title 25 (Zoning Code)
2010 Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document
South Laguna Community Design and Landscape Guidelines (as adopted by Resolution 89.104) Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

Therefore, the finding that the project is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act can be made.

Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

As described further herein, the Project does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts.

The Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, as discussed further herein.

THIRD HEARING FINDING:

This is the second hearing for the project. Per LBMC 25.05.040 (F)(5), Design review hearings on a proposed residential development project shall usually be limited to a maximum of two hearings. A third hearing may be permitted if the approval authority makes a finding that the applicant followed the authority's direction(s) from the initial hearing in good faith and further design work on the project is in the best interest of the community. The approval authority may allow up to two continuances of hearings at which no substantive discussion of the application occurs. Concept review hearings for residential dwelling units of three units or less are not allowed, except where required by current City ordinance. If required, concept review shall be limited to one hearing and shall count as one of the above limited hearings.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. 106
107 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 19 ends

This project fits within the Class 3 exemption because it is a single-family dwelling on an existing legal building site.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment as the project is similar in scope to other developed properties in the surrounding developed neighborhood. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment as the project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site, or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that the existing single-family dwelling, detached garage, and the subject property are not a historic resource as determined by the Historic Resource Assessments prepared for the project.

Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Board adopt Resolution 24-0658 approving DR-24-0658 and CDP-24-0657 and finding said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice was mailed on August 28, 2025, which is at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice was posted on the project site on September 2, 2025, which is at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date.

CORRESPONDENCE:

A public comment letter regarding the historicity of the project site, dated September 19, 2024, and one new public comment letter are provided as Attachment 12.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 24-0658
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 4 – Color and Material Board
Attachment 5 – Colored Elevations and Renderings
Attachment 6 – Historic Resources Assessment of 31526 Valido Rd, Historic Resources Group, November 22, 2024
Attachment 7 – Historic Resources Assessment of 31526 Valido Rd, Historic Resources Group, February 12, 2025
107
108 of 821
DR-24-0658, CDP-24-0657
September 25, 2025

Page 20 ends

Attachment 8 – Historic Resource Assessment of 31526 Valido Road, Chronicle Heritage, April 2025 Attachment 9 – Historic Assessment Memo, Historic Resources Group, June 3, 2025 Attachment 10 – Peer Review of Historic Resource Assessments for 31526 Valido Road, Laguna Beach, GPA Consulting, July 28, 2025
Attachment 11 – Soils Report
Attachment 12 – Correspondence
108
109 of 821
Attachment 4
109
110 of 821
110
111 of 821
111
112 of 821
112
113 of 821
113
114 of 821
114
115 of 821
115
116 of 821
116
117 of 821
117
118 of 821
118
119 of 821
119
120 of 821
120
121 of 821
121
122 of 821
122
123 of 821
123
124 of 821
PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT DATA Project Address 31526 Valido Road, CA 92651 Project Description New Single Family Residence APN 056-062-25 Zone R-1 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE, WITH DETACHED ONE CAR GARAGE AND LARGE WORKSPACE, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,811 S.F., TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED 540 S.F. GARAGE SHEET Sheet Architecture Description A-0.0 COVER SHEET A-0.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A-SP A-2.0 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Legal Description SEC 5 T 8 R 8 POR SW1/4 NW1/4 PIN 1064 A-1.0 CONTACT INFORMATIONProperty Owner Chuanjie Zhou [email protected] 1267 Shenandoah Road San Marino, CA 91108 (323) 539-1206 Architect LCRA Architects [email protected] 35 Hugus Alley #220 Pasadena, CA 91103 (626) 440-9698 Construction Type V Occupancy A-1.1 A-2.1 A-1.2 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED ELEVATIONS STAKING PLAN Landscape Architecture Description L-1 HARDSCAPE R-3 / U Civil Engineer TOAL Engineering, Inc. [email protected] 139 Avenida Navarro San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 492-8586 Landscape Architect TGP Inc., Landscape Architecture [email protected] P.O. Box 704 Montrose, CA 91021 (818) 797-5914 A-0.2 FIRE DEPARTMENT SITE ACCESS PLAN A-0.3 PROPOSED SITE LIGHTING PLAN PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A-1.3 FIRST FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A-1.4 SECOND FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A-2.3 PROPOSED COLORED ELEVATIONS A-2.4 PROPOSED COLORED ELEVATIONS Civil Engineering Description TP-01 TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY L-2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION/NOTES C-1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN L-3 PLANTING PLAN A-4.0 3D VIEWS A-2.2 ELEVATION BUILDING ENVELOPE L-4 IRRIGATION PLAN L-5 LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE PLAN A-3.0 PROPOSED SECTIONS 31526 VALIDO ROAD 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 COVER SHEET A-0.0

RECEIVED
08/29/2024

PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH 22 155' 8 94' 0

RECEIVED
09/22/2025

PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH Revised planting plan (L-3)

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

APPROVED
SIGNATURE ______________________
DATE ___________________________
RESO. NO. __________
hsteven 09/25/2025 09/26/2025 24-0658 Approved with modification to Condition 14 for additional landscaping 231.87 TOP OF ROOF 225.15 ROOF RIDGE 231.93 TOP OF ROOF 235.74 ROOF RIDGE 237.41 ROOF RIDGE 247.97 TOP OF ROOF ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE 239.10' T.O. PARAPET 221.60' MIDPOINT FRONT P.L. C.L. PRIVATE EASEMENT 213.40' 176.20' 227.00' 195.90' EXISTING 1-STORY RESIDENCE EXISTING 1-CAR GARAGE 2-STORY CUSTOM HOME (FIRST FLOOR FOOTPRINT) STREET CENTERLINE PREVIOUS DESIGN OUTLINE 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A-0.1 SCALE: 1'-0" = 1/8" 31532 31538 ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE 2-STORY CUSTOM HOME (FIRST FLOOR FOOTPRINT) 57'-8" 13'-0" 149'-6" 149'-6" 149'-6" 3'-0" 146'-6" 3'-0" 3'-0" 32'-5" 3'-0" 2-CAR GARAGE A-SITE-PROP magenta PHANTOM2
Property lines, survey benchmarks WEST STREET TOTO LOMA ROAD 31532 31538 31532 31521 31551 VALIDO ROAD FIRE HYDRANT 193'-0" 31526 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 FIRE ACCESS PLAN FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION FIRE DEPARTMENT SITE ACCESS PLAN A-0.2 3 LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW NOTES CODE (2022) DESCRIPTION CONFORMS REMARKS CFC 503.1.1 APPROVED FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY FACILITY, BUILDING OR PORTION OF A BUILDING HEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED OR MOVED INTO OR WITHIN THE JURISDICTION. THE FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL EXTEND TO WITHIN 150 FEEt OF ALL PORTIONS OF THE FACILITY AND ALL PORTIONS OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE FIRST STORY OF THE BUILDING AS MEASURED BY AN APPROVED ROUTE AROUND THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR FACILITY. YES SEE PLAN CFC 503.2.1 FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS SHALL HAVE AN UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF NOT LESS THAN 20 FEET, EXCLUSIVE OF SHOULDERS, EXCEPT FOR APPROVED SECURITY GATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AN UNOBSTRUCTED VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF NOT LESS THAN 13 FEET 6 INCHES. YES SEE PLAN AND FIRE PROTECTION NOTES CFC 503.2.5 DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS IN EXCESS OF 150 FEET (45 720 MM) IN LENGTH SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN APPROVED AREA FOR TURNING AROUND FIRE APPARATUS. YES SEE PLAN CFC 504.1 EXTERIOR DOORS AND OPENINGS REQUIRED BY THIS CODE OR THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SHALL BE MAINTAINED READILY ACCESSIBLE FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. AN APPROVED ACCESS WALKWAY LEADING FROM FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO EXTERIOR OPENINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL. CFC 506.1 WHERE ACCESS TO OR WITHIN A STRUCTURE OR AN AREA IS RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF SECURED OPENINGS OR WHERE IMMEDIATE ACCESS IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE-SAVING OR FIRE-FIGHTING PURPOSES, THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE A KEY BOX TO BE INSTALLED IN AN APPROVED LOCATION CFC 507.3 FIRE FLOW. FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS OR PORTIONS OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY AN APPROVED METHOD OR APPENDIX B. TO BE COMPLETED BY WATER DISTRICT. 123456 FIRE LANE IDENTIFICATION MUST INCLUDE ALL RED CURB AND SIGNAGE AS APPLICABLE. HOSE PULL - PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3 FEET WIDE, ALL WEATHER, NON-COMBUSTIBLE ACCESS PATH AROUND THE STRUCTURE, WITH A MAXIMUM SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 10%. FIRE HYDRANT SYSTEMS AND SPACING SHALL COMPLY WITH CURRENT ADOPTED CFC APPENDIX C, WITH A MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM FRONTAGE TO HYDRANT NOT TO EXCEED 250 FEET. BRUSH CLEARANCE: PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION, ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO BRUSH CLEARANCE CONTAINED IN THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE SHALL BE FULLY COMPLIED WITH TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE LAGUNA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT. PROVIDE FIRE SPRINKLED SYSTEM BASED ON THE MOST RECENT FIRE CODE. RECESSED KEY BOX. ACCESS TO OR WITHIN A STRUCTURE WHEN AREA IS RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF A SECURE OPENING, A KEY BOX MUST BE INSTALLED FOR ACCESS IN LIFE-SAVING AND OR FIREFIGHTING PURPOSE. FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES (CONT'D): PROJECT ADDRESS 31526 VALIDO ROAD, CA 92651 PROJECT DESCRIPTION NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE APN 056-062-25 ZONE R-1 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE, WITH DETACHED ONE CAR GARAGE AND LARGE WORKSPACE, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,947 SF, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED 664 SF GARAGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEC 5 T 8 R 8 POR SW1/4 NW1/4 PIN 1064 CONSTRUCTION TYPE V OCCUPANCY R-3 / U FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR TOTAL LIVABLE GARAGE 1,948 S.F. 2,054 S.F. 4,002 S.F. 619 S.F. A. MAINTAIN JOBSITE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AS PER CHAPTER 33 OF THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE. B. COMPLETE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS AROUND THE BUILDING IS REQUIRED, AND MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE APPROVED PLANS. SEE THIS SHEET FOR DETAILS. THIS IS SUBJECT TO FINAL FIRE INSPECTION AND REQUIRED APPROVAL PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. C. ADDRESS NUMBERS MUST BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR FACING THE STREET ADDRESSED TO. MINIMUM SIZE OF NUMBERS IS 4", AND THEY MUST CONTRAST WITH THE BACKGROUND. D. FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS, CALL (949)497-0352 AT LEAST 3 DAYS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE. E. ALL STAIRS TO COMPLY WITH CBC, CHAPTER 10, FOR RISE/RUN. F. A SEPARATE (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS IS REQUIRED. SYSTEM DESIGN MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2022 CFC AND 2022 NFPA 13 STANDARD. PLANS MUST BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR. PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD, WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED. G. ALL EXTERIOR FIRE PLACES AND FIRE PITS MUST BE GAS FIRED ONLY. NO SOLID FUEL IS ALLOWED PER THE LBFD MUNICIPAL CODE. FIRE PLACES AND FIRE PITS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM COMBUSTIBLE VEGETATION. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: PROJECT SUMMARY: FIRE PROTECTION PLAN NOTES: FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES: CODE COMPLIANCE: THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE STANDARDS, 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL (CRC); 2022 ELECTRICAL, ENERGY (ENS), MECHANICAL (CMC), PLUMBING (CPC); AND 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS, CODES AND ORDINANCES. ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE: NPDES, SUSMP AND BMP REQUIREMENTS DIG ALAERT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU CONDITIONS: 1. THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE (VHFHSZ). IT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE CHAPTER 49 AND LAGUNA BEACH CITY'S FUEL MODIFICATION STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT. 2. THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE STANDARDS. 3. IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 106, ALL REQUIRED FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT PLANS SHALL BE A DIFFERENT SUBMITTAL 4. EXTERIOR FIR PIT SHALL COMPLY WITH 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 307.2 AS AMENDED BY LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE 15.01.030. 3 1 1 2 2 4 4 06 4 1 1 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 1 1 LL 1 LL LL LL UL 2 2 2 UL UL 2-STORY CUSTOM HOME (FIRST FLOOR FOOTPRINT) ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 PROPOSED SITE LIGHTING A-0.3 SCALE: 1'-0" = 1/8" 1. LOWER LEVEL DOOR TO EXTERIOR 2. UPPER LEVEL DOOR TO EXTERIOR SITE LIGHTING NOTES: TOTAL QUANTITY - LED SOFFIT DOWNLIGHT FIXTURE TOTAL QUANTITY - LED WALL MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE SITE LIGHTING LEGEND: LL - FIRST FLOOR UL - SECOND FLOOR EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING: EXISTING EGRESS DOORS PROPOSED EGRESS DOORS EXISTING FIXTURE COUNT PROPOSED FIXTURE COUNT FIXTURE TYPE WATTAGE LUMENS TOTAL LED WALL MOUNT 16 1,265 LED SOFFIT DOWNLIGHT 15 900 QUANTITY 12517 TOTAL TOTAL 80 W 180 W 260 W 6,325 LM 10,800 LM 17,125 LM COMMENTS 26 817 3. PLEASE REFER TO LANDSCAPE SHEET L-1 HARDSCAPE PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE LIGHTING INFORMATION.

KITCHEN
FOYER
PANTRY

DEN/OFFICE
PDR.

BEDROOM 4
BA. 4

COURTYARD
2-CAR
GARAGE
GREAT
ROOM
216.17' F.F.
215.50' F.G.
217.17' F.F.
217.50' F.F.

LAUNDRY
215.50' F.G.

FROSTED PRIVACY GLASS
PORCH

BACK PORCH
217.00' F.F.
217.00' F.F.
216.50' F.G.
217.00' F.F.
216.00' F.F.
216.00' F.F.
216.50' F.G.
31526 VALIDO ROAD
-
August 7, 2024
PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN A-1.0
SCALE: 1'-0" = 1/4"
129 of 821

PRIMARY BEDROOM
227.00' F.F. WRAPAROUND DECK
BA. 3
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
BA. 2
LOFT

PRIMARY BATH
W.I.C.

DECK
W.I.C.
227.00' F.F.
227.17' F.F.

A-ROOF-SLOPE 9 Continuous Roof slope symbol 100% 0.178 31526 VALIDO ROAD -
August 7, 2024
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-1.1
SCALE: 1'-0" = 1/4"
130 of 821
A-ROOF-SLOPE A-ROOF-SLOPE 9 Continuous Continuous Roof slope symbol Roof slope symbol 100% 0.178 PARAPET @ 239.10' BUILT-UP FLAT ROOF 1/4"/FT. SLOPE PARAPET @ 228.10' SOLAR READY AREAPARAPET @ 237.77' PARAPET @ 228.10' BUILT-UP FLAT ROOF 1/4"/FT. SLOPE BUILT-UP FLAT ROOF 1/4"/FT. SLOPE BUILT-UP FLAT ROOF 1/4"/FT. SLOPE @ 228.60' PARAPET @ 239.10' PARAPET @ 237.77' PARAPET @ 237.77' PARAPET @ 228.10' PARAPET @ 238.27' 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A-1.2 SCALE: 1'-0" = 1/4" G1 G3 M1 G4 C1 C2 C3 L1 L3 L2 L4 L6 L8 M2 G2 L7 L9 L5 LIVABLE (L) LEGEND DECK/BALCONY (D) GARAGE (G) MECHANICAL (M) CIRCULATION/STORAGE [LIVABLE] (C) 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 FIRST FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A-1.3 SCALE: 1'-0" = 1/4" FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LIVABLE LIVABLE LOCATION SQ. FT. LOCATION SQ. FT. L1 1087.92 L1 710.28 L2 243.25 L2 338.99 L3 203.41 L3 256.58 L4 83.75 L4 175.65 L5 47.53 L5 48.72 L6 40.07 L6 29.16 L7 25.83 L7 12.94 L8 17.74 L9 1.75 TOTAL 1751.25 TOTAL 1572.32 CIRCULATION (LIVABLE) CIRCULATION (LIVABLE) LOCATION SQ.FT. LOCATION SQ. FT. C1 252.76 C1 94.79 C2 90.23 C2 4.65 C3 44.59 TOTAL TOTAL 99.44 GARAGE DECK/BALCONY LOCATION SQ. FT. LOCATION SQ. FT. G1 485.00 D1 163.33 G2 32.54 D2 121.52 G3 19.63 D3 113.93 G4 2.59 TOTAL 539.76 TOTAL 398.78 MECHANICAL LOCATION SQ. FT. M1 19.11 MECHANICAL M2 8.63 LOCATION SQ. FT. TOTAL 27.74 M1 15.35 TOTAL LIVABLE, 1ST 2138.83 TOTAL LIVABLE, 2ND 1671.76 TOTAL LIVABLE 3810.59 227.00' F.F. 227.00' F.F. 227.17' F.F. A-ROOF-SLOPE 9 Continuous Roof slope symbol 100% 0.178 C1 C2 M1 D1 D2 D3 L1 L2 L3 L7 L6 L5 L4 LIVABLE (L) LEGEND DECK/BALCONY (D) GARAGE (G) MECHANICAL (M) CIRCULATION/STORAGE [LIVABLE] (C) 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 SECOND FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A-1.4 SCALE: 1'-0" = 1/4" FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LIVABLE LIVABLE LOCATION SQ. FT. LOCATION SQ. FT. L1 1087.92 L1 710.28 L2 243.25 L2 338.99 L3 203.41 L3 256.58 L4 83.75 L4 175.65 L5 47.53 L5 48.72 L6 40.07 L6 29.16 L7 25.83 L7 12.94 L8 17.74 L9 1.75 TOTAL 1751.25 TOTAL 1572.32 CIRCULATION (LIVABLE) CIRCULATION (LIVABLE) LOCATION SQ.FT. LOCATION SQ. FT. C1 252.76 C1 94.79 C2 90.23 C2 4.65 C3 44.59 TOTAL TOTAL 99.44 GARAGE DECK/BALCONY LOCATION SQ. FT. LOCATION SQ. FT. G1 485.00 D1 163.33 G2 32.54 D2 121.52 G3 19.63 D3 113.93 G4 2.59 TOTAL 539.76 TOTAL 398.78 MECHANICAL LOCATION SQ. FT. M1 19.11 MECHANICAL M2 8.63 LOCATION SQ. FT. TOTAL 27.74 M1 15.35 TOTAL LIVABLE, 1ST 2138.83 TOTAL LIVABLE, 2ND 1671.76 TOTAL LIVABLE 3810.59 FYSB 20'-0"
17'-6" ABOVE

FRONT ELEVATION HEIGHT
22'-0" ABOVE
F.G. ELEVATION HEIGHT
29'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT 221.60'
PROPERTY LINE FRONT ELEVATION 217.50' F.G. 216.50' F.G. 14'-6"
ABOVE NATURAL GRADE 239.10'
17'-6" ABOVE
FRONT ELEVATION HEIGHT 239.10' 221.60' FYSB 20'-0"
23'-0" ABOVE
F.G. ELEVATION HEIGHT
29'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
PROPERTY LINE REAR ELEVATION 215.50' F.G. MULTI-SLIDE POCKETING DOORS - LA CANTINA, SHADOW BLACK, DUAL GLAZED ELEVATION NOTES DOORS AND WINDOWS - MARVIN, ULTIMATE, ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD, EBOBY SMOOTH FINISH STUCCO - BENJAMIN MOORE, OFF-WHITE COLLECTION, WHITE HERON, OC-57 123 4 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - HARDIE, ARCHITECTURAL COLLECTION, FINE SAND, BENJAMIN MOORE, CLASSIC COLORS, STAMPEDE, 979 56 789 GARAGE DOOR - STERLING, FLUSH PANEL, SLATE GRAY 10 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE - WAC LIGHTING, STAG, OUTDOOR LIGHTING WALL SCONCE, BLACK GLASS RAILING - COVER GLASS USA, CLEARLINE, FRAMELESS BASE SHOE SYTEM WITH NANORAIL TOP EDGE CAPPING DOUBLE-SIDED FIREPLACE - ACCUCRAFT FIREPLACE SYSTEMS, A-SS-5-10, SIGNATURE SERIES SMOOTH FINISH STUCCO - BENJAMIN MOORE, OFF-WHITE COLLECTION, CEDAR KEY, OC-16 11 FROSTED GLASS PRIVACY PANEL, 5'-0" HIGH EXTERIOR WALL TILES - DALTILE, DIPLOMACY, LIGHT GRAY, VARYING SIZES 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A-2.0 239.10'
23'-0" ABOVE
F.G. ELEVATION HEIGHT
29'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE RIGHT ELEVATION 221.60' 215.50' F.G.
23'-0" ABOVE
F.G. ELEVATION HEIGHT
29'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT SYSB 9'-4 3/4" SYSB 9'-4 3/4"

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE LEFT ELEVATION 239.10' 221.60' MULTI-SLIDE POCKETING DOORS - LA CANTINA, SHADOW BLACK, DUAL GLAZED ELEVATION NOTES DOORS AND WINDOWS - MARVIN, ULTIMATE, ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD, EBOBY SMOOTH FINISH STUCCO - BENJAMIN MOORE, OFF-WHITE COLLECTION, WHITE HERON, OC-57 123 4 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - HARDIE, ARCHITECTURAL COLLECTION, FINE SAND, BENJAMIN MOORE, CLASSIC COLORS, STAMPEDE, 979 56 789 GARAGE DOOR - STERLING, FLUSH PANEL, SLATE GRAY 10 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE - WAC LIGHTING, STAG, OUTDOOR LIGHTING WALL SCONCE, BLACK GLASS RAILING - COVER GLASS USA, CLEARLINE, FRAMELESS BASE SHOE SYTEM WITH NANORAIL TOP EDGE CAPPING DOUBLE-SIDED FIREPLACE - ACCUCRAFT FIREPLACE SYSTEMS, A-SS-5-10, SIGNATURE SERIES SMOOTH FINISH STUCCO - BENJAMIN MOORE, OFF-WHITE COLLECTION, CEDAR KEY, OC-16 11 FROSTED GLASS PRIVACY PANEL, 5'-0" HIGH EXTERIOR WALL TILES - DALTILE, DIPLOMACY, LIGHT GRAY, VARYING SIZES 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A-2.1 217.50' F.G. 216.50' F.G. FYSB 20'-0"
17'-6" ABOVE
FRONT ELEVATION HEIGHT RYSB 20'-0"
22'-0" ABOVE
F.G. ELEVATION HEIGHT 221.60'

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
14'-6"

ABOVE NATURAL GRADE
15'-0"
ABOVE NATURAL GRADE ADDITIONAL BLDG. SETBACK MAX. BLDG. HEIGHT 215.50' F.G. 17'-6" ABOVE
FRONT ELEVATION HEIGHT 221.60' RYSB 20'-0" FYSB 20'-0"
23'-0" ABOVE
F.G. ELEVATION HEIGHT
15'-0"

ABOVE NATURAL GRADE

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE ADDITIONAL BLDG. SETBACK MAX. BLDG. HEIGHT 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 ELEVATION BUILDING ENVELOPE A-2.2 137 of 821
138 of 821

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE 239.10' GREAT ROOM BEDROOM 2 COURTYARD SECTION A 221.60' 17'-6" ABOVE

FRONT ELEVATION HEIGHT FOYER DECK PRIMARY BEDROOM HALL
23'-0" ABOVE
F.G. ELEVATION HEIGHT
29'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
PROPERTY LINE FYSB 20'-0"
17'-6" ABOVE
FRONT ELEVATION HEIGHT 221.60' 239.10' SECTION B FOYER DEN/OFFICE GARAGE BA.2 LOFT 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 PROPOSED SECTIONS A-3.0 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 7, 2024 3D VIEWS A-4.0 WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION

KITCHEN
FOYER
PANTRY

DEN/OFFICE
PDR.

BEDROOM 4
BA. 4

COURTYARD
2-CAR GARAGE

GREAT ROOM

LAUNDRY
PORCH
BACK PORCH LIGHTING LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION MODEL NO.SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 22, 2024 NEW ASPHALT PAVING ENTRY COURT WITH STONE COLUMN WATER FEATURE SET IN COBBLE DECORATIVE COBBLE WALKWAY PRIVATE VIEW DECK, STONE PAVING OR PRECAST CONCRETE PAVERS LAWN FOR OUTDOOR EXERCISE(SEE PLANTING PLAN L-3) OUTDOOR LOUNGE AREA WITH DOUBLE-SIDED FIREPLACE AND CANTILEVERED WOOD DECK OUTDOOR DINING AREA WITH PREFAB BBQ COUNTER WALKABLE GROUND COVER(SEE PLANTING PLAN L-3) EXISTING TREE (BRACHYCHITON POPULNEUS) TO BE REMOVED FUEL MOD ZONE A FUEL MOD ZONE B SIGNIFICANT WATER BODY HARDSCAPE PLAN L-1 FUEL MOD ZONE B FUEL MOD ZONE C SIGNIFICANT WATER BODY SETBACK LINE VALIDO ROAD EXISTING TREE (RHUS LANCEA) TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TREE (MORUS ALBA) TO BE REMOVED EXISITNG TREE (MYRICA CERIFERA) TO BE REMOVED 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 22, 2024SITE CHARACTERIZATION KEY MAP FUEL MODIFICATION NOTES A AC D PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF UTILITY RELEASE ANNUAL INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE c D F B B EF E SITE CHARACTERIZATION/NOTES L-2 SITE PHOTOS CYP CYP S CPP CPPCPP MP MP MPMPMP MPMP MP BPBPBPBP PSPS PCN PCN S S MPMP MP CPP S CYP PL PL PL PL LS LS LS LS LS HH RPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP PH PH PH PH CK CK PT PT PT MP SSSS S MP MPMP MP CPP CPP CPP CKCKCKCKCKCK CKCKCKCKCK SS S SSSSS SS AA AA AA A PS PS PS PSPS PSPS PS PS BP BP BP BP BP HHHHHH PCN PCN PH LS LS CKCKCK PCN S S S WM WM WMWM BP LSLS LSLS LSLS LS LS LSLSLS LS LS LS HHHHHHHHH HH H LS PS BP BP BP LSLS LSLS LS LS LS LS BP BP PS S S PH LS LS SSS SS SS PCN PCN LSLSLSLSLS LS LS LSH H H H A A A SHRUB, VINE & GROUNDCOVER LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME "COMMON NAME" SIZE @ SPACING HT. X SPREAD SPECIMEN SHRUB LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME "COMMON NAME" SIZE @ SPACING HT. X SPREAD SLOPE PLANTING LEGEND 'MEADOW MIX' - SEED MIX FROM 'TREE OF LIFE NURSEY' SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME "COMMON NAME" HT. X SPREAD TREE LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME "COMMON NAME" SIZE HT. X SPREAD REMARKS 31526 VALIDO ROAD -September 22, 2025 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" ZONE MARKER, TYP. SEE DETAIL ABOVE PLANTING PLAN L-3 NOT TO SCALE CHO TEC 115 GAL. AGA ATT 215 GAL. WES WYN 215 GAL. LEP PET 124" BOX MET EXC 124" BOX CER FOR 224" BOX AGA ATT 215 GAL. AGA ATT 415 GAL. FUEL MOD ZONE A FUEL MOD ZONE B FUEL MOD ZONE B FUEL MOD ZONE C VALIDO ROAD

RECEIVED
09/22/2025

PLANNING DIVISION

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 22, 2024 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" IRRIGATION LEGEND NEW PLANTING IRRIGATION = 3,525 SQ FT SLOPE IRRIGATION = 4,223 SQ FT IRRIGATION PLAN L-4 FUEL MOD ZONE A FUEL MOD ZONE B FUEL MOD ZONE B FUEL MOD ZONE C VALIDO ROAD 31526 VALIDO ROAD -August 22, 2024 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" HARDSCAPE OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE PLAN L-5 LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE FUEL MOD ZONE A FUEL MOD ZONE B FUEL MOD ZONE B FUEL MOD ZONE C

VALIDO ROAD
JOB NO. SHEET
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2 9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6 w
w
w . t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G

L A N D S U R V E Y I N G

S T O R M
W

A T E R Q
U
A L I T YOF PREPARED FOR:

APVD. DATE R E V I S I O N S BY DATE APPD.: DATE: DWG. NO. H. SCALE: SURVEY DATE: V. SCALE: CHD.: DRN.: HONGBIN PENG STAT E
OF
CA

L I FORN I A

L ICENSED
LA
N
D
SURVEYO VIKTOR P.

RMEUM No. 8682 VIKTOR P. MEUM P.L.S. 8682 DATE: 1/8"=1' 10-19-22 - 11-10-22 MSF - VM 22236 1 1 TP-01
POR. SW1/4, NE1/4. S5, T8S, R8W, SBBM, APN 056-062-25
31526 VALIDO ROAD, LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY BENCHMARK NOTE: OCSBM 3P-19-68 ELEV=120.364 NAVD88 DATUM, 2004 ADJ. EASEMENT NOTE: PER A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, ORDER NO. O-SA-6859053 DATED JUNE 9, 2022, THERE ARE NO PLOTTABLE EASEMENTS IN SCHEDULE B. A PARCEL 2 OF THE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT IS A 25' WIDE EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPEARS TO HAVE OMITTED SEVERAL COURSES. THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE EASEMENT HAS BEEN PLOTTED HEREON. SCALE: 1/8"=1'

SECTION

SECTION
1 3 9 A v e n i d a N a v a r r o S a n C l e m e n t e , C A 9 2 6 7 2 9 4 9 . 4 9 2 . 8 5 8 6 w w w . t o a l e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G

L A N D S U R V E Y I N G

S T O R M W A T E R Q U A L I T Y
DETAIL

ROLLED CURB
LEGEND
BENCHMARK NOTE:

OCSBM 3P-19-68
ELEV=120.364
NAVD88 DATUM, 2004 ADJ.

EASEMENT NOTE:

PER A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, ORDER NO. O-SA-6859053 DATED JUNE 9, 2022, THERE ARE NO PLOTTABLE EASEMENTS IN SCHEDULE B.

A PARCEL 2 OF THE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT IS A 25' WIDE EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPEARS TO HAVE OMITTED SEVERAL COURSES. THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE EASEMENT HAS BEEN PLOTTED HEREON.
147 of 821
September 19, 2024
Mr. David Contreras and staff
Community Development Department
City of Laguna Beach
RE: 31526 Valido Road
Today I noticed posting for a DRB hearing on September 26 for a new house to be built at the above address. The notice didn’t mention anything about the historic status of this house and property.

The project file on the city’s website used to note that the house was built in 1910, but couldn’t see that notation when I looked at the file today. That notation led me to believe that surely staff would notice the date and require a historic resources report. In any case there is also the attached letter from the South Laguna Civic Association in 2022 alerting the staff and any potential buyers of the historic status of this property.

The house dates from at least 1910 since it is the house built by William and Bertie Egan in conjunction with establishing their 40-acre homestead on the property which was filed in 1910. They were active on the property before that filing. Thus the house is the oldest house in South Laguna, and possibly the last remaining homestead house in the city of Laguna Beach. It is truly historically significant.

Sincerely,
Ann Christoph
Landscape Architect FASLA
Attachment 6
148
148 of 821
From: Greg O'Loughlin [email protected]
Subject: Egan Homestead House in South Laguna For Sale
Date: July 24, 2022 at 8:21 PM
To: Marc CD Wiener [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Memo re: 31526 Valido Road
It has come to the attention of the South Laguna Civic Association that the above property is on the market for sale. In the process of researching and preparing a history of South Laguna we have become aware of the historical significance of the property. The file at the City on this residence says that it was built in 1910 but that doesn’t tell the whole story. This house is the oldest house in South Laguna and the last known surviving homesteader’s house in the city of Laguna Beach. Laguna Beach south of Broadway was granted by the Federal Government to various pioneers under several homestead acts. The earliest was the Thurston homestead begun in 1871 in nearby Aliso Canyon. The Egan homestead of 40 acres was filed in 1910 with the papers signed by President William Howard Taft. The 40 acres today includes the site of the South Coast Water District reservoir, and the subdivision including the streets Paso del Sur, Valido, Toto Loma and Rico Roads. In the early 1900s it was a farm where the Egan family and Uncle James Shrewsbury dry farmed beans and melons. The Egan home on the property was where William and Bertie Egan raised their two daughters, Frances Egan Chatham and Esther Egan Hind. We have an extensive collection of photographs of the family and house over the years. We are attaching a few of them. The house was overlooked in the historical inventory of 1981, perhaps because of its almost hidden location at the end of a driveway. Clearly it qualifies as a historic resource of statewide significance that merits preservation.

Please place this information in the property file so that potential purchasers will be aware of the historic significance of the property and so the sta` can inform them of the potential benefits of historic preservation.

Sincerely,
Greg O’Loughlin
President
1-949-212-1417
cc: Erin Sullivan
Reliance Real Estate Services
2226 N State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92831 (714) 255-1554 149
149 of 821
Laguna Beach Historic Preservation Coalition
[email protected]
September 15, 2025
Heather Steven
City of Laguna Beach
via email [email protected]
RE: 31526 Valido Road
Dear Heather,
Thank you for sharing the reports well in advance of the DRB meeting on the Egan Homestead at 31526 Valido. Doing so makes it less likely that there will be last minute surprises for anyone.

We write to inquire about the status of follow-up research on the Egan property in light of GPA’s (and even Chronicle’s, for that matter) assertion that there was insufficient information in HRG’s report to support the conclusion that the property is eligible for the National Register and California Register under Criterion 1.

Importantly, GPA’s peer review of HRG’s report does not argue that the property is ineligible for the National or California Registers. Rather, it notes that HRG needs more research to support its conclusion of eligibility. Specifically, HRG’s historic context was rather broad, and the Report did not develop an adequate "comparative framework," which would include evaluating the Egan Homestead against other like properties per National Register Bulletin 15 (please note, however, the quotation that GPA assigns to that document—“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’"—is nowhere to be found in Bulletin 15.) The problems GPA identifies are remediable, especially as the number of extant homestead buildings in California is vanishingly small. Has HRG been asked to revise its Report to provide the “comparative framework” GPA was looking for? Thank you.

Sincerely,
Nelda Stone
Laguna Beach Historic Preservation Coalition
150
150 of 821
151
151 of 821
152
152 of 821
153
153 of 821
154
154 of 821
155
155 of 821
ii
Dedicated to all the people
who value their community
and
cherish its culture and history.
____________________
“There is a lot we can learn from the past.”
-=Deborah Burnham Allen
156
156 of 821
iii
Table of Contents
Part One: The Valido House: Story of the Egan Homestead o Preface
o Homesteading 2
o The Egan House Chronology 6
o Outbuildings 7
o Groundwater and the Terrain 8
o Egan Homestead (plat map) 9
o The “Early Comers” 10
o The Egan Household 11
o The Road into Town 12
o ConnecIng to the Outside World 13
o The Homestead Patent 14
Part Two: The Family That Built It
o About the Homesteaders 17
o William Frederick Egan 17
o Alberta Ethel McCoy (BerIe) 21
o James Milton Shrewsbury 27
o Mary Frances Shrewsbury Beach 30
o Frances Norma Egan Chatham 34
o Esther Willfred Egan Hind 38
o Three Wishes 42
157
157 of 821
iv
Acknowledgements 43
Appendices 44
A. “Memories” Document in the FamilySearch Library
from Deborrah Burnham Allen 45

B. Family History Profiles
(from Egan tree built by Lee Hanson on Ancemtry.com)

1. William F. Egan Profile 61

2. Alberta (BerIe) McCoy Egan Profile 65

3. James M. Shrewsbury Profile 68

4. Mary Shrewsbury Beach Profile 70

5. Frances Egan 73

6. Esther Egan 76
C. Towns That Disappeared 79
Spadra Cemetery 83
Ranchos of Pomona Valley 84
D. Homesteading Act (1862) 86
United State of America Record of Patents 89
Case Files (NaIonal Archives)* 90
E. Credits (incomplete) 93
* The Case Files for Will Egan and for Jim Shrewsbury
have been ordered but have not yet arrived.
158
158 of 821
159
159 of 821
160
160 of 821
161
161 of 821
162
162 of 821
163
163 of 821
164
164 of 821
165
165 of 821
166
166 of 821
167
167 of 821
168
168 of 821
10 The “Early Comers”
The Egans were not the first to homestead in the Aliso area. The family of George and Sarah Thurston made their claim to the Aliso Canyon area in 1871. Their arrival marked an important event: they were the first permanent seDlers in Laguna (the Egans were merely “among the first”). The Thurstons and the Egans were to become neighbors of a sort: by 1910, their homesteads (separated by a canyon ridge) shared a border.5 The Thurston family had come from Utah to San Francisco by rail, from there taking a boat to San Diego. The boat carried not only the members of the Thurston family but also a wagon. When they reached San Diego, George Thurston purchased two horses to pull the wagon to Tus6n where they camped for a month—trying to find government land available for homesteading. Joe Thuston (George and Sarah’s oldest son) wrote the story of his family6 and described how his father accidentally heard about the land (152 acres) in Aliso Canyon: Eugene Salter had filed the first claim but abandoned it a couple years later. AEer searching for nine months, George Thurston’s funds were low. Although not the expansive government property that had originally expected, he quickly decided to move his family into the dilapidated cabin.

The dirt road from Tus6n to Aliso Canyon meandered through sand, mustard stalks, cactus, and the poisonous fiddleneck plant. It took more than a day for the new seDlers to reach their new home. When they finally arrived, the eight members7 of the Thurston family found a one-room shack (without doors) that had been used as a sheep camp.

This shack was the required size for homesteading (12’ by 14’) but was also a nesting place for snakes. During the first days after their arrival, George Thurston killed a rattler, five feet long.8
After clearing out the snakes, the Thurstons placed a tent in front of the shed (they had brought enough wood for the tent’s flooring). Later, they built a barn and a room in front of the tent. This time, lumber was brought in from Newport.

George’s son “Joe” was just three years old when he arrived with his family in South Laguna. He eventually took over the homestead (after George Thurston deserted the family) and became a successful farmer. For several years, he and his family sold their crops, using a horse-drawn wagon to deliver and sell produce to the residents and tourists in both North and South Laguna.
5 The Thurston homestead (patented in 1875) was the first in the area; the land was north of the Egan homestead (patented in 1910). The southern border of the Thurstan property was the northern border of the Egan homestead. 6 Joseph Thuston's book: Laguna Beach of Early Days, self-published in 1947. 7 Sarah Thurston went on to have seven more children, bringing the total to fi]een. 8 For people interested in the struggles of sePlers in South Laguna, Laguna Beach of Early Days by Joseph Thurston (“Pioneer Resident”) takes a close look at the struggles that faced the Laguna homesteaders. 169
169 of 821
170
170 of 821
171
171 of 821
172
172 of 821
173
173 of 821
174
174 of 821
175
175 of 821
176
176 of 821
177
177 of 821
178
178 of 821
179
179 of 821
21 Alberta Ethel McCoy (Ber/e) was born in 1873 in what is now West Virginia.

Ber8e’s mother died at the young age of thirty-two–-leaving her baby daughter motherless when only a year old. Samuel Graves McCoy (Ber8e’s father) became the single parent for his daughter and his older son Colin. His health problems apparently made it difficult for him to care for his children.

The 1860 Census records show that Sam McCoy was a “teaching painter,” living at home.

By the 8me the 1870 census rolled around, he was married, had a son, and was a telegraph operator. Three years later, Alberta McCoy was born (and Sam’s wife died).

By 1880, when he was forty-one, Sam McCoy is shown as a silversmith—"maimed, crippled, or bedridden.” The census says that he was married, but there is no wife shown in the household (only his son Colin and his daughter Ber8e). He seems to disappear from all records. What happened to Sam McCoy then and aher 1880 is unknown.1 What happened to his daughter is even more of a mystery. Albera McCoy (age 7 in the 1880 census) seems to have leh no paper trail for nearly thirty years. Ber8e’s marriage cer8ficate, dated 1909, states that both the bride and groom are Spadra residents. How Ber8e got there is a bit puzzling, but it’s likely that it was through family connec8ons.

Ber$e and her husband (William F. Egan) were related.

Lijlebury Shrewsbury and his wife Nancy McCoy were ancestors to both Will Egan and Ber8e McCoy.

Lijlebury was married to Nancy Ann McCoy--Ber8e’s father’s sister.

Lijlebury and Nancy were parents to Jane (Jennie) Shrewsbury—William’s mother.

From the informa8on in the box above, a possible answer could be that at some point someone in Lijlebury’s family (possibly his widow, Nancy McCoy, or maybe his daughter, the Widow Mary Beach) brought Ber8e into her home, placing the orphan in Spadra (where William F. Egan was living in 1890s-1900s).

1 Find-A-Grave had 1880 as the date Ber4e’s father died; a correc4on was made a<er finding the informa4on about Samuel Graves McCoy and his two children in the 1880 census. 180
180 of 821
181
181 of 821
182
182 of 821
183
183 of 821
184
184 of 821
185
185 of 821
186
186 of 821
187
187 of 821
188
188 of 821
189
189 of 821
190
190 of 821
191
191 of 821
192
192 of 821
34 Frances Norma Egan (Will and Bertie’s eldest daughter, b. 20 June 1910) Frances (or “Buddy” as she was called by her family) was born the year that her parents received the deed for their homestead; all provisions had been met and they were the owners of the 40 acres they had worked so diligently to tame. Both events—the birth of their first child and the final acquisition of their homestead—were to be celebrated.

Rather than trying to have the baby at home, Bertie spent the last months of her pregnancy In Spadra where she not only would have a doctor available, but she would have the company of the woman who had been a witness at her wedding—“Grandma” Mary Beach. The 1880 Census (taken in April) shows that Will and Bertie were living in Spadra at the time, and Mary Beach was next door. Since Buddy was born in June, it’s likely that Will had to spend considerable time farming back at the South Laguna homestead; he undoubtedly raced back to Spadra to meet his new daughter, leaving James Shrewsbury to oversee work on the fields back at the homestead.1 Little is recorded for Buddy’s first two years.

Life would have been fairly primitive at the
South Laguna farm; it’s possible that she and
her mother spent the majority of time in the
more stable (and much more agreeable)
environment in Spadra. She was certainly
there in 1912 when her sister Esther was born.

However, as Esther reported in her index
cards: the two sisters “had our first Christmas
in our home in South Laguna with our
Christmas stockings hung on the fireplace that
our father had so lovingly built for his bride in
1909.”
Earliest known photograph of Esther (left)
and Frances (right) Egan.
1 There is no Census record for James Shrewsbury in the year 1910; with so few people living in South Laguna, it’s possible that the census taker didn’t reach the handful living on the hundreds of acres in the process of being homesteaded.
193
193 of 821
35 There are several photographs of the Egan sisters. Until they married, the two were shown together—usually at the Egan Homestead. With so few other families living nearby, the girls became playmates and formed a bond that lasted a lifetime.

Esther Egan (Frances’ younger sister) documented several of the activities that they girls shared as they grew up.

In the 1920 Census (when Frances was nine years old) the household included her “baby sister” (Esther age 7) as well as her parents and Samuel Swenson (a “hired man”). The family was living in Laguna Beach. The street given in the Census was “Coast Boulevard,” Mary Beach (“head” of her household) was living in a “dwelling” next to the Egans.

Here is one of the Sisters’ shared memories:
…we moved back to our ranch in Spadra and
entered Spadra Grammar school in 3rd and 4th
grades, returning to South Laguna when we
were freshmen.

In 1925, the sisters both graduated from their
elementary school in Spadra (after graduation
the family moved back to South Laguna to
attend high school). Although the “largest to
date at Spadra School,” there were only five
students in the class.

South Laguna and
Laguna Beach
students were forced to attend Tustin High School located over 20 miles away; access was by bus. Laguna Beach did not have its own high school until 1934—too late for the Egan daughters.
(Buddy and I) entered Tustin High School; a long bus
ride—We had to go to Laguna each day to catch that
mad ride.
194
194 of 821
36 In the 1940 Census, the home
where the family was living
was listed as being on
“Catalina.” In both years (1930
and 1940), Frances was listed
as a daughter, living at home.

The 1930 census was taken in
May, so William F. Egan was
still “head of household” (he
died in December of 1930).

Frances at the Homestead
Frances was 29 years old when the 1940 census was taken. She was still living at home, not attending school but working as a “salesman.” Her mother, Bertie, was now head of household.

There was a carpenter (K W. Thompson) who was identified as a boarder, living at the house in 1940; he apparently worked at Howard Hind‘s contractor business.

Howard Hind (Buddy’s brother-in-law) was self-employed, living next door with his wife Esther (Frances’ sister) and their one-year old daughter Nancy. Bertie found it comforting to have her two daughters living near.
…Mother found joy in our living so close.

Two years later, Frances married Lesley Chatham, a young man who worked as a salesman in his father’s real estate company. Leslie enlisted in the Army in 26th of October, 1942; Frances and Leslie married on October 29. The couple were stationed overseas for several months when (in April 1944) Lesley advanced to the rank of Sergeant with the Army Air Corps. By 1950, Lesley and Frances were once again living in Laguna Beach (Lesley was working as a real estate salesman).

The couple lived in Laguna Beach for over twenty years, later (after Bertie died) they moved a few blocks north (to McAuley Place).
195
195 of 821
37 Frances was residing in Mesa Arizona at the time of her death on August 8, 1996. She is buried next to her husband at the in Santa Ana, California. Her tombstone reads:
“Beloved Sister” Frances E. Chatham
June 2, 1914 – August 8, 1996

Beloved Sisters:

Frances (left) & Esther (right)
196
196 of 821
38 Esther Willfred Egan (Will and Bertie’s youngest daughter, b. 29 January 1912) Deborrah Burnham Allen was Esther’s granddaughter and she is the person responsible for the quotes throughout this story! it is her “Memories” that sparked this project, and her interest in family history that has brought the Egan story to life. Thanks to Deborrah (and Esther Egan’s notecards), we will know much more about the person – the insight and memories of Esther Egan Hind.

The “facts” of Esther’s life—where she was living and what she was doing—parallel her sister’s (at least in the early years). The “Memories” will provide a rich layer for the later years, allowing Esther seem more real than mere records can do.

When the highway was opened from Capistrano to Laguna, they had a big celebration contest, and I got to be one of four princesses.

The section of Coast
Highway between
Capistrano and Laguna
Beach opened in 1926.

As part of the
celebration, a
“highway queen” and
her court were
selected.

Teenager Esther Egan
is the “princess” on
the far right.

Esther was to marry
Russ Hind; she first
noticed him at church.
…Russ was sitting on the church steps and a group of kids were standing around him, looking at something he was holding in his hands. They were his medals from track. One day at church I saw Russ showing medals. Looked good to me. 197
197 of 821
39 In Sunday School, Esther’s sister (Frances) noticed that Russ always sat right next to Esther and, when they were singing, he would nudge her elbow off the edge of the chair, just to annoy her.
...Our romance began, and in June 1935 and during the year before our wedding, we built our home on West and Catalina on a half-acre from my parents. …After six years of going together our wedding
was in our much-loved Presbyterian Church and
we honeymooned at Lake Arrowhead in the
home of the Thurstons (their wedding gift to
us).

The Register, (June 27, 1935): A romance which had
its inception some five or six years ago on the
campus of the Tustin Union High School was brought
to a happy ending Tuesday evening when Miss
Esther Egan, daughter of Mrs. Wm. F. Egan of South
Laguna, became the pride of Russell Hind,
prominent young business man, in an elaborate
church ceremony held at the Community
Presbyterian Church, the Rev. Raymond I. Brahms,
officiating …”
The wedding was held on Saturday, the 25th of June. Esther wrote:
…I wore a beautiful Agate heart Pendant. This was a gift from Daddy to my Mother on their wedding day. He had found it on the beach below our house and had it shaped into a heart. Our daughter Nancy wore it on her wedding day and then our Debbie on her day.

The bride and groom received a two important
gifts on their wedding day. One, a painting of the
Egan homestead (artist Lee Hayes) where Esther
had grown up, and the second gift, “several acres
on the home place” from Bertie Egan where
Esther and Russ could build a home.
198
198 of 821
40 Russ and Esther Hind were parents of four children: Nancy, Carl, Marge, and Edwin.

Nancy Ann Hind (the eldest) was the mother of Debborah Lyn Burnham (the originator of “Family Heroes” in “Memories”).

In addition to raising a family, Esther Hind worked with her husband, supporting his business.
…My Grandma Esther was remarkable in so many ways. She worked side by side next to my grandfather in their jewelry shop, Russ Hind Jewelry2, for many years and designed and decorated their windows there and at the Festival every summer. …In her lifetime she took care of her mother, her sister, Grandpa’s father for a brief time in their home, and Grandpa Russ. I always marveled at the way she took care of my grandfather. Every day a crisp ironed shirt and dressed like he was going somewhere special. His meals were lovingly prepared and carefully placed on a tray for him to enjoy in front of the TV. Her attention to details was impressive and her love and devotion to him was overwhelming, and he could somedays be a little grumpy about how he wanted things done. 1996 was a particularly hard year for Esther: she lost her husband on May 16, and her sister Frances on August 8.
.

Deborrah mentions many things in “Memories” about her grandmother Esther; here are some of her thoughts that I found particularly touching:
…One of my favorite things to do with my grandmother3 when I would visit Laguna was when we sat on the floor of her living room where her cedar chest sat and grandma would open the hand-carved, redwood cedar chest that my grandfather made for her as an engagement gift. The musty, cedar smell as she lifted the lid made me excited to look at the special treasures that were safely tucked inside.

Several old dolls, certificates, special linens and a sailor bathing suit from the early days that covered her from the neck to the ankles, baby blankets and booties also were housed in this special treasure box. Glass pieces were carefully wrapped, along with empty perfume bottles and a special teacup.
…She spent her life baking thousands of cookies and the December before she died had signed up to make 10 dozen cookies for her Presbyterian Church in Gilbert. I remember her calling one afternoon, getting close to Christmas in a 2 Russ Hind Jewelry, 1273 S. Coast Highway in Laguna Beach—has been in the same location for 32 years. 3 Esther Egan Hind.
199
199 of 821
41 panic because she had not taken her age of 88 or her health into consideration when she had signed up to bake the cookies and now the deadline was looming, and she wondered if I would be able to help her. It was a privilege for me to assist in baking the cookies and as I look back over 21 years it was probably the last time that grandma would donate cookies.
…A few years after her death, I started “Baking Day With Grandma,” a yearly cookie baking activity with my own grandchildren that continues to this day. My thought was to honor a grandmother who had made my life so special. …When I think of one word that might describe my Grandmother Esther, many come to mind; Selfless, Humble, Creative, Honest, Devoted, Kind, Thoughtful, Magic, Baker, World Class Cook, Compassionate, Generous, Faith driven, Hopeful, patient, charitable, and filled with wonder and love. These are all characteristics of the Savior (except for Baker and World Class Cook) I hope that when it comes to the end of my life that I might have some of these same attributes. …My grandmother was all about making memories, although I don’t really think that was her ultimate goal. She just made us feel like she wanted to spend time with us. She just always wanted to be there for her grandchildren, everything she planned when we made a visit was magical. From grilled cheese sandwiches and milk shakes to picnics on the beach to visiting the glass blower at the Pottery Shack, looking for a new blown glass creation, grandma lived a life only dreams are made of, and I was lucky that she included me as a participant. My Grandma taught me to be a Grandma, and she was the BEST!!!!
Esther Willfred Egan Hind died on
31 May 2001 in Mesa Arizona
200
200 of 821
42 201
201 of 821
202
202 of 821
203
203 of 821
204
204 of 821
205
205 of 821
206
206 of 821
207
207 of 821
208
208 of 821
209
209 of 821
210
210 of 821
211
211 of 821
212
212 of 821
213
213 of 821
214
214 of 821
215
215 of 821
216
216 of 821
217
217 of 821
218
218 of 821
219
219 of 821
220
220 of 821
221
221 of 821
222
222 of 821
223
223 of 821
224
224 of 821
225
225 of 821
226
226 of 821
227
227 of 821
2 Ordinance, which requires that properties be either formally listed, eligible for listing, or voluntarily nominated by the property owner.” (Attachment 7, page 8). As a result, the project site is not considered a historic resource.”
I am available in advance of this week’s meeting should you have any questions.

Best,
Steve
228
228 of 821
229
230
230 of 821
231
231 of 821
232
232 of 821
233
233 of 821
234
234 of 821
235
235 of 821
236
236 of 821
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 1 - Meeting of September 25, 2025

THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH

DRAFT MINUTES

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

REGULAR MEETING AND NOTICED HEARING
September 25, 2025
A regular noticed meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach, California held on September 25, 2025.

Present: Chair Tom Gibbs, Chair Pro Tem Jessica Gannon, Board Member Weil*, Board Member MJ Coveny, and Board Member Imer Bauta
*Remote: Board Member Weil participated remotely from:
17311 W. Glendale Avenue
Waddell, AZ 85355
This location was duly noticed and open to the public. No member of the public was present at the remote location.

Staff Present: Bill Rodrigues, Planning Manager
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
Heather Steven, Senior Planner
Nancy Balmer-Csira, Planner
Kate Kazama, Associate Planner
Sarah Olsen, Assistant Planner
Isidoro Serna, Planning Technician
Paola Miller, Senior Office Specialist

1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 5:00 p.m.

2. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - None

3. MODIFICATION OF AGENDA ORDER – None

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

4.1 MINUTES APPROVED
Approval of the minutes for the Design Review Board/Board of Adjustment meeting on July 24, 2025 and August 14, 2025.

The Chair asked if any members of the public wished to speak on Consent Calendar Items 4.1 and 4.2. No members of the public wished to speak.

The Chair asked if there were any comments or deliberations amongst Board Members.

There being none, Chair Pro Tem Gannon made a motion, seconded by Board Member Attachment 7
237
237 of 821
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 11 - Meeting of September 25, 2025 Public Testimony: Sally Magill, resident, supports the project.

Brian Gianesin, a neighbor, expressed concerns regarding view equity, the project’s compatibility with the neighborhood, and requested the project be downsized.

Helmut Reiss, father of Frank Fassero Reiss, the owner, expressed support for the project.

Rebuttal: Denise Xagorarakis, the architect, thanked staff and noted that the project had been staked early and met with the neighbors.

Board Questions: Pro Tem Gannon asked why the applicants were required to meet the 20-foot setback. The staff replied that a reduced setback would be permitted only if the site changed elevation by 10 feet within 40 feet of the curb, which this property did not.

The Chair closed the public hearing.

Board Comments: Board Member Weil supported the project and recommended adjusting the corner to maintain view equity for the neighbor.

Board Member Coveny supported the design articulation and noted no view equity issues if the corridor were opened.

Pro Tem Gannon has concerns with view equity.

Chair Gibbs stated he had view equity concerns, found the project incompatible with the neighborhood, and did not support the project.

Board Member Bauta had view equity concerns and would like to revisit the project.

Discussion ensued regarding mass and scale.

Chair Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Pro Tem Gannon to continue item 5.8 at 1425 Morningside Drive to December 11, 2025.

Motion TG Second JG Action CONTINUE TO DECEMER 11, 2025.

Bauta __Y__ Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ The Design Review Board took a break at 7:05 p.m.

The Design Review Board reconvened at 7:12 p.m.

5.9. 31526 Valido Road | APN: 056-062-25
Design Review 24-0658
238
238 of 821
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 12 - Meeting of September 25, 2025 Coastal Development Permit 24-0657
Applicant: LCRA Architects, Architect 626-449-9698 [email protected] City Staff: Heather Steven, Senior Planner (949) 497-0332 [email protected]
The proposed project is to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new two-story single-family residence with an attached, two car garage, elevated decks, grading, and landscaping.

Disclosures: Pro Tem Gannon conducted a site visit, spoke with Ann Christoph, and corresponded with Steve Kawaratani.

Board Member Coveny had a site visit and met with the neighbor Mr. Chamberlain.

Board Member Bauta had a site visit, met with the neighbors to the east, and spoke with Ann Christoph.

Board Member Weil went to the site and spoke with Ann Christoph, Steve Kawaratani and the neighbors.

Chair Gibbs met with Architect Adele Chang, Jeff Chamberlain, and another neighbor, and spoke with Ann Christoph.

Staff Presentation: Heather Steven, Senior Planner, provided a brief description of the project and staff’s recommendation.

Board Questions: None
The Chair opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Adele Chang, Architect, presented the project with a visual presentation and outlined the changes made.

Public Testimony Ruben Flores expressed concern about losing historic structures in Laguna Beach and urged the Board to preserve them.

Diane Leemon, a neighbor, expressed concern about the potential loss of significant ocean views, privacy, and property value, and urged preservation of the historic property.

Neighbor Jeff Chamberlain expressed concern the project would affect privacy and requested reconsideration of the plans.

Ann Christoph, representing herself and the South Laguna Civic Association, urged preservation of the historic property and requested reconsideration of documentation 239
239 of 821
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 13 - Meeting of September 25, 2025 requirements.

Cathy Jurka requested the Board deny demolition and allow the applicant to submit a rehabilitation proposal.

Nelda Stone, resident, stated she was not in favor of the proposed project involving demolition of the existing residence.

Lisa Bosnick supports the project.

Rebuttal: Richard McDonald, attorney, commenting on the historic details and independent report.

Board Questions: Board Member Bauta inquired about funding for the reports. Staff stated the City had paid for the HRG and GPA reports, and the applicant had paid for the Chronicle report.

Board Member Coveny asked why additional detail had not been requested. Staff explained that following HRG’s peer review of the Chronicle report, GPA had been retained to provide an independent evaluation of all four documents.

Discussion ensued regarding the historic property.

Chair Gibbs asked the architect about a landscape solution to address privacy issues with the neighbor’s house. The architect agreed to work with staff on it.

The Chair closed the public hearing.

Board Comments: Chair Gibbs stated that, although there was ample information indicating the Egan House is historic, he questioned whether it is protectable as a homestead.

Chair Gibbs stated he could support the project on the condition the staff work with the applicant to implement a landscaping solution to protect the neighbors’ privacy.

Board Member Bauta stated as one of the last original homestead homes, the property was important to preserve and demonstrated historical significance and does not support the project.

Board Member Coveny agreed with Chair Gibbs and, therefore, could not support a historical designation. Coveny could support the proposed landscape additions to ensure view equity.

Pro Tem Gannon concurs with Chair Gibbs and Board Member Coveny.

Board Member Weil and agrees with Board Members Gibbs, Gannon and Coveny. 240
240 of 821
Minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 14 - Meeting of September 25, 2025 Chair Gibbs continued the discussion regarding the possibility of saving any historical elements on the property.

Chair Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Board Member Weil to adopt Resolution 24- 0658 approving Design Review 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657 for property located at 31526 Valido Road and found said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, with conditions to include additional landscaping to provide privacy for the lower second bedroom at 31551 Toto Loma Lane. In event that a solution could not be reached, the plan would be returned to the Design Review Board.

Motion TG Second LW Action APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.

Bauta __N__ Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___ Weil ___Y___

6. OTHER BUSINESS - None

7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gibbs at 8:31 p.m., Thursday, September 25, 2025, adjourned the meeting to the next regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board to be held at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 9, 2025, in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California.

Approved on September 25, 2025
Thomas Gibbs, Chair
Attest
Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Planning Manager
241
241 of 821
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com

Page 1 of 29 ends

Laguna Beach City CouncilMay 13, 2026

Laguna Beach City Council
May 13, 2026