Laguna Beach — The Design Review Board voted 4–1 to approve a new two‑story single‑family residence at 31526 Valido Road while concluding the existing on‑site structure does not qualify as a historic resource under CEQA or state/local register criteria. The board approved the design-review and coastal‑development permits after requiring a pre‑permit landscape plan to shield a nearby neighbor’s bedroom from direct line‑of‑sight.

The application called for demolition of an existing dwelling and detached garage and construction of a new 3,811‑square‑foot home with elevated decks and changed driveway access. Staff described revisions made after earlier hearings, including rotating the building footprint, removing several second‑floor decks and balconies, and reducing upper‑level massing to respond to prior board concerns about privacy and ridgeline impacts. The staff report summarized three professional historic‑resource assessments reviewed by the city: a historic consultant retained by the city (HRG), a consultant retained by the applicant (Chronicle Heritage), and a third independent review requested by staff (GPA Consultants). The consultants reached differing conclusions: HRG found potential significance tied to early homesteading, Chronicle concluded the property was not eligible for listing on the California or National Registers, and GPA’s independent review concluded the property did not meet the eligibility criteria.

Several members of the public and local historians urged preservation. South Laguna historians and local advocates presented maps and archival material showing the site’s association with early South Laguna homesteads and urged the board to delay demolition. The applicant’s team — architect Adele Chang and attorney Richard McDonald — contended GPA’s independent analysis and Chronicle’s report demonstrated the property did not meet register eligibility and that the applicant had revised the design to reduce privacy and view impacts.

Board deliberations focused on two questions: whether the property is an historic resource under CEQA/California Register criteria, and whether the revised building meets the design-review privacy and view‑equity standards. Chair Trey Gibbs and a majority of the board found the structure did not retain sufficient integrity of setting, design, materials and workmanship that would allow it to convey homestead significance. Several board members cited the heavily altered setting, the small scale and poor condition of the existing building, and the absence of surviving farmstead context as reasons the property no longer illustrates the homestead theme required for register eligibility.

The board approved the project with a condition that the applicant and staff finalize a landscape solution that prevents any direct view into the specific downstairs bedroom of the uphill neighbor (the Chamberlains). The condition requires a staff‑approved landscaping plan showing non‑deciduous screening to eliminate direct sightlines into the neighbor’s bedroom or, if such a plant‑based solution cannot be achieved, referral back to the board for additional measures. The motion passed 4–1 (Board member Belton voted no; Board members Kavnie, Weil, Chair Pro Tem Gannon and Chair Gibbs voted yes).

What’s next: The applicant will proceed to building plan check once the required landscaping plan is approved and permits are finalized. The board’s action also closed the Design Review/CAPA decision; the board did not classify the property as a historic resource for CEQA purposes and therefore allowed the categorical-exemption path for the entitlement (staff cited CEQA Guidelines §15303/§15301 where appropriate).