RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING APPEAL NO. 2,
OVERTURNING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657 AND ITS FINDING THAT THE
PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15303; FINDING THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
STRUCTURE TO BE A DISCRETIONARY HISTORIC RESOURCE
UNDER CEQA; AND ORDERING FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW FOR A PROJECT AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD IN THE R-1,
RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE
WHEREAS, Adele Chang, Architect (“Applicant”)1, for 31526 Valido Road (the “Property”) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 24-0657 for a new single-family dwelling, attached two-car garage, elevated decks, grading, and landscaping, and demolition of an existing single-family dwelling pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040 and Section 25.07.004; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 2024, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the entitlement applications, consisting of DR 24-0658 and CDP 24- 0657 (the “Original Project”). During the hearing, the Board evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on the mass, scale, articulation, and height of the project, privacy from decks and windows, and view impacts. Following discussion, the Board directed the Applicant to reorient the structure, reduce the appearance of mass, provide further articulation using materials and landscaping, and address privacy by utilizing opaque glass and redesigning the decks. The Board voted 5-0 to continue the hearing to September 26, 2024, to 1 The Project’s owner is Chuanjie Zhou, who is within the definition of Applicant.
Attachment 1
4 -2- Reso. #
allow the Applicant time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with neighboring property owners; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2024 the City received a letter from Ann Christoph suggesting that the subject Property may have historical significance. As a result, on September 26, 2024, staff requested and the Board granted a continuance to November 14, 2024 to allow for further evaluation of the project site; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2024, the Board continued the public hearing to December 12, 2024, when, at the Applicant’s request, the project was tabled; and WHEREAS, in response to the public comment about historicity, City staff contacted Historic Resources Group (HRG), one of the City’s contracted historic consultants, to prepare a historic assessment of the property. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the subject property for potential historic significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The initial Historic Resources Assessment, entitled “Historic Resources Assessment of 31526 Valido Rd, Historic Resources Group, November 22, 2024” was completed on November 22, 2024 (the “Initial HRG Report”). HRG provided a revised report on February 12, 2025, entitled “Historic Resources Assessment of 31526 Valido Rd, Historic Resources Group, February 12, 2025” (the “Final HRG Report”). The Final HRG Report found the property significant under California Register Criterion 1. Therefore, under the Initial HRG Report and Final HRG Report, it is eligible for listing in the California Register. Further, HRG determined the property is a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, in response to the Initial HRG Report and Final HRG Report, the Applicant 5 -3- Reso. #
commissioned their own study, which was prepared by Chronicle Heritage, entitled “Historic Resource Assessment of 31526 Valido Road, Chronicle Heritage, April 2025” (the “Chronicle Report”) The Chronical Report was also prepared to determine whether the subject property may be considered as an historical resource pursuant to CEQA and to evaluate whether the property is eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR. The Chronical Report stated “the surrounding area that was once part of the larger homestead has been completely developed and does not retain the feeling and association with the Homestead Act period in the City, and thus it does not retain integrity of feeling and association. Furthermore, due to the substantial surrounding development, the integrity of setting has been lost. Due to the completed alterations, the subject property also does not retain integrity of design, materials, or workmanship.” With that, the Chronical Report concluded the subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, nor does it appear to be eligible for listing under any of the local criteria. Therefore, the building does not appear to be a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, City staff requested HRG review the Chronical Report and comment on the report’s conclusions. HRG provided a supplemental memo evaluating the Chronicle Report, entitled “Historic Assessment Memo, Historic Resources Group, June 3, 2025” (the “HRG Memo”) The HRG Memo noted that “Chronicle Heritage did not find fault with HRG’s methodology or research conclusions; however, [it] did not agree with the finding that the subject property appears eligible for listing in the National Register at the local level and the California Register” and rebutted the Chronicle Heritage report findings. The HRG Memo noted that “urbanization of South Laguna follows twentieth century planning and land use policies seen 6 -4- Reso. #
throughout Southern California (and the United States) and the change in setting alone is not reason enough to disqualify the property from association with homesteading.” Further, the HRG Memo noted, in part, “to our knowledge, the Egan property may be the last remaining property associated with homesteading in all of Laguna Beach.” (Collectively, the Initial HRG Report, Final HRG Report, Chronicle Report, and HRG Memo shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Historic Resource Assessment Reports”); and
WHEREAS, to resolve these contrasting conclusions, the City commissioned an independent, qualified, historic consultant, GPA Consultants, to evaluate and peer review the Historic Resource Assessment Reports. GPA Consultants conducted a thorough and objective analysis of the Historic Resource Assessment Reports to determine whether they met accepted professional and technical standards and prepared a report, entitled “Peer Review of Historic Resource Assessment Reports for 31526 Valido Road, Laguna Beach, GPA Consulting, July 28, 2025” (the “GPA Peer Review”). The GPA Peer Review concluded, “Based on our review of the two independent historic resource assessments prepared by qualified professionals, GPA does not find sufficient evidence to support that the property at 31526 Valido Road meets the eligibility criteria for listing in either the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places.” As such, the property does not meet the definition of a “historical resource” under CEQA, nor does it appear to qualify as a historic resource under the City of Laguna Beach’s current Historic Preservation Ordinance, which requires that properties be either formally listed, eligible for listing, or voluntarily nominated by the property owner.”; and WHEREAS, both HRG and GPA Consultants are firms that the City regularly retains for the evaluation of historic and potentially historic resources. Further, in engaging HRG and GPA 7 -5- Reso. #
Consultants, the City did not limit any scope of inquiry and let each professional analyze the issue independently; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2025, Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing and received public testimony regarding the revised project in response to prior Board direction. In response to the Board’s prior direction, the Applicant revised the project design by rotating the structure, adding colors and materials to all elevations, and proposing additional landscaping (the “Project”). After deliberation, the Board voted 4-1 (Board member Bauta dissenting) to adopt Resolution No. 24-0658, conditionally approving the Project, determining the existing structures and property are not a historic resource, and finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. The Board added a condition requiring additional landscaping to provide privacy for the neighbor’s lower bedroom (Appellant 1) and to screen views from any windows on the “right elevation” from which the bedroom is visible (collectively, the “Board Approval”); and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2025, neighboring property owners Sofia and Jeffrey Chamberlain (“Appellant 1”), filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 1”); and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2025, neighboring property owners Stan and Diane Leemon, with the South Laguna Civic Association and Village Laguna (“Appellant 2”), filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal 2”). (Appeal 1 and Appeal 2 will be collectively referred to herein as the “Appeals”); and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the January 13, 2026 City Council meeting at the Applicant’s request; and
8 -6- Reso. #
WHEREAS, after the Board Approval, the Applicant hired ESA, which produced the ESA Historic Resource Technical Memorandum for 31526 Valido Road dated January 27, 2026 (the “ESA Memo”); and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the February 24, 2026 City Council meeting at the Applicant’s request; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the March 10, 2026 City Council meeting with the Applicant’s agreement to waive rights under the five-hearing rule and consent to continuance; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and continued the hearing to the May 13, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, after the Board Approval, the City hired HRG, which produced the HRG Second Memo dated March 23, 2026 (the “HRG Second Memo”); and WHEREAS, after the Board Approval, the City hired GPA, which produced the GPA Second Peer Review dated April 5, 2026 (the “GPA Second Peer Review”); and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to 9 -7- Reso. #
grounds for Appeal 2 stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal 2:
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.
City Council Response
As set forth above, the term “historical resources” is defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, which sets forth the following three categories:
1. Mandatory Historical Resources: If a resource is formally listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, then by law this is a historical resource. (See State CEQA Guidelines, §15064.5(a)(1)[with respect to the California Register, a historical resource is eligible for listing in the California Register as determined by the State Historical Resource Commission]; CEQA Statute, §21084.1; see also Pub. Resources Code, 5024.1.)
2. Presumptive Historical Resources: There are two types of presumptive historical resources. These include: (i) a resource included in the City’s local register of historical resources or recognized as historically significant pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution; and (ii) a resource identified as significant in certain surveys of historical resources. (See State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)(2); CEQA Statute, §21084.1; Pub. 10 -8- Reso. #
Resources Code, §§ 5020.1(k), 5024.1(g); Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1054.)
3. Discretionary Historical Resources: When a resource does not qualify as either mandatory or presumptive historical resource, the lead agency may independently determine, as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record, whether it should be treated as a historical resource under CEQA. (CEQA Statute, §21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines, §15064.5(a)(3), (4); see also Valley Advocates, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at 1060-1061; Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 457, 467 (“Friends of Willow Glen”).) A discretionary 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. (See State CEQA Guidelines, §15064.5(a)(3).)
A discretionary historical resource is a resource not officially listed on a historic register (National, State, or local) but is considered potentially significant enough by the City to warrant further evaluation and potential protection based on its historical, architectural, or cultural value.
This allows the City to decide, based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, whether to treat the resource as a historical resource on a case-by-case basis. This is consistent with the definition of “historic resource” found in Section 25.45.005 of the City’s Municipal Code, which states, in relevant part:
(6) the City is mandated by law to treat as a historic resource based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered to be “historically 11 -9- Reso. #
significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.
(Laguna Beach Municipal Code, §25.45.005, emphasis added.) Here, based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, that the existing residential structure on the Property is a discretionary historic resource under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3). The Initial HRG Report dated November 22, 2024, the Final HRG Report dated February 12, 2025, the HRG Memo dated June 3, 2025, and HRG Second Memo dated March 23, 2026 find that the existing residential structure on the Property meets (1) National Register of Historic Places, Criterion A (associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history); and (2) California Register of Historical Resources, Criterion 1 (associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage). Based upon this finding, the City Council finds that the Project is not categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because an exception under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies to prevent the use of the exemption. Specifically, an exception to the use of a categorical exemption applies when the project causes a substantial adverse change to a historical resource. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(f).) Here, since the Project proposes to demolish the historic structure, the Project will cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource and therefore a categorical exemption cannot be applied to the Project.
12 -10- Reso. #
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.
City Council Response
City Council incorporates its response to Appeal Contention No. 1 for Appeal No. 2 into this response to Appeal Contention No. 2.
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.
City Council’s Response
City Council incorporates its response to Appeal Contention No. 1 for Appeal No. 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.
City Council’s Response
13 -11- Reso. #
Prior to each of the Design Review Board hearings, neighboring property owners had opportunities to provide comments to the Board. In addition to providing written comments to the Board regarding their concerns, neighbors may request site visits from the Board members to discuss their concerns in person and allow for Board members to view the project site from their homes and properties. Additionally, two substantive public hearings were held for this project, at which members of the public provided extensive public comments to the Board. Pursuant to the Board bylaws, Section 9(A)(4)(b), “speakers not affiliated with the applicant will be given three minutes each to address the Board. The Chair may allow additional time at the request of the speaker.” A total of three members of the public spoke at the July 11, 2024 hearing, with one person representing three adjacent neighbors. A total of seven members of the public spoke at the September 25th hearing (see the summary of the public testimony above). Each person was given three minutes to address the Board.
5. “Views of the Property” – the property is not seen from Valido Road but is visible from a public vantage point on the Toovet Trail in the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park and the public view of the “historically significant property” should be considered a “coastal scenic resource”.
City Council’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 14 -12- Reso. #
policies meant to protect historic resources. Historic resources are considered “visual resources” and are analyzed under CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3 and Criteria No. 6 (LBMC Section
25.07.012(F)(3) and (F)(6).
City Council incorporates its response to Appeal Contention No. 1 for Appeal No. 2 into this response to Appeal Contention No. 5.
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.
City Council’s Response
City Council incorporates its response to Appeal Contention No. 1 for Appeal No. 2 into this response to Appeal Contention No. 6.
7. “Property Owner Notification” – the Board ignored the document in the agenda package, a letter from Greg O’Loughlin, president of the South Laguna Civic Association dated July 22, 2022 to Marc Wiener, Director of Community Development informing the City of the historical significance of 31526 Valido Road and requesting that this information be added to the property file.
City Council’s Response
On September 19, 2024, the City received a letter from Ann Christoph 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 15 -13- Reso. #
14, 2024, the Board continued the public hearing to December 12, 2024, when, at the Applicant’s request, the project was tabled. The letters from Ms. Christoph and Mr. O’Loughlin were provided to the Board prior to the September 25, 2025, as “Attachment 12-Correspondence” to the staff report. 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.
City Council incorporates its response to Appeal Contention No. 1 for Appeal No. 2 into this response to Appeal Contention No. 7.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for Appeal 1 stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal 1:
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.
City Council’s Response
City Council does not reach the contentions in Appeal No. 1, as discussed further below.
2. “Serious Privacy Intrusions” – As currently approved, the new structure directly compromises the Appellant’s privacy. The Appellant and Applicant will have direct views into each other’s interior living spaces and bedrooms which is not appropriate.
The proposed mitigation-planting vegetation is vague and unvetted. Concerns 16 -14- Reso. #
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.
City Council’s Response
City Council does not reach the contentions in Appeal No. 1, as discussed further below.
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.
City Council’s Response
City Council does not reach the contentions in Appeal No. 1, as discussed further below.
SECTION 4. Based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, that the existing residential structure on the Property is a discretionary historic resource under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3). The Initial HRG Report dated November 22, 2024, the Final HRG Report dated February 12, 2025, the HRG Memo dated June 3, 2025, and the HRG Second Memo dated March 23, 2026 find that the existing residential structure on the Property 17 -15- Reso. #
meets (1) National Register of Historic Places, Criterion A (associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history); and (2) California Register of Historical Resources, Criterion 1 (associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage). Based upon this finding, the City Council finds that the Project is not categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because an exception under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies to prevent the use of the exemption. Specifically, an exception to the use of a categorical exemption applies when the project causes a substantial adverse change to a historical resource. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(f).) Here, since the Project proposes to demolish the historic structure, the Project will cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource and therefore a categorical exemption cannot be applied to the Project.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby sustains Appeal No. 2 and directs the Applicant to conduct further environmental review for the Project, or alternatively directs the Applicant to revise the Project to comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The City Council thereafter directs the Applicant to return to the City Council for a final decision after completion of this additional environmental review. Accordingly, the City Council hereby overturns the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 24- 0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657 and finding that the Project is exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, as reflected in Design Review Board Resolution No. 24-0658. The City Council does not reach the merits of Appeal No. 1, in light of the aforementioned findings and direction, and therefore the final decision on Appeal No. 1 remains 18 -16- Reso. #
pending during the additional environmental review. The City Council retains jurisdiction of this Project.
ADOPTED this 26th day of May, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on May 26, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
19