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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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:
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 43 -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:
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 44 -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:
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 45 -9- Reso. #
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 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 -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 -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:
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. 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 -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
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.)
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for Appeal 2 stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:
49 -13- Reso. #
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
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.) 50 -14- Reso. #
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]).
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 -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.
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 52 -16- Reso. #
Heritage did not.
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 -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 -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 -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 -20- Reso. #
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.
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 -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).
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 58 -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.
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 onsite 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 59 -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.).
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.
Staff’s Response
60 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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.
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 68 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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.
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.
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 -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 -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 -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 -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