Staff Report — Laguna Beach City Council, May 13, 2026

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

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

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

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

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

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

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE

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

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

SUBJECT TO IMPOSING A MORE RESTRICTIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 2 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 5 of 37 ends

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

On October 8, 2025, neighboring property owners Stan and Diane Leemon, with the South Laguna Civic Association and Village Laguna (“Appellant 2”), filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 2”) (Attachment 20). Appellant 2 contends that the Property contains a historic resource, that the City did not follow the appropriate procedure for evaluating the “dueling” historic assessments, that the neighbors had insufficient speaking time to address both historic preservation and the impacts of the Project on their properties, that the Board did not consider public views of the home from a nearby trail (Toovet Trail), and that the Board abused its discretion by finding the property is not a historic resource on the basis of irrelevant factors while failing to consider relevant factors. (Appeal 1 and Appeal 2 will be collectively referred to herein as the “Appeals”.)
LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeals of the Project at the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100-foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 2). The public hearing was thereafter continued to January 13, 2026. On January 13, 2026, the public hearing was continued to February 24, 2026. On February 24, 2026, the public hearing was continued to March 10, 2026. On March 10, 2026, the public hearing was continued to May 13, 2026.

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all land use decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.

The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.3 (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).). In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making 3 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has "not proceeded in the manner required by law"; (2) the City "decision is not supported by the findings"; or (3) the "findings are not supported by the evidence." (Civil Code § 1094.5.) 31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

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

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

Page 6 of 37 ends

them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion.” (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 7 of 37 ends

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

2. Coastal Development Permit and CEQA
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a CDP and CEQA. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.

In its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 24-057 and a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board.

The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 8 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

1. Staff Report
Introduction
The 14,071-square-foot project site is a residential property developed with a single-family dwelling and a detached garage which is accessed from Valido Road. The site slopes downward at the rear of the property with a small area mapped with a watercourse setback. The Project proposes demolition of the existing 1,278 7 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence. 31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

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

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

Page 9 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 10 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 11 of 37 ends

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

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

The criteria for the California Register are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 12 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 13 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 14 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 15 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 16 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 17 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 18 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 19 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 20 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 21 of 37 ends

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

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

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEALS
As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and CEQA, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 24-0657 and Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA finding, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 24- 0658, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, but is limited to considering whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

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

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

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

Page 22 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 23 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 24 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 25 of 37 ends

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

Therefore, the project meets the view equity criterion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 26 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 27 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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.” 15 In the GPA Peer Review methodology and scope, GPA states: “4. We also review whether the conclusions regarding historical significance (or lack thereof) are supported by substantial evidence, as defined in National Register Bulletin 15 and related relevant guidance. This includes assessing whether the property 15 GPA Peer Review (Attachment 13, p. 1).
31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

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

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

Page 28 of 37 ends

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

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

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

Page 29 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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 19 “Peer Review of Historic Resource Assessments for 31526 Valido Road”, June 28, 2025” (Attachment 13, p. 8-9). 31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

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

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

Page 30 of 37 ends

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

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”.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 31 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 32 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

The Board did not commit abuse of discretion.

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

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

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

Page 33 of 37 ends

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

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 34 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

Based on GPA’s review of the expanded record, they did not find sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Property meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register or the National Register. GPA did not concur that HRG’s response clearly established that rarity alone “rises to the level of historical significance as required under National Register Bulletin 15” (pg. 4). Further, they stated “while HRG maintains that the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance, the loss of the historic agricultural setting remains a critical factor in evaluating the property under Criterion A/1. 31526 VALIDO ROAD: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657

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

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

Page 35 of 37 ends

The available evidence does not clearly demonstrate that the property retains the necessary physical and contextual characteristics to effectively convey its association with early homesteading in a manner that meets established thresholds for eligibility” (pg. 5).

Further, GPA stated, “Notwithstanding the conclusions above, GPA notes that under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a resource need not be formally listed in, or determined eligible for, the California Register of Historical Resources to be treated as a historical resource for purposes of environmental review. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(4), a lead agency may determine that a property is a historical resource if it is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including professional evaluations and public input. In this case, while GPA finds that the available evidence does not support eligibility for listing in the California or National Registers, the record does include professional and public assertions that the property may have local historical importance as one of the earliest residences associated with the development of South Laguna. As such, the City, in its role as lead agency, retains the discretion to determine whether the property should be treated as a historical resource for purposes of CEQA.” 25 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 36 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 37 of 37 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. Appeal 1 (Pgs. 526-532)

20. Appeal 2 (Pgs. 533-562)

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

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

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

24. Public Commentary (Pgs. 650-730)

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

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

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

Page 38 of 37 ends

Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Heather Steven, Senior Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development

Laguna Beach City CouncilMay 13, 2026

Laguna Beach City Council
May 13, 2026