This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
September 25, 2025, DRB Meeting, Item 5.9
Thomas Gibbs:
The next item we have... Okay, the next item we have is agenda item 5.9 for 31526 Valido Road. Design Review 24-0658, Coastal Development Permit 24-0657. Ex parte, please.
Jessica Gannon:
Chair, I had a site visit and spoke with Ann Christoph. Oh, and correspondence with Steve Kawaratani.
MJ Coveny:
I had a site visit and met with the neighbor, Mr. Chamberlain.
Imer Bauta:
I had a site visit and met with both neighbors to the east and spoke with Ann Christoph.
Thomas Gibbs:
Louis. Did we lose him?
Patrick Donegan:
He may have been due to the time delay or the recess.
Thomas Gibbs:
The break?
Patrick Donegan:
He may have lost track of time.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, let me do my ex parte and then we'll wait for Louis. My ex parte was, I met with the architect, Adele Chang, and then I met with Jeff Chamberlain uphill and then the other neighbor joining him. I met with and I spoke to Ann Christoph. Louis.
Louis Weil:
I'm here.
Thomas Gibbs:
Good. Ex parte on item 5.9.
Louis Weil:
Hang on one second. I got to get to my notes. Went to the site, spoke with Ann Christoph and the neighbors that were up on Toto Loma.
Thomas Gibbs:
Attachment 8
242
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
All righty.
Louis Weil:
Spoke with Steve Kawaratani as well.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, very good. Heather, you're up.
Heather Steven:
Thank you. Good evening, Chair Gibbs and DRB members. I'm Heather Steven, Senior Planner. So item
5.9, the applicant is requesting design review and a coastal development permit approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and detached garage and construct a new two-story 3,811 square foot single-family residence with elevated decks and a two-car garage, one uncovered parking space, site grading to accommodate the home's footprint and driveway and new landscaping. Next slide. Next slide.
Paola Miller:
Sorry, I'm having technical difficulties.
Heather Steven:
There you go. Thank you. I appreciate it. 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 water course setback.
Next slide. The project was first heard on July 11th, 2024. With the applicant's consent, the design review board continued the project to September 26th, 2024 to allow the applicant to incorporate the board's design direction. Prior to the September 26th meeting, the Community Development Department received a letter stating the existing dwelling and the subject property were potentially historically significant. A copy of the letter is included as Attachment 12. On December 26th, staff requested continuance to the November 14th DRB meeting to allow for further evaluation of the property. An additional continuance was requested to December 12th and the project was tabled at that meeting. So this will be the second substantive hearing for this project. Next slide.
I'll begin my presentation with a review of the proposed project and the applicant's request. An overview of the evaluation of the potential historicity of the property will follow. A detailed discussion of the historic resource evaluations conducted is provided in the staff report beginning on page five. As stated, when the project was reviewed on July 11th, 2024, the Board provided direction for revisions to the project design. In response to the Board's comments, the following revisions, thank you. The following revisions have been made. Previous slide please. Thank you. The structure was rotated approximately 15 degrees and it's shown here, highlighted in blue. The previous proposal is shown on the site plan with a red dashed line. A third covered tandem parking space was removed from the plan.
A proposed uncovered parking space is shown outlined in a solid blue line toward the top of the site plan. Next slide.
The upper level area over the garage was pulled back and additional materials, textures and colors were added at each elevation. Next slide. Frosted privacy glass was added to bathroom number four. The proposed deck between bathroom two and three was removed. The 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 the proposed landscaping height and width is specified on the landscape plan. Additional revisions 243
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
have been made to the landscape plan at the neighbor's request, which includes adding two redbud trees at the southwest corner of the site to be maintained at a height of 15 feet. The existing hedge will be maintained at a height of eight feet. The conditions of approval have been revised to specify these height limitations. Based on these revisions, the Board should determine whether the privacy and view equity criteria have been met with the current design. Next slide.
So this property is located on the remaining portion of an original 40 acre land grant. The land was granted to William F. Egan through the Homestead Act in 1910. The existing residence was constructed beginning in 1909 and built out in 1928. The historic consultant's assessment has stated that the period of significance is circa 1909 to 1928, which has been established, 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.
A portion of the original 40 acre property was sold to the South Coast Water District in 1937 and 1944 as a water reservoir. On June 21st, 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. Next slide.
As previously stated on September 19th, the Community Development Department received a letter stating 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 Laguna Beach.
Again, a copy of that letter of a letter from the South Laguna Civic Association from 2022 regarding the potential historic significance of the property was also provided with that letter. Next slide. 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 and/or the California Register of Historic Resources or whether it is a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act. Next slide.
A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance and retain enough of its historic character or appearance or integrity to be recognizable as a historic resource and to convey the reason for its significance. Next slide. The criteria for the California Register are one, 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. Or number two, that it's associated with the lives of persons important to local California or national history. Three, it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. Or four, it has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. Next slide.
Historic resource assessments were prepared for the property by two qualified historic consultants.
Historic Resources Group retained by the Community Development Department and Chronicle Heritage retained by the applicant to evaluate the subject property for potential historic significance and eligibility again for the National Register or the California Register, the historic consultants reached differing determinations as to whether the property is eligible for listing.
HRG determined the property to be significant under the California criteria number one, whereas Chronicle Heritage concluded the property did not appear eligible for listing on the National or California Register. 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 meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register or the National Register. As such, the 244
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
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, which requires that properties be either formally listed, eligible for listing or voluntarily nominated by the property owner. Next slide.
Staff supports project approval noting the 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. Further, the Board should determine whether the property meets the definition of a historic resource per CEQA. Next slide. If so, staff recommends the Board adopt a resolution 24-0658, approving Design Review 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657 and finding said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15303. This concludes staff's presentation and we are available for questions.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Excellent presentation. Any questions of staff? Louis? Louis Weil:
I'm good with questions.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. With that I open the public hearing. You have five minutes.
Adele Chang:
Good evening commissioners. [inaudible 00:11:47].
Thomas Gibbs:
We're Board members.
Adele Chang:
Okay, got it.
Thomas Gibbs:
We're Board members.
Adele Chang:
Yeah, Board members.
Thomas Gibbs:
That other group is called Commissioners.
Adele Chang:
Okay. Good evening Board members.
Thomas Gibbs:
245
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
We don't talk about them here. Just so...
Adele Chang:
My name is Adele Chang. I'm with LCRA, the architects for the project. This is our second hearing on this project. At the last hearing, we listened hard to what the Commissioners had to say, as well as neighborhood input. And we have made changes. Heather has gone over them, but I wanted to... Next slide please... Also, quickly review them with you. We are a parcel that is surrounded on three sides by two-story homes. And our proposal is in full compliance with all the zoning ordinances, and with this submittal we have reduced the project size by 200 square feet. Next slide. Next. And the existing house is a very run-down cottage. There have been neighbors who have expressed a concern for it being a fire hazard, and those who have visited the site have seen kind of the condition that it is in. Do I get a few seconds for technical difficulties?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, hold the time until the next slide comes up. You've been having [inaudible 00:13:35]. All right, it's back on. Resume.
Adele Chang:
Okay, next.
Thomas Gibbs:
Resume time.
Adele Chang:
So some of the things that were done, we have greatly reduced the second floor massing so that we preserve views from the house uphill on Toto Loma and they currently overlook our garage area the same way they look over the neighboring two-story homes. And we have also, well, we noted some ridge heights. I won't get into it. Next slide. So again, you can see what we've done, variations in height.
We have further lowered the building pad and the second floor has seen a very large reduction in square footage. Next. And we have taken off all the second floor-covered decks, thus greatly reducing the mass and the rear deck used to be 12 feet wider than it is currently proposed. Next. And side windows, any windows that had views into the downhill neighbors are now frosted glass. Next. Again. We met with the neighbors, the Chamberlains uphill from us, and the only comment they made at that time was to move the AC units to the other side. So, we have done that. Next.
And then just last week we met with the Bosniaks and another neighbor downhill from us, and we have agreed, as Heather has said, to plant two trees at the corner to be maintained at 15 feet or higher, and then to maintain the hedge that has been planted at eight feet. Next. But on the same day that I was there to meet with Board members, I learned that the neighbors uphill, the Chamberlains had an issue with privacy. I haven't heard this before and I wish they had brought it up earlier. Because the story poles have been up for a full year and they've been aware of what was proposed for a whole year because of this one-year delay. And nevertheless, I saw their concern and we had originally proposed a tree to be kind of at that upper left corner and we would like to add another tree.
When I spoke with Mr. Chamberlain, I suggested the adding of trees, and I didn't look at the landscape plan at that time, but there was already a tree there, and we would like to just add another one. And we'd be open to species that are non-deciduous and so forth as long as they meet the City's planting 246
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
palette. Yes, we've had more conversation with the downhill neighbors. They've been more reaching out more and we've been available by email, phone, and so forth, and we've responded to their concerns to the point where they now support the project. And I just wish I'd known about the other concern earlier.
I have...
Thomas Gibbs:
Your time's up, so we'll come back to you. You'll have three minutes in the rebuttal.
Adele Chang:
Okay. I forgot to introduce somebody next to me, but I guess, he can be introduced later.
Thomas Gibbs:
We got a lot of people, so I can't wait to learn about him. We'll do that when we come back here.
Adele Chang:
Okay. Sorry about that.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right. I open it to the public. Please form a line or get in the seat where you can come up. State your name. First of all, how many people are going to be speaking? One, two. I'm going to give three minutes here, just because we haven't had a lot of long matters, but I'm going to stick you to it, so if you can get done early, great. But I don't want to cut you off, but I will once the red light shows. So with that, Ruben, you're up.
Ruben Flores:
Thank you. Ruben Flores, long-term resident here. We're losing our historic feeling in Laguna Beach.
Sure, the new coffee place across from Main Beach looks nice and it's crisp and it's fresh, but gone is the old wooded facade that lent the idea of a village. We look at the little shack house and people call it a dilapidated wood structure that was across from the Susi Q and something like this may go up again. So when you go to Europe, when you go to other states, other cities, it's nice to walk along the street and then all of a sudden you see something that doesn't necessarily fit in and then that historic sign is up there and it says, we saved this because we recognize that this was important to the history of our town.
Whether or not the nation says that, whether or not the state says that, we say that. I mean, just Google the guy's name and he's number one Laguna Beach and we're going to erase that because we're going to put something that belongs in Irvine there?
Not to say that isn't a beautiful piece of architecture, but does it belong there to replace what is history of Laguna Beach? I don't think so. And you are probably, or you and the other Commission are probably the last people that get to save some of these pieces. And so the burden really is on you and sleeping at night knowing that we're going to lose some of these things that are so important to our history. And we can't. I mean, we're coming up on our 100 year anniversary and we're going to be able to say, "Yeah, we had some cool places. They're not here anymore, but they were cool." So really it's important. It's important that we not let these things disappear because one by one they will be replaced and those things that they're being replaced with aren't repugnant, but they aren't the history of Laguna Beach. And the history of Laguna Beach can only be stated once. And it's stated in the 1910s or the 1950s or the 1920s. You can't rebuild that. So save it. Thank you. 247
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Jessica Gannon:
Can I ask you some questions?
Ruben Flores:
Absolutely.
Jessica Gannon:
Well, so, because I don't want to have them come back to the podium.
Thomas Gibbs:
But if we start asking questions, we're going to be here all night.
Jessica Gannon:
I'll just have...
Ruben Flores:
I didn't use by three minutes, soJessica Gannon:
Okay. So I've been on a few tours with you or with other people. It's mostly been around the village where we go around and identify unique architecture and the history. But I haven't been on all of them.
So my question to you is, has this house ever been on any of those tours? Ruben Flores:
Yes.
Jessica Gannon:
It has?
Ruben Flores:
Yeah, it has.
Jessica Gannon:
The history tour?
Ruben Flores:
Yeah.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay.
Ruben Flores:
Well, it's so unique, how could you not go visit it?
248
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Jessica Gannon:
Right. But has it been on one of those tours that you have? Ruben Flores:
It has been on one of my tours, absolutely.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay.
Ruben Flores:
Yeah. We start at the community garden and then we walk. Absolutely.
Jessica Gannon:
Okay.
Ruben Flores:
Thank you for asking.
Thomas Gibbs:
Next speaker, please.
Diane Leeman:
I am Diane. I am Diane Leeman at 31521 Toto Loma Lane. And up my house, I can see that whole beautiful house. I'm ready to cry because I don't want to lose the history of the city that I live in. And every morning when I wake up I say, "What a lovely home that's still there." The original garage from the farm is still there on that property. If you look up any of the pictures we have sent, it would be dreadful for you to have a new house being built on something that is so beautiful. Even the property also, I have concerns about my view. I am losing all my view from my backyard where I have lived since 1989. I am losing 75% of my view from my bedroom. And these are the two places where we spend most of our time.
I love it in the yard, because I could hear the ocean and I can see it. I'm also concerned about my privacy that I mentioned the last time that I met with you. Because I am losing my privacy too, and I am concerned about the geological things. They are going to be digging deeply into that Valido because one of our neighbors sold the egress to him. And that could impact the foundation of my house. And I would like to see studies done. Please don't get rid of a beautiful property that has so much history with a beautiful family, the Egans, and I hope that you read Lee's report that was over 200 pages. She came here personally on Monday to deliver it to each one of you. And I would like to also thank Ann Christoph and George Weiss for their support and the South Laguna Civic Association and Village Laguna. They are standing strong with us to keep the history of Laguna Beach. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Jeff Chamberlain:
249
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
I have paperwork, [inaudible 00:24:01]?
Thomas Gibbs:
Give it to Paola and she'll distribute it.
Jeff Chamberlain:
Should I wait or should I go? Sorry?
Thomas Gibbs:
I'm sorry.
Jeff Chamberlain:
Should I wait or should I go?
Paola Miller:
As soon as I [inaudible 00:24:13].
Jeff Chamberlain:
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, as soon she hits the button. Go ahead, go ahead. You're on.
Jeff Chamberlain:
Okay. My name's Jeff Chamberlain. I met some of you very recently and also last year when this is going on. Thanks for coming by our place. As Adele mentioned, I also met with her yesterday. I regret not reaching out sooner. I assumed the process was once stakes were up, you came here and talked about it. So that's my ignorance there. But we did have a nice conversation. I hope that we continue to have conversations like that going forward. As you all know, this is a second iteration. The first one, we had very little privacy concerns. The neighbors did, and so the house was rotated as a result. We understand why they asked for that, but as a result of the house being rotated and redesigned to improve our neighbor's privacy, the house now partially faces our home and several windows and a new balcony are facing our home as well.
The new balcony, which it's visible in the center of the photos that I gave you, has a direct line of sight into our daughter's bedroom and it's closer to us than the original balcony that led to the redesign. So we can also now see into the bedroom window of multiple vantage points of their house, including from our daughter's bedroom or from our living room. So while we appreciate the efforts to protect our neighbor's privacy, it has come at the expense of our own. We believe a design can be found that respects everyone's privacy and kindly requests that the plans be revisited with this in mind.
As Adele mentioned, one of the solutions we talked about yesterday was a vegetation solution. I appreciate that, we like looking at vegetation. But I would also ask that we also are considered for a structural solution similar to what our neighbors were granted last time. Again, we didn't have privacy concerns last time because the house was aligned in a way where we were really getting just one tiny 250
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
window, but now we're getting quite a bit and a balcony looking into our windows. So I guess that's it. [inaudible 00:26:20].
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Ann Christoph:
Would you pass this out please? I asked for some slides as well and I'm speaking for the South Laguna Civic Association as well as myself. We have been working since 2002 on a history of South Laguna and we've produced a lot of documents and the map that I'm passing out was in your packet, but it was probably small. And so this is the printed out version of that homestead map. And the staff mentioned that GPA did not see sufficient evidence of the historical criteria. So one of the things that was mentioned is that they don't know much about the other homesteads, the context of this homestead.
And I think GPA understandably was not aware of the work that we have been doing all this time because our book hasn't been published yet. So this is a pre-publication copy of the map that we did that shows all the homesteads in South Laguna and a similar map could have been produced for all of Laguna Beach as a whole, but we took an 1885 topo map and that showed the location of structures at that time.
And on that map you'll see little red dots for different homesteads that were documented on this map.
And then we took the USGS map for the more recent homesteads and plotted all those buildings that were shown. So many of the, almost all of the homesteads had some type of structure. We don't have a way of knowing what those structures were, but there they were on that map. None of those structures exist except for the Egan structure. So if you look at number six, that's the Egan structure, this little tiny red dot that represents the house that was existing when the USGS map was created.
So this is the kind of research, there's different levels of research that are done. HRG did enough research to recommend to the city that this was a historically significant property. If you do a giant term paper on that house, there's so much more information. If you do this kind of mapping, there's more information. So if there's more information needed, let's ask for it. Let's ask GPA or HRG to read, review what GPA thinks is needed to document this, because it clearly is historic, it's important and we don't want to lose this house and its surroundings. Condition is not a criteria of evaluating historic significance.
Thomas Gibbs:
You're done. Thank you.
Ann Christoph:
Thank you.
MJ Coveny:
Can I ask Ann a question? Just because I'm learning about history.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, let's keep them short [inaudible 00:29:52]
MJ Coveny:
251
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
I know, but she's such a plethora of history.
Thomas Gibbs:
Go ahead.
MJ Coveny:
Of all these homesteads back in, I think it was 1980, 81, they did the survey of historical. Do you know if any of these were around then, in 1981?
Ann Christoph:
I believe that the Robert Anderson one was existing becauseMJ Coveny:
And it wasn't able to be...
Ann Christoph:
Well, at the time that tract was done, we hadn't done this research.
MJ Coveny:
Got it.
Ann Christoph:
We didn't understand the significance then.
MJ Coveny:
Okay. And then the other question I have, did you say you started in 2002 for 23 years? Ann Christoph:
Yes.
MJ Coveny:
On South... Okay, just checking because I thought that [inaudible 00:30:25] Ann Christoph:
"And isn't she done yet?"
MJ Coveny:
It's like hey Ann...
Ann Christoph:
"Why isn't that book finished?"
MJ Coveny:
252
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
I think it's fair to say that Anne Christoph knows more about the history of Laguna than anyone else.
MJ Coveny:
Okay. Thank you. Ann Christoph
Thomas Gibbs:
Alive.
Ann Christoph:
Of South Laguna, but most likely. Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
South Laguna.
Ann Christoph:
Okay. Jane Jans knows an awful lot about the whole city.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay.
Ann Christoph:
Yeah, she's still around. Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thanks so much.
Ann Christoph:
Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thanks so much for your input. Next speaker, please.
Cathy Jurca:
Good evening everyone. My name is Cathy Jurca. I'm a resident of South Laguna and I also serve on the Heritage Committee, but I'm not representing that body here tonight. I want to underscore the points that Ann made. This is a very significant property indeed. I also wanted to reiterate that the GPA review of the HRG report, I know these initials can be confusing, did not find that there isn't sufficient evidence, but that HRG had not marshaled sufficient evidence. What I believe the city should have done in that instance, because HRG was the City's consultant, is returned to HRG and said, we need you to beef up the report, is please produce the information that is requested because the goal here isn't to comply 253
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
with CEQA, although that is something that we should aspire to do, but it's also to really figure out is this property historically significant?
I hope you had a chance to review the letter that was written by Francesca Smith. She's an architectural historian with 40 years experience. She wrote it as a volunteer because she spends a lot of time in Laguna Beach, and is very interested in and committed to preserving the history here. In that letter she did the research that GPA asked for, which was what you do for especially the National Register is you need to compare it to other like properties. I do not know why HRG didn't do that and they should have, I know why the Chronicle didn't do that, because they found it not historically significant. But as Ann mentioned, there are no other extant homestead properties, original houses in Laguna, to our knowledge, there are no extant homestead properties in Orange County and there weren't that many to begin with.
And Francesca Smith looked at properties that might be equivalent. So for example, the Modjeska House in Santiago Canyon that was bought from as a homestead property, but the original homestead was encased in the house that was built there. So that has lost any significance for its association with homesteading. Richard Egan had a homestead in San Juan Capistrano and he has a house on the national Register, but it was land that he purchased separately near the mission. That is not significant in relation to homesteading. This property is very rare and very unique and Francesca Smith found it is absolutely eligible for the National Register and the California Register. I believe it to be true as well and I hope that you will prevent its demolition and allow the applicant to come up with a proposal to rehabilitate and expand. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Appreciate your input. Next speaker.
Nelda Stone:
So my name's Nelda Stone. I'm a long-term resident of our town and I'm not here as aThomas Gibbs:
Could you pull the microphone? Pull the microphone down so we can hear you.
Nelda Stone:
Oh. So should I start over?
Thomas Gibbs:
There you go. I want to hear what you have to say.
Nelda Stone:
Does my time start over? I probably... Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs:
There you go. Much better.
Nelda Stone:
254
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Anyway, so my name's Nelda Stone. I've lived here a long time, but I'm here as that. I'm not an architectural historian, but I managed the local history collection for our local library for a number of years until my retirement a couple of years ago. And I also was on the board of the Laguna Beach Historical Society. As you know, Laguna was a, from the downtown area through South Laguna was homesteaded, it was not part of the surrounding large land grants, but this relatively small strip of land was open for homesteaders. So this home before you tonight is the last original homestead house from that period, if it's destroyed, we will lose that last tangible piece of evidence of that important period. So I urge you to trust the facts that HRG has presented, even though they may need some augmentation there. And also the backup that Francesca Smith has written to you. Please take into account her comments as well and please do not allow this important historic structure to be demolished. Thank you very much.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you much. Any other speakers?
Lisa Boshnack:
Hi, my name is Lisa Boshnack. I live at 31538 West Street where the house, I guess this house is in our backyard. I just wanted to express my support for the project. We met with Adele and they worked on our privacy concerns from our master window. So from that, they were pretty easy to work with. As to the historic part, it's kind of hard because you can't see this house from the street at all. And then at least, in the time that we've lived in our house before it went for sale, this property, the gentleman who his mom owned the house next to us live there. And then when it came for sale, I mean there was no mention of any historic nature. So I struggle with, I mean obviously we'd like something behind us that's nice and improved and right now the house and its current condition is literally, I mean at least when we saw it, when Kevin lived there, you literally stepped through the floor and fell through.
And now it's just out there. It's by the canyon, it's kind of a fire danger. But I guess, it speaks to the more of the historical significance of just Laguna in general and property owners I understand if stuff is historic and people want to save it, but it was for sale and how come none of this came up when the property was able to be turned over, that wasn't reported by the person that sold it. So if someone wants to preserve it, they could have purchased it at that time before they did and stuff. So I just find it's kind of hard in wrestling with the history and stuff.
I mean, obviously Laguna looks completely different than it does now. A lot of our houses shouldn't even be there and stuff, but as it currently stands, I mean I'm not really sure how it was on a tour, but again, I haven't lived here that long so I couldn't speak to it. But there was someone living there and I can't imagine you just opened his house for people and you can't see it from the street. So it's not like some of the things you go by in the village in downtown where you can literally see it just walking as a passerby. No one can see it except all of us that surround it and stuff. So I'm just here to support the project and hope you guys feel that way as well. Thanks.
Thomas Gibbs:
Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Not seeing any, I return it to the applicant for three minutes.
Richard McDonald:
255
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thank you. My name's Richard McDonald with Stoner and Carlson LLP. I'm the attorney for the property owner. And I'm here specifically tonight to address this whole question of the historic nature of it. I think there's a couple of points. I think you said I had three minutes? MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Three minutes. You're on.
Richard McDonald:
Three minutes and that's a lot of testimony to rebut in three minutes, but let me just make a few simple points. The first is that on July 11th when staff came before you, they recommended a categorical exemption. Nobody behind me showed up to contest that at that time. And the matter was then continued to September.
Thomas Gibbs:
Hold on a second. Stop the time. Enough of that, I don't want to see any more facial expressions. No more nodding or you're going to have to leave. Okay. It's very distracting to Board members. Okay, back on the time.
Richard McDonald:
The matter was continued then to September and only three days before that hearing did one person submit a letter on September 19th and that person then worked with HRG, which raised for us serious credibility questions about the HRG report, which is why we asked for an independent report. In fact, if you look at your staff report on page five, it clearly states HRG worked with Ms. Christoph to obtain information regarding the history of the site. Ms. Christoph provided corrections to historic details within the report. Further, if you look at attachment nine to your report, to your staff report, HRG itself said, "Although HRG's findings were unchanged in the updated report, the research was expanded and fact-checked by local historian and landscape architect Ann Christoph." In my 40 years of practice, I've never seen a professional historic resource consultant subcontract out to the local person who's already staked out the position.
That is why we asked Chronicle to do an independent report. And Chronicle's first analysis was, wait a minute, they've limited the scope of their report to just South Laguna. South Laguna's only been part of the city since '87. We should be looking at all of Orange County and if you're talking about homestead, which goes back 50 years, we should be looking at that entire time period. And they did and it was extensively researched without input from anybody to conclude, no, this is not meeting the level of criteria that's outlined in their report. And their report has very specific standards that are required, which the third consultant, GPA looked at and what GPA concludes is that HRG doesn't even figure out how, yeah, it's old, yeah, it's there. But how is this connected to the trend under Bulletin 15, which it talks about in great detail, requiring that it is not convincingly demonstrated that it rises, the property arises to a level of distinctiveness, raritive or illustrative clarity to justify significance under the broad theme. So this mapThomas Gibbs:
256
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Your time's up. I think we've all read the reports and just so you know, for our consideration, we don't have to follow them. We consider them as evidence. The Board members have read the reports. So with that said, your time's up. Any questions from the Board? Turn on your button.
Imer Bauta:
I've got a question. The three reports, were they all paid for by the applicant? The first one was City paid for, the second one was a rebuttal?
Thomas Gibbs:
Heather, do you know who paid for the reports?
Heather Steven:
The city paid for the HRG reports. The applicant paid for the report by Chronicle. And I believe the City also paid for the GPA report.
MJ Coveny:
And Heather, one more question. Is it typical, I think Ann brought it up that once you see, or maybe it was Cathy, they said, why didn't you go to the next step to ask for more detail? Would that be a typical process to go back and they gave you a report, they gave you a detail? Heather Steven:
We had a first report and then again, as gentleman just stated, additional information was added after Ann had reviewed the report. Then we received the report from Chronicle, and that report we requested HRG to review that report as sort of a peer review on our behalf so that they could give us feedback on that report. So we didn't feel at that time that going back to HRG again for a fourth report would be prudent. So that's why we requested GPA to do an independent evaluation of all four documents and that's where they came to that conclusion. So we felt going back and forth would again, it has been a year since the project was before this Board, so to move it forward and to get to a decision point, we felt that that was the best way to move forward.
Thomas Gibbs:
And just so you know, I think it's clear to the Board, if we don't think we have enough information to make the determination, we could require more.
MJ Coveny:
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs:
In my comments I'm going to be commenting and analyzing all of that. Louis, go ahead.
Louis Weil:
Yeah, so on that same comment that you just made, Heather, we heard this is the second hearing, right? And at the first hearing, what was the Board's direction or I know it's in the staff report, but can you reiterate what we sent them off to go look after?
257
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Thomas Gibbs:
Just so it's clear, Louis, before she does the historic issue did not come up. So the directionLouis Weil:
In the first hearing?
Heather Steven:
Correct.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, the direction that we gave is in the staff report and the response to it. But if you want Heather to go that, she can.
Heather Steven:
Yes, the Board's comments were related to the orientation of the building, removing some balconies, adding frosted windows. But at that time there was no information available to staff in our City records that this property was potentially historic. We did not have any information as to the year it was constructed, and it was never on the old historic inventory that we used to have that was created in the '80s, which is no longer used. So, there was again, very little information in the City files. So when it was continued from July to September, it was purely for redesign to address the privacy and the view equity concerns from the neighbors.
Louis Weil:
Okay. Thanks.
MJ Coveny:
So you pursued historical purely from public comment?
Heather Steven:
It was initiated by the letter that Ms. Christoph provided to the city on September 19th, I believe about a week before the September hearing.
Thomas Gibbs:
Remember it was pulled because of that letter.
Heather Steven:
So then yes, a continuance was requested so that we could request HRG to do their first assessment.
Thomas Gibbs:
So I have a question about this, which is Mr. Chamberlain's property, as I understand it, the real privacy issue is their daughter's bedroom, which are kind of floor to ceiling windows there and you're proposing two trees. Do you know if it's going to block, and you've got a lot of windows on that side, and I think part of the issue was raised because you accommodated the neighbors down below, you turned the 258
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
building and I think Mr. Chamberlain's bedroom became much more exposed to the windows on the side and the balcony.
I want to understand if there's a landscape solution to this. And you're proposing two trees, but unfortunately maybe there wasn't communications or what have you. Have you analyzed and I wanted to go talk to him to do that, did you analyze whether... But may put it this way, would you be up for a condition that says you're going to work with staff to come up with a landscape solution to block view of the daughter's bedroom from those windows?
Adele Chang:
Yes. I started by proposing two trees, but I need to talk to the landscape. There hasn't been enough time, only found out yesterday afternoon. But I will talk to the landscape architect and figure out a dense, non-deciduous tree or two or even three to make it work.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. When we get to deliberations, if that comes up, from my understanding what you just said, you'd be amenable to a condition along those lines. With that said, any other questions? All right, I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to start. Let me kind of first point out, and it's been alluded to, number one is, the reports. I've read them all and I really appreciate reports. I also very much appreciate this from Mr. I assume Lee Hanson, I didn't read the whole thing but I read a lot of it. It didn't come in until, I mean it is a fascinating document and thank you for giving me a hard copy because I look forward to reading it.
So you've given us a lot of information and I want to point out to MJ that as I pointed out to MJ, is there enough information for us to make a determination of historic resources or not? If not, then we might ask for more. I happen to believe from reviewing all the stuff that there's more than ample information that enables us to make a historic resource determination. The second initial point I'll make is that it is the Egan house. It was built a long time ago. I learned a lot about homesteads, I had no idea. There's no question it's historic, but the question is, is it protectable? Now our jurisdiction is really twofold. One is the guidelines. Guideline six says "Historic preservation, which allows us to consider the destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible." So that gives us the right to look at what are historic resources.
Secondly, CEQA under guideline Section 15064.5 makes historic resource and actually it uses the phrase, historically significant, enables us to consider that if it is, if we make a determination, then the categorical exemptions do not apply. They have to, that point has to go to an initial study. Now I see they're related, and in fact I think they're very much related. So if we find it a historical resource within, and I'll get to the standards there in a second, I think Heather did a great job in talking about some of them, but I think we need to be very clear on where I come out, and I think would be helpful for other Board members to at least understand their parameters. So that's what we're charged with. It's not us saying, God, the Egan house is a wonderful house. It's part of the history of Laguna Beach.
No doubt it is. But that's not our job. Our job is whether it's a historical resource. And on that we have guidance to the National Register of Historic Places, NRHP and to the California Register Historic Resources. And I've read those. They're very similar for purposes of determining whether we have a historic resource. That's the phrase I'm going to use both for CEQA and the guideline, the design guidelines. On that, there's basically two relevant. And all the reports are consistent with this. The HRG report, the Chronicle report, and the, I forget the name of the last one, all look at the two things. They 259
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
hone in on them, and that's what I'm going to be honing in when I get to my analysis. One is whether it, and again, this goes to eligibility for those registers. If it is eligible, then I think it's a historical resource.
Criteria A under the NRHP reads, "There are associated, the properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad parameters of our history." Criteria one under the California Register is similar. It says, "It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of local and regional history or the culture or heritage of California." The second one, and by the way, both of these are important, is integrity. And it's called historic integrity, but it's all kind of for the same thing. Its historic integrity, it's the ability of a property to convey its significance and it's defined as, "The authenticity of a property's historic identity evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property's historic period." And I think everyone agrees it's 1909 to 1928. And I agree with that. In doing that, the National Park Service has come up with seven criteria or seven aspects, which seem to be the guiding light under both the state and the National Registry.
And those are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship feeling and association. So if you distill it to the criteria in the reports that call criteria 1A, one and A, national and California, and the integrity, it narrows the issues about what we need to look at. Now, I think it's fair to say that the experts make those determinations. We're not bound by them. And moreover, it's not rocket scientists. Those words have their ordinary meaning, they're not specialized meaning. And so I want everybody to understand that just because you're an expert doesn't mean you're right. And just because that only experts can make those decisions as to whether a location or the setting or stuff is consistent with the integrity of this property from a historical perspective for the historic property's historic period. I feel very comfortable making that determination and I'll tell you what my determination is. And I'm not going to go through each of the reports because fundamentally and I will touch on them when I give my analysis, fundamentally, they give us information.
It's like evidence at a trial. Experts give evidence at a trial all the time, but the jury has to make the findings of fact. Just because experts say something doesn't mean that the jury, in our case, the Board, must follow it. In fact, we can't because we have different views. I found all three reports as well as other information submitted, very helpful in making what is probably the toughest decision that I've made since I've been on this Board. And there's been a lot of tough decision. Because I care about this town. I think we all do. I think the applicant does. I give the benefit of the doubt to everybody that we're doing it because we care about this town. But the people have a right to develop their property. They have a right to a fair analysis and determination. So with all that said, this is where I come down.
The first point is that we're looking at the eligibility. It's not of the house standing alone in my view. The house standing alone in my view, has no historical significance. I mean, we've had historical cases with cottages, which is a broad category. I mean, this was basically construction for a working farm. And one was a small shed and then somebody said a barn. Another person said they built on in 1928. It was a homestead, right? So the house itself, in my view, doesn't have any historical significance, and in fact, none of the experts said it did standing alone. So it's not like Hotel Laguna, which in and of itself has historical significance.
So when we look at the first criteria, criteria A1, whether the property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history, I must say I concur with Chronicles views on that issue, that the progression of development over the course, and this is from Chronicle, I'm kind of boiling it down, but I think it's a fair statement of what they're saying and certainly what I view it as. "That the progression of development over the course of time has altered the setting and it does not holistically exclude the feeling or embody once was an active farming homestead.
Therefore, any association with homestead was lost over 40 years ago." 260
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
When I walk to that house, I don't get any feeling of homestead, I just don't. If the house was historic, that's a different story, but that's not what before us. It's the homestead aspect of this house that we have to look at. Whether the property is associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history. And I don't think the house Is, I think the homestead is. But the homestead is gone. It's all been developed long ago with other houses. Then we go to integrity. I think again, it goes to the homestead nature of the property. The requirement is that it must retain enough of its historic character or appearance, i.e. integrity, to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason for its significance. And thus the word integrity. In other words, you look at it, it must and all the we'll get to the factors in a second. It must carry that notion of homestead.
I don't see it. Okay, let's go through some of the factors. The design or the setting. First of all, the setting. Everyone agrees including HRG, that the setting's gone. So that factor doesn't support a finding of integrity. I know that you don't have to have all the aspects, but there must be a sufficient number to convey the required integrity. And I believe one factor alone could just nail it in this case, setting because you don't see any homestead property, no farming, nothing. So the setting is not there. The feeling and association that was also found by Chronicle to be absent, and I just didn't find the argument from our HRG to be convincing.
The feeling and association. I get the feeling and association of a very old dilapidated, not well-built home. And I'll get to that when I get to workmanship. It's falling apart. The windows, they're aluminum, certainly not period piece. I think there was one window from the original period and it's totally destroyed. It's been rotted from the inside. All the siding is junk. The barn, the doors are not even on.
There's nothing that I see from that house that gives me any feeling of its original condition. I also looked in the house. It doesn't either. It doesn't have... I looked at some of the pictures that I think you provided Ann in one of the reports, it did more, but it certainly doesn't now.
Then we go to materials and workmanship. And I'm through five of the factors. I don't see anything special about materials or workmanship to carry any historic value or any relationship to a homestead.
In other words, it's nothing special historically. Again, if I saw it, maybe I wanted to see it, but I didn't.
We walked all around the property. I walked every inch of that property trying to see, okay, where's historic nature of this? And I don't see it. And then design. A beach cottage is a design, I suppose in the broadest sense of the word. But I don't even see any design to this house. I can't tell it's a barn. In fact, it looks like a beat-up building. It's about to fall down. It looked like it was a lean-to that was built.
Anyway, I don't want to dump too hard on this, it's just I didn't see... And in fact, the way it was built in pieces, maybe that's part of the historical charm, but it did not create a homestead house in my mind, it created more of a hodgepodge of building without design. So while it's hard for me, and I'll also point out one other thing on design, a National Registry Bulletin 15 is pretty important in my mind. It cautions that a quote, "Property must be more than simply associated with a historical trend. It must clearly illustrate that trend to be one of the most important properties associated with it." I just don't see that here. In other words, and I'll sum it up here, to tell this property owner that they have to start from scratch and do who knows what to a house that is of fire danger, that's dilapidated, that's rotting, that has no, from looking at it, no relation to a homestead, even though it has this important history, I think is asking too much. In other words, it doesn't come close to the bar that's necessary for us to find either the guidelines require that they just scrap this thing and come up with a new design, or that we send them through the whole CEQA process. And I'm not even sure where that will lead. I have a CEQA lawyer back in the day. And so that's an initial study and pages experts. I'm not even sure where that gets you. But I don't find a historical resource here.
As much as I appreciated all the fascinating history and I don't deny this house has history, it doesn't reach that high bar being a historical resource. The last point I'll make before I turn it over and is dealing 261
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
with the view from the Chamberlains. I really appreciate what you did in accommodating all the neighbor's concerns. You really scaled this back, you accommodated, you listened to us, you followed our direction, and you came up with a product that's really good. I think the loose end is the Chamberlain. It's a downstairs bedroom, secondary bedroom. But if there's a landscaping solution, I want it done to protect the privacy of that room.
And I think it's feasible. You've said it's feasible. So I would be willing to support, to approve this project tonight with the condition that staff works with you to come up with a landscaping solution of trees that provides privacy from all the windows on that side of the house to the secondary bedroom downstairs at the Chamberlains. Was that too short?
MJ Coveny:
[inaudible 01:03:45].
Thomas Gibbs:
All right. Who wants to go? Louis, you want to go next? I hear you probably are asleep, so I'll wake you up.
Louis Weil:
Maybe let a couple of the other Board members go.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay.
MJ Coveny:
I'll give it a go.
Imer Bauta:
I'll give it a go. Yeah. I struggle with this one. Hearing testimony from neighbors tonight, I think it allowed me to understand how much this home resonates with the community. I do believe that this home is associated with its significant events. There were some comments by Ruben pertaining to the idea of a village, and I think we do have a responsibility to the history of our town. Being that this home, if indeed what the statements that were made by the community, that this is one of the last original homestead homes, I think that it would be very important to keep that alive.
Unless they can come up with more conclusive evidence to differ from that, I think Ann, with her longstanding history in town, demonstrated clear evidence of historical significance. In addition, Francesca Smith also identified this as rare, unique, which would give additional governance to preserve in this home. I think there's a value here that from a historical standpoint, that we can't lose. A homestead is a big part of our culture as Americans and as Californians as well. The push west, right? The push to the coast was part of this movement. This is a rare and unique property and I'd like to see it preserved.
Thomas Gibbs:
MJ.
MJ Coveny:
262
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Okay, I'll go. Thank you for those comments. I agree with Chair Gibbs and reluctantly in the sense that I hear what you're saying, Imer, and I really respect that. But when I walk through the four points here, as Tom did so clearly, it's not significant in my opinion, this is not a significant contribution. Or on a national level, it's not significant, on a California level, it's not significant. Architecturally, it's not significant, and it's not of anything unique. It's basically something they threw together to kind of work the land. They sort of live there on and off. I Googled and ChatGPT'd every bit of the Egans and came up with lots of Egans, but not this particular family that had any real significant impact on South Laguna.
And as noted, South Laguna was not part of Laguna until much, much later. And I don't think the integrity has been maintained from a homesteading perspective or from an architectural perspective.
So I unfortunately, cannot support historical. If this was something that was in a more predominant place downtown. First of all, I think we would've addressed this much earlier. It's because it was hidden, nobody really paid attention to it. Sort of people kind of went, "Oh yeah..." I mean to get to this point is to me just an unacceptable pressure on the person who purchased this land in hopes of building a home. So I think it's incumbent upon us to be respectful to that as well. Again, if this had been something more significant, I'm kind of disappointed. That's why I was asking you Ann, about why are all these gone? How did we get here? Some of these, especially Thurston, there's a name that is significant.
I know that name. Egan didn't know. So it's like, why don't we have those? How do we get to that point? So I just don't think it's right that this is our flag in the ground here. So I can't support whatever, I can't think of what I'm supposed to not support, the historical component. Thank you. So moving on to Mr.
Chamberlain. Isn't it funny when you try to do the right thing, you get yourself in a pickle? But we really appreciate you taking our suggestions. I think the articulation of the house is much better. I think the way it looks and feels on the land is much better. I mean, you're sort of eating up the buildable aspect of that property to a good amount. I think I was kind of concerned of mass and scale, but it was so boxed, it just felt massive. So I don't know what we can come up with for the Chamberlains. I don't think it's a massive adjustment. I think the trees are a definite component that could help.
I also didn't know if this is something that could be considered, is sort of retracting the mass and scale element, but it would be adding some program to the part of the home that's closest to him that would then extend out and then the deck would be further back, and those windows along that one room would not be... They'd be slightly more obscured when you look at the point of view or the tangent line from his main living space and his daughter's bedroom out. Now that would be an added square footage. It would contribute to mass and scale, but to me it would be so minimal and it doesn't hurt his sight lines, and you don't get to anybody else's view equity issues at that part of the house, I don't think.
So if you can find a solution there and I don't know if we can make it a condition and how that condition would define,
Thomas Gibbs:
Can I ask you a question?
MJ Coveny:
Yeah, sure.
Thomas Gibbs:
If trees could block it totallyMJ Coveny:
263
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
I didn't see how that could work, butThomas Gibbs:
That's what I'm saying. I had like to get this project approved because they've been so long delayed. And my condition is that the trees have to do that.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs:
It would be a privacy hedge and we just did it at Hilledge and it worked great. It's a privacy hedge that blocks that second bedroom. It's a downstairs second bedroom? From any of those windows from seeing any of those windows.
MJ Coveny:
All rightThomas Gibbs:
Rather than send them back and have them redesign it.
MJ Coveny:
Well, I guess it's kind of up to you guys. But if you're cool with trees, I think we could get landscaping support for approval tonight. If you want to look at an opportunity to go back to the Chamberlains, add some program and landscaping, I'll leave that to you. But those are my points andThomas Gibbs:
We would need a continuance if you're going to add program.
MJ Coveny:
Yeah. But that's completely your choice.
Jessica Gannon:
I would like to follow that.
Thomas Gibbs:
Let's hear the others and then we can bring it to the applicant.
Jessica Gannon:
I concur with the Chair and Board member Coveny on this one. As far as a preservation of historical reference, when I was speaking with Ann Christoph, I was in LA traffic and I don't remember very much of the specifics of our conversation, but I do recall asking her the same question that I asked someone else from the audience, whether that this house had been included on any specific tour. She said no at the time. And then when I returned home I did the whole ChatGPT and Google and try to find where 264
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Village Laguna or other historical references were ever included this address and I could not find any. I concur withAnn Christoph:
[inaudible 01:11:40].
Jessica Gannon:
... regardless of whether it was part of a tour or not.
Thomas Gibbs:
Ann, we haven't opened the public hearing. Please, no comment. Jess.
Jessica Gannon:
I really respect your due diligence and the depth of scope that you were able to use your attorney background and mad respect for that. With that, I'm ready to approve this project with the, there's view equity, I didn't see any view equity issues with the first program, which was in greater scale. So view equity in my mind has been achieved, especially with the reduction in size. Privacy, the only privacy concern with the project was with the Chamberlains. And if landscaping can be added, that would be my suggestion for a condition of approval. And then, yeah, so the house, the garage, wood rot is all around the house, the garage is piecemeal. There's woods if you want to call it wood, there's wood slats piecing together. It didn't look like any farmhouse that I've ever seen and I grew up on a farm. With that, I can concur with all of the Chair's comments and Board member Coveny's and I can approve this project with conditions of approval.
Thomas Gibbs:
Louis, you're up.
Louis Weil:
Well, appreciate the commentary from all the fellow Board members and the public and the evidence provided in the staff report and the applicants’ presentation as well. So I think there's been a lot of great reports and information provided for this hearing to make an adequate findings and deliberation across the board. I do lean towards the Chair and the Vice-Chair and Board member Coveny's deliberation and concur with what they said. I think as you evaluate, there's two different components we've got to talk about as Board members. One is the question of the historical, which has been the big part of the dialogue and I think Chair Gibbs really outlined that wholeheartedly well. And I'll touch on my points on that. And the second one is the design review components that would apply. From the historical questions, really the evaluation, we had reports that said not historic and one that said potentially.
I concur with the two that said it's not significant and I do so with two main reasons. One, the structure as outlined by Chair Gibbs does not meet the criteria for local, national, or state in the elements that the prior ownership that prior sold it in 2022 held the property for more than 50 plus years, might've been the original owners, I don't know. But I looked at the sales records, and at any point they could have voluntarily assigned this to some sort of historical component making it eligible locally and components of that for the state and national. And that was never done and nor is that being sought with the application here. So the voluntary nature I think throws out a few of the components. Nor do I see an 265
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
architectural integrity with the current shape, nor did the reports find that. And the reports note the property fails to retain the design or some sort of historical significance in the structure as well.
Hold on, I'm getting lost in a couple of my notes. Nor do I find that the materials were very original in the structure. As pointed out by Board member Gibbs, the windows have all been changed. I think even in some of the reports there was additions and repairs and maintenance that had shifted over time. And as I walked the site, there's no real significance of what would make a historical property. I think Board member Gibbs outlined it really well that the homestead really was about the farming practices and the elements that they acquired the property through planting the trees and meeting those criteria, that doesn't exist in this neighborhood anymore.
The full development that surrounds this makes the property really not visible at all to the characteristics of the community. With the flag lot driveway, this original homestead was maximized for development throughout the decades, and that is the characteristic of the area now, single family houses that abut the open space, which is a very common characteristic throughout Laguna Beach. I mean, in general, I'm supportive of the new construction occurring.
If the applicant in the course of demolition wish to donate any of the elements, I think that would be solely on them. But I wouldn't want to make that a criteria. I do think that there are elements of the historical reports that have been brought to light in the recent areas that should be provided to a local historical just for the information because that wasn't provided. I kind of find it somewhat fascinating, but I don't find it significant into the location or the current topography in areas. Okay. So that covers the historical thing from my viewpoint and my findings. But from the house and the DRB aspects I am concerned for the privacy component of the uphill neighbor of the Chamberlains as articulated by the other Board members.
Planting of a further tree could solve that problem. I think when I was looking at the drawings and the plans, I think there could be some more articulation with the actual design that could get the midpoint of the design to flag open, so the more uphill portion of that bedroom and bathroom would square off towards the rear property line, which would limit that uphill exposure to the Chamberlains’ in its entirety. But I'm open to the landscaping solution as well. So that's me.
Thomas Gibbs:
Louis, thank you for your comments. Let me address two things for some limited more... And let me maybe talk to Ann and the other people of the historic interest and the applicant, if you guys could listen to me for a second about the historic. Adele, first of all, the document that was given to me should definitely go to the Laguna Beach Historical Society and the work you're doing Ann on South Laguna and all that. We don't want to lose that. The pictures are fabulous. And then the maps of the homesteads, that's really important stuff. The second thing, if there is anything of historical significance on that property that can be saved, not for use in your project, but saved for modernity and working maybe with Ann and really looked there. I mean you talked about that other house, the uncle's house, I forget his name, Stearman or Sternman or something. His house was moved and saved by moving it somewhere, I think I read it.
Louis Weil:
It was Shrewsbury.
Thomas Gibbs:
266
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Yeah. That was actually moved and I thought, well maybe I don't know how you move this house, it's in such bad shape, but this kind of follows what Mr. Weil's comments. If there is some cooperation that there's something in there we're saving, I think that would behoove everyone including our community to do that. Now with respect to the privacy issue, I think it could be solved by landscape. I think you can, but I'm open to, I think MJ, you and Louis kind of feel maybe there's some more articulation that can be done. So I think our alternative is to agree, approve it tonight with the condition I talked about. Or put it over for a third hearing to work on a landscape plan and maybe some articulation. I would be in favor of the former, but to get the votes, I could go to the latter.
MJ Coveny:
Chair, is thatJessica Gannon:
I'm okay with the landscape plan, needs to be fixed with a landscape.
MJ Coveny:
Chair, is that something we wouldThomas Gibbs:
Yeah, I know. But we would need to get either MJ or Louis to go alongMJ Coveny:
Can I just say, is that something we would put forward to Adele? Because it's really, if they know they're going to get approval tonight with what they have and adding the trees, then they might say okay, as opposed to getting more program.
Thomas Gibbs:
So you would go along with the tree solution if that was fine? Adele Chang:
Yeah.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. Do you guys want to go ahead continuously work on... Go ahead Louis. Before I turn it to the applicant.
Louis Weil:
You can ask the question, but I do have one other comment that I forgot to mention from my notes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Why don't you do that, because I think the question to the applicant is going to be the last question. Go ahead.
Louis Weil:
267
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Okay. My one point that I forgot to mention was that in terms of the area being recognized for the Egan family and other the Shrewsburys and stuff, there are names of streets that already exist in South Laguna that kind of honor that district or that area that have already been done through the City. The Egan Street is just right up around the corner from this property. So there are some elements where that's been already identified in the course of all the development that's occurred.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. All right. So to you folks, the question is do you want a continuance where potentially you get more program and do a redesign on that side of the house to reduce the privacy impact or go along with the landscape solution?
Adele Chang:
Because of the lengthy delay, I think the owner would prefer to find the landscape solution instead of redesigning and coming back. I mean, that process is another two, three months. So that would be his preference.
Richard McDonald:
We also, Adele and I have worked together for years. Our kids went to school. We've done lots of projects in other cities with privacy screens. So when you use those words, we know what you're talking about.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, I'm going to make a motion. Let's see if we have a second and a vote. The motion is that the Board 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 with the condition.
Patrick Donegan:
I believe I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I believe I have some language, but I will defer to you.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, I was going to turn over to you, Patrick, I have a question for you but let me get the motion out and see whether it needs to be amended. I think you and I are thinking the same thing. With the condition that prior to a permit, there'll be an approved landscaping plan that includes a landscaping solution to the privacy concern of the lower second bedroom of the Chamberlains, such that you cannot see any of the windows on the side of the house, the applicant's house facing that bedroom or from which that bedroom can be seen with landscaping. And we leave it to staff and applicant to come up with landscaping plans that meets that requirement. And are you going to say, do we need any language about the historical resource was my question?
Patrick Donegan:
No, Mr. Chair, we do not.
Thomas Gibbs:
Because I figured the categorical exemption should probably apply. So what was your comment? 268
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Patrick Donegan:
Oh no, that's fine. That language we can put in there. I drafted some language that I thought effectuated the will of the board, but yours suffices as well.
Thomas Gibbs:
Yeah, let me go with my language, because I think I wanted to make it very clear so that Mr.
Chamberlain could rest comfortably that his child's room is not going to be subject to those windows.
Patrick Donegan:
One thing that I would just add to that is a qualifier that in the event a solution cannot be made, the issue shall be referred back to the Design Review Board.
MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay. I amend the condition to include that language. With that said, do I have a second? MJ Coveny:
Second.
Louis Weil:
I'll second it.
Thomas Gibbs:
Okay, good. Call the roll please, Paola. You're too late, Louis.
Jessica Gannon:
Ms Coveny seconded it.
Paola Miller:
Board member Bauta?
Imer Bauta:
No.
Paola Miller:
Board member. Coveny?
MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
269
This transcript was exported on Oct 22, 2025
September 25 2025 (Item 5 (Completed 10/22/25)
Transcript by Rev.com
Board member Weil?
Louis Weil:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Chair Pro-Tem Gannon?
Jessica Gannon:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:
Yes.
Paola Miller:
Motion has passed four to one.
Thomas Gibbs:
All right, thank you very much.
Adele Chang:
Thank you.
Richard McDonald:
Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs:
And thank you all the interested. This was a tough decision for us. You may not agree with it, but I want you to know that input was all helpful. All right, I think we're done. When were you adjourning? What's the next meeting? I always look to Bill because I am terrible on dates. 270