STONER CARLSON LLP
Attorneys at Law
www.carlsonnicholas.com
Scott W. Carlson, Partner [email protected]
Richard A. McDonald, Of Counsel 301 E. Colorado Blvd. [email protected] Suite No. 320
Pasadena, California 91101
(626) 356-4801
Via Email
May 22, 2026
Mayor Mark Orgill
Mayor Pro Tem Hallie Jones
Hon. Council Members Sue Kempf, Alex Rounaghi, & Bob Whalen c/o Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA. 92651
Re: 31526 Valido Road - Appeal
Dear Mayor Orgill, Mayor Pro Tem Jones, and Honorable City Councilmembers Kempf, Rounaghi, and Whalen:
Our firm represents the property owner whose architect applied for the Design Review Board's ("DRB"') approval of the proposed residence at the above-referenced address ("Applicant"). The DRB approved the project by a vote of 4 - 1 on September 25, 2025.
Specifically, the DRB approved a categorical exemption under Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), DR 24-0658, and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657 ("CDP").
On May 13, 2026, however, the City Council ignored the overwhelming evidence that supported the DRB's decision and determination, failed to follow the dictates of Subsection
25.05.070.E.2 of the Municipal Code, failed to apply the substantial evidence provided under the Code given the 4-1 DRB vote, and simply cherry picked the information it wanted to reach its pre-determined decision, which undoubtedly was politically motivated given the upcoming
elections.
The property owners - who have never consented to having their property designated as historical as required under the City's Code - thus strongly object to the proposed resolution for the denial of their application.
Specifically, the resolution fails to accurately set-forth the proceedings that occurred on May 13, 2026. At no time did the three-member majority consider "the record as a whole," nor engage in any analysis required under Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506 as the proposed resolution suggests. To the contrary, they gave conclusory, results oriented, personal opinions and reasons for their votes. As such, the creativity of the City Attorney in drafting the resolution is nothing more than impermissible post- hoc rationalization under California law.
Further, the City Council completely ignored GPA's report - i.e., its own expert - and failed to call GPA instead choosing to only allow HRG to testify, including on matters such as the ability to rehabilitate the house for which it did not study nor have any basis to opine. In so doing, the Council cherry-picked what it wanted to hear to reach the conclusion it already had decided. As GPA Consultants determined, there is insufficient evidence to find the house is prime example of its time and thus is not eligible as a historical resource under either the State or Federal Criteria. Since the property owner objects to any such designation, it also does not qualify under the City's Local Ordinance.
As shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, the seller of the property had not lived in the house for over 60 years and nothing about it complies with today's zoning or building codes. At no point during that entire time of over six decades did anyone in the City seek to have it designated as a historical resource. Combined with the fact that the house was not on any historical tours nor the appellants' website until recently, and that there is no prior request for designation, there is no substantial evidence to now designate it over the objections of the property owner.
As shown on Exhibit B, the City Council failed to acknowledge and apply the correct, applicable standard for determining whether the property is eligible for historical designation.
Not only did it engage in a de novo review that is impermissible under the City's Code as the
Staff explained in its report, but it also completely failed to understand the legal basis for homestead patents and what is required for historic eligibility. As Councilmember Rounaghi explained, and as Exhibit B substantiates, the homestead patent was for agricultural land that no longer exists. That change in use means there is no basis for even considering the property eligible.
Last, the members of the public who spoke were not experts and their testimony is thus no basis for the proposed resolution. "Members of the public may ... provide opinion evidence where special expertise is not required... However, "i]nterpretation of technical or scientific information requires an expert evaluation. Testimony by members of the public on such issues does not qualify as substantial evidence..." Joshua Tree Downtown Bus. All. v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 1 Cal. App. Sth 677, 690-691 (2016). That you chose to ignore the standard of review in your own code and HRG's admission that it let Ann Christopher review and revise its report, thus invalidating it, and instead relied on public opinion over the conclusion of your own expert GPA shows just how arbitrary and capricious your decision was.
No amount of legal sophistry and wordsmithing in the proposed resolution can change that fact. We thus strongly object ot he adoption of it and reserve all legal rights and remedies accordingly.
Sincerely,
Richard A. McDonald, Esq.
Of Counsel, Stoner Carlson LLP
EXHIBIT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 97E6AA9C-8536-493B-A1ED-E843B222FA1B
CALIFORNIA
EXEMPT SELLER DISCLOSURE
ASSOCIATION
(C.A.R. Form ESD, Revised 6/21)
OF REALTORS®
1. Seller makes the following disclosures with regard to the real property or manufactured home described as 31526 Valido Road - situated in Laguna Beach - (City), . Orange (County), California, - 92651 (Zip Code), Assessor's Parcel No. 05606225 ("Property").
2. A. Under California law (Civil Code §1102, et seq.) most Sellers of real property containing 1-4 residential units are required to provide prospective Buyers with a completed Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement ("TDS").
Certain Sellers are exempt trom completing the TDS but not exempt trom making other disclosures. Sellers who are not legally required to complete a TDS can use this form to make other required disclosures, including the disclosure of material facts of which they are aware.
Under Civil Code §§ 1101.4 and 1101.5, non-compliant plumbing fixtures in any single family or multi-family residential real property built before January 1, 1994 shall be replaced by the Property owner with water-conserving plumbing fixtures
3. THE FOLLOWING ARE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE SELLER AND ARE NOT THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE AGENT(S), IF ANY. THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IS NOT A WARRANTY OF ANY KIND BY THE
SELLER OR ANY AGENT(S) AND IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ANY INSPECTIONS OR WARRANTIES THE PRINCIPAL(S) MAY WISH TO OBTAIN. A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS QUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. IF SELLER OR BUYER DESIRE LEGAL ADVICE, CONSULT AN ATTORNEY.
Are you (Seller) aware of any of the following? (Explain any "yes" answers below.) A. Within the last 3 years, the death of an occupant of the Property upon the Property • Yes X No B. An Order from a government health official identifying the Property as being contaminated by methamphetamine. (If yes, attach a copy of the Order.) .. • Yes X No C. The release of an illegal controlled substance on or beneath the Property • Yes X No D. Whether the Property is located in or adjacent to an "industrial use" zone .. • Yes I No (In general, a zone or district allowing manufacturing, commercial or airport uses.) E Whether the Property is affected by a nuisance created by an "industrial use" zone .. • Yes X No F. Whether the Property is located within 1 mile of a former federal or state ordnance location (In general, an area once used for military training purposes that may contain potentially explosive munitions.)... • Yes X No
G. Whether the Property is a condominium or located in a planned unit development or other common interest subdivision ... • Yes # No
H. Insurance claims affecting the Property within the past 5 years Yes X No I. Matters affecting title of the Property ] Yes X No
J. Plumbing fixtures on the Property that are non-compliant plumbing fixtures as defined by Civil Code § 1101.3 X Yes • No
K. Any other material facts or defects affecting the Property, or material documents in Seller's possession affecting the Property, not otherwise disclosed to Buyer .. • Yes X No Explanation, or • (if checked) see attached; J: House was built around 1900, most likely nothing complies. I haven't lived there in 60 plus years.
5. Seller represents that the information herein is true and correct to the best of Seller's knowledge as of the date signed Seller hereby authorizes any agents) representing any principal(s) in this transaction to provide a Copy of this statement ment8 any person or entity in connection with any actual or anticipated sale of the Property. cresseswender ELIZABETH A. NEISWENDER SEPARATE PROPRUST Date 7/9/2022 Seller Refleepersoender Date 7/26/2022
6. By signing.belly Buyer acknowledges Buyer has received, read, and understands this Exempt Seller Disclosure ustin peng, trustee form.
Hongbin Peng, Trustee Date 9/21/2022
Buyer
= 8865121903954F4:
Buyer Date
• 2021, California Association of REALTORS®, Inc. United States copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code) forbids the unauthorized distribution, display and reproduction of his form, or any portion thereof, by photocopy machine or any other means. THIS FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®. NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE LEGAL VALIDITY OR ACCURACY OF ANY PROVISION IN ANY SPECIFIC TRANSACTION. A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS THE PERSON QUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL. This form is made available to real estate professionals through an agreement with or purchase from the California Association of REALTORS®. It is not intended to identify the user as a REALTOR®. REALTOR® is a registered collective membership mark which may be used only by members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® who subscribe to its Code of Ethics.
Published and Distributed by:
REAL ESTATE BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC.
a subsidiary of the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® c_525 South Virgil Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90020
PPORTUNI
ESD REVISED 6/21 (PAGE 1 OF 1) Erin Sullivan | Reliance Real Estate Services | Generated by Glide a EXEMPT SELLER DISCLOSURE (ESD PAGE 1 OF 1)
6fb311e3-1066-4318-9217-20fc15948/6a
EXHIBIT B
Alta Archaeological Consulting, LLC
2681 Cleveland Ave.
ALA Santa Rosa, CA 95403
office (707) 544-4206
fax (707) 546-2135
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING www.altaac.com
May 22, 2026
City Council
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 02651
Re: 31526 Valido Road: Public Hearing for Appeal of Design Review Board Approval of Design Review 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657
During the City Council review on May 13, 2026, of the two appeals filed in response to the Design Review Board (DRB) approval of the proposed project, questions arose regarding integrity versus condition. Specifically, did the Chronicle Heritage architectural historians who prepared the peer review dated April 2025 of the Historic Resources Group (HRG) Historic Resource Assessment dated November 22, 2024, consider condition in their integrity analysis. HRG contends the subject property is significant for its association with the Homestead Act of 1862, specifically, the broader historic theme of agricultural and rural development in the South Laguna during the early 20th century.
The Chronicle Heritage report concludes the subject property is ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to Criterion A/1, respectively, because the subject property lacks integrity of setting.
As noted in the numerous technical memoranda and public comments submitted regarding this project, William F. Egan received a patent for 40.00 acres on January 17, 1910 (Accession No. 104561).' The 40.00 acres included arable agricultural lands and steep hillsides. The steep hillsides have been deeded to Orange County (OC) Parks, and the land is permanently a component of the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park. While still publicly accessible, this is a change of use from the requirements for obtaining a land grant under the Homestead Act. The remaining arable agricultural Additionally, the cottage on the former homestead site has been substantially altered with additions compromising the building's integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. The concept of condition is not mentioned in the National Park Service bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria,? the commonly accepted guidance for evaluating the significance of historic properties.
Bulletin 15 was employed when Chronicle Heritage evaluated the potential significance of the subject property. Therefore, the condition of the extant residence and detached garage were not taken into consideration when evaluating whether the subject property is recommended ineligible for inclusion in a historical register.
1 Available at:
https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=104561&docClass=SER&sid=xyltvlct.t2b#patentDe tailsTabIndex=1
2 Andrus and Shrimpton, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
HRG defined the period of significance for the subject property as ca. 1909 to 1928, "during which time the Egans maintained an active farming concern and expanded their household with the birth of their two children (Francis and Esther Egan)." Bulletin 15 defines integrity of materials as " physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form a historic property." The bulletin goes on to state "A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of significance." The use of aluminum windows did not become common practice until the 1930s and louvered, also known as jalousie, windows were commonplace in the 1950s. Windows have poetically been described over time as the eyes of the soul of the building. The windows of the building have been substantially altered after the period of significance. Regardless of the condition of the building, it lacks critical integrity of materials.
According to 36 CFR Part 68.3, "One set of standards-preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction—will apply to a property undergoing treatment, depending upon the property's signiticance, existing physical condition, the extent ot documentation avallable and interpretive goals, when applicable. The standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project." Due to the poor condition of the building resulting from lack of maintenance and UV and salt air degradation, the feasibility to restore the building to its unknown 1928 condition may not be viable.
31526 Valido Road does not retain integrity of setting or materials. Therefore, the subject property lacks the requisite integrity for listing in the National and California Registers. The original condition of the building during the period of significance is unknown due to lack of documentation. Due to lack of documentation, restoration to the period of significance is infeasible.
Sincerely,
Came Chatter
Carrie Chasteen, M.S.
Senior Architectural Historian
[email protected]
Office: (707) 544-4206
3 Andrus and Shrimpton, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Alta Archaeological Consulting, LLC — 2681 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 www.altaac.com/office (707) 544-4206 / fax (707) 546-2135