STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
May 26, 2026
CONSENT
15 SUBJECT: 31526 VALIDO ROAD: RESOLUTION 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 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Adopt the Resolution titled, “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”, finding the existing structure to be a discretionary historic resource under CEQA, overturning the Board Approval, and directing further environmental review.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
On May 12, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and received public testimony regarding two appeals of a project located at 31526 Valido Road (the “Property”). (The agenda packet for the May 12, 2026 public hearing is included as Attachment 2.) Following deliberation, during which the City Council members considered whether or not the existing single family residence was a discretionary historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), three City Council members (Mayor Orgill, Mayor Pro Tem Jones, and Councilmember Whalen) found substantial evidence in the record supporting the finding that the existing single family residence is a discretionary historic resource under CEQA. Based upon such evidence, the City Council directed City staff to draft a resolution overturning the Board Approval with findings and facts that support overturning of the Board Approval and denying the Project.
In preparing the draft resolution for the City Council’s consideration, City staff identified that the City Council’s basis for overturning the Board Approval is premised on the finding that the existing singlefamily residence is a historic resource under CEQA. The City Council did not reach any other basis to deny the Project. Under CEQA, categorical exemptions are subject to exceptions that can defeat their application.
This means when a local agency makes a determination as to whether a project is categorically exempt from CEQA, it must undertake a two-step analysis. First, it must determine whether the class (or category) of APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-0658 AND CDP 24-0657 AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD May 26, 2026
exemption is applicable; and second, if such an exemption is applicable, whether any of the exceptions to the exemption apply, as are enumerated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. Those exceptions apply where a project may, amongst other things, cause:
i. a cumulative impact over time when considered with successive projects of the same kind and in the same place;
ii. a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances of the project; iii. activity on a hazardous waste site; or
iv. a substantial adverse change to an historical resource. (Id., § 15300.2(b), (c), (e), (f) (emphasis added).)
If an exception to the categorical exemption precludes the use of that exemption—the City must then assess the potential environmental impacts of the project and ensure compliance with CEQA through preparation of an environmental document (e.g., an initial study (“IS”), a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”), or an environmental impact report (“EIR”)). (CEQA Statute, § 21080.1; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(a).) In the event the project will have significant adverse impacts to the significance of the historical resource, then an MND or an EIR will likely be required.
While the Board found that the Class 3 categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15303) is applicable to the Project and that none of the exceptions to the exemption, including the historical resource exception (id., § 15603(a)), apply, the City Council found the existing single family residence to be a discretionary historic resource under CEQA and therefore the use of a Class 3 exemption is impermissible and must be denied. Additionally, further environmental study for the Project—likely in the form of an IS/MND or EIR—is required.
Accordingly, City staff is interpreting the City Council’s direction to City staff as drafting a resolution overturning the Board Approval with findings and facts that support overturning of the Board Approval, denying the use of the categorical exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, and ordering further environmental review.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution finding the existing structure to be a discretionary historic resource under CEQA, overturning the Board Approval, and directing further environmental review. (Attachment 1.)
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-0658 AND CDP 24-0657 AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD May 26, 2026
Based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record before it, 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 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 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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution ( (Pgs. 4-19)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Heather Steven, Senior Planner Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development