Laguna Beach City Council
May 13, 2026

Design Review Board Meeting, February 26, 2026
Coastal Development Permit for ADU located at 238 Chiquita Street Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

So with that, I'll closed the public hearing. We will start with the first item, which is 5.1, 238 Chiquita Street, Coast Development Permit 2026-0148. Can the applicant come to the front table? MJ Coveny:

And I went to the property and met with the applicant.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Go ahead. Just went ahead and rolled in.

Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

I just did a site visit.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

And I did a site visit, and met with Mark and Melanie Lewis.

Louis Weil:

And I did a site visit.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Okay, ex parte is complete. Sammi, you are on. No, it's not your turn yet. I'll let you know.

Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):

Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

We start with the staff report.

Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):

Thank you, Chair Gibbs. Item 5.1 is an application for a coastal development permit for a detached ADU at 238 Chiquita Street. The subject property is located a few houses north of North Coast Highway in the R2 zone. In 2009, the property owner entered into a Mills Act contract with the city, and the property is designated as a historic resource on the city's historic register. The proposed ADU is 799 square feet, and includes two stories and one bedroom. The ADU's location on site will cut off access to the existing one-car garage. However, it will include a new carport providing the required one covered parking space. While the ADU is not subject to design review, it does require Design Review Board approval due to the resulting building site coverage. The property has a maximum building site coverage of 42.88%. The proposed building site coverage, including the ADU, is 48%.

Attachment 6
172
172 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

Regarding the property's designation as a historic resource, three SOIS assessments have been prepared for this ADU. In 2023, Sapphos Environmental Incorporated prepared a memorandum on a previous version of the ADU design. Sapphos found that the design complied with all the SOIS.

HRG, the same year, wrote a peer review memo on that Sapphos report, however, and they found the ADU did not comply with Secretary of the Interior's Standards 2, 4, and 9. Both these reports from 2023 were included in the agenda packet.

Earlier this year, HRG also provided an updated memo for the current ADU design before us tonight, and they came to the same conclusion that it "does not comply with the standards because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property." This is a video I took walking down the street. So, the proposed ADU does not comply with review Criteria 3 and 6 of the Coastal Development Permit findings. The ADU will adversely affect coastal scenic resources by impacting ocean views from the public right of way, and the ADU will also not be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

In addition, the excess building site coverage for the ADU does not aid in preserving views or maintaining neighborhood development patterns. This finding must be made to improve the excess building site coverage.

In conclusion, the project does not comply with the Coastal Development Permit findings, the building site coverage findings, or the SOIS. On Monday, February 23rd, Heritage Committee recommended denial of the project because it does not comply with SOIS 2 and 9, nor does it comply with Section 3B of the Mills Act contract. Staff is recommending that the Board adopt Resolution 2026-0148, denying Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, and finding said action not subject to CEQA. And I'm available for questions.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Patrick.

Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

Mr. Chair, if I may, I wanted to add a little bit of narrative. As this is somewhat of a unique item before the DRB, specifically the issue of application completeness, as the staff report explains, the city's position that this application is not complete, the applicant was not willing to take the necessary steps to complete the application, yet still insisted upon a public hearing before this Board. As the DRB is aware, there are a plethora of state housing laws applicable to ADUs. One is an accelerated shot clock on the city's review and decision on ADUs. So while the city's position regarding completeness remains unchanged, and that it shields the city from that shot clock, staff felt that we had enough knowledge and understanding of the project to nevertheless bring this project to the Board for review on the merits. I insist on that, on the merits.

This would avoid any possible complications down the road involving arguments from either the applicant or maybe HCD that contemplates that shot clock. And so, thus it is my advice tonight for the Board to review the application on the merits based off of the findings in the staff report, and do not rely upon the idea of completeness or lack thereof to make any judgment on this project.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Thank you, Madison. Just to make it clear, we're going to evaluate this project as if the application was complete, but the city is not conceding it was complete. Is that a fair statement? 173
173 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

That's fair, Mr. Chair.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Okay. Very good. Any other questions to staff before we open the public hearing? Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):

I also want to add, we should have a representative from HRG available with us tonight. Yes, if you have any questions for them.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Okay, appreciate it. I've read the reports.

Louis, any questions?
Louis Weil:

No, I'm good.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Okay, I'm opening the public hearing. Applicant, you have five minutes. Could you start with your name so we know who you are?
Thank you. You have five minutes.

Jonathan Lukoff (Applicant & Owner):

Jonathan Lukoff, the owner at 238 Chiquita Street for 19 years. First of all, some of the things I just heard from Patrick are untrue. As far as we know, we bent over backwards to complete everything and did everything asked of us, and keep getting denials. So, let me start with good evening. I believe that this body is actually not allowed to review an ADU. But HRG, under their first three numbers that you quoted, are all about the view of the house without any numbers, but they wanted it in the front setback. So if you'll approve it in the front setback, I think HRG would be very satisfied. Names like mass and view without percentages and numbers are meaningless, and we'll get into that.

But Sapphos was the first one I was told to hire my own by the city, my own historians. I hired Sapphos. They have completely approved the project. I think they rule. HRG is not necessary and does not need to be listened to at all, but I will address them. I purchased this 1926 home 19 years ago in very serious disrepair. It was not a cute cottage. It's a two-story home. It took me months of repairs before I could move in. The bathrooms weren't working. There was knob and two wiring with rats in the wall that could have burned the place down. I took great care to keep this home historic.

And in other remodels where the rear was a different era and didn't even have a foundation, I have reinforced the foundation. I've taken great care of this home.

I'm also a property owner with rights in a buildable lot. This is an R2 lot, and it is absolutely buildable. I am trying to go through the ADU process so that it is smaller, consistent with SOIS standards as Sapphos says it is, and doesn't go through anything but a ministerial process other than moving it forward as HRG requests, which will allow more view, but our original proposal allowed over 50% views. And Sapphos pointed out the whole lower story is not historic. It's from 174
174 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

the 1960s. It's the upper story and the beautiful peaked roofs that are fabulous. HRG also reviewed 239 Viejo Street. I don't know if you did that. They said it could be torn down because there were changes from 1930s. I don't recognize any changes in that home. But they allowed that to be torn down, said I need to have views of the 1960 changes. It's absurd.

I've been through a lot for the city as well. I've worked with six different planners, five of whom have left the city. Each one never gave me anything in writing, just kept demanding different things that I do. I did each and every one, including the most recent ones with Sammy and her team. We said, "We will do everything they ask to get it approved." We dropped from three and a half years at a thousand square feet with two bedrooms for my son and me, down to... My son will be in college by the time it's done. It won't matter. A one bedroom, 800 square feet, 799, to meet laws of not being required to have lot of coverage. We should have been allowed 20 feet back. They pushed us to 21, while HRG said to move it the other way. I'm being given catch-22s of give more view, but put it closer to the home to give less view. It's absurd. Absolutely absurd.

The most revealing moment is when I asked Matthew, the head of the department, put it in writing, asked HRG to say specifics. He said, "We don't work that way." Well, guess what? I've looked at the law. They have to work that way. They have to have laws in writing that I can follow to get this approved. This city is not an historic district city. This is an historic home, but not on the state lists.

So, it's a more minor home. I have an R2 lot. A mass and a home are expected in front of it. They're demanded in front of it. The whole rest of the street has that. Everybody's out to a 13 to 15 feet from the front. This is a buildable lot.

Tell me what I can build on it, please. Because I'm trying. I'm trying really hard. A 799 square foot, one bedroom, 16 foot high, 1 foot down on the ground is not at all imposing on the views. How much more time do I have? Two minutes?
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Twenty-three seconds.

Jonathan Lukoff (Applicant & Owner):

Oh. So, my request tonight is approve this and move it into the front setback so everybody... So that not everybody's happy. So that I meet state requirements and HRG's request, even though Sapphos, which should rule, says it was perfectly fine where it was and how it was.

Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Thank you very much. All right.

Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

All set.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

After members of the public speak, you'll have a three-minute reply, and then we'll be asking questions and then deliberating.

So members of the public, you can start. I assume there's going to be a few. You each have three minutes. Start by stating your name, if you could, please. 175
175 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

Mark Lewis (Neighbor):

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Mark Lewis, owner of property at 248 Chiquita Street, which is just one up from the subject property. So at first, I want to say thank you to the city for sending out the notice, because for two and a half years, apparently this project's been going on, and this is the first time we've gotten notice from anybody relative to the project other than hearsay stuff from neighbors. So, we appreciate that. Thank you.

My wife and I, our family, we bought our home 31 years ago. And when we bought it, we knew that there was a very large structure, the existing structure that's on the property, but there was adequate space in the front where we had views of light and air and things of that nature. When the project, the property added 10 years ago, 10-12 years ago, extended the garage right on the property line due to the Mills Act accommodation and added an additional two story. I think we went through, the project went through something like 6 Heritage committee meetings, 3 or 4 DRBs, a couple of council meetings. And at the end, the DRB approved. And we, like he, accepted the approved project. And that there were stipulations placed on that which said that the hedges had to be maintained at six feet high, and that the comment was made in that DRB hearing that the property had achieved its maximum program for the property.

So, the applicant pursued and willingly signed a Mills Act. And of the Mills Act, some of the sections say, "All changes shall comply with applicable city regulations and guidelines, United States Secretary of Interior, and guidelines for historic preservation, and shall be subject to approval of the community development director." As was referenced in the HRG reports, the one in 2023 said, "The close proximity of the ADU to existing residents will obscure several features because the ADU is wider than existing residents, and views of the residence will be blocked." That opinion was followed up with...

Oh, I'm sorry. Going back. So, there was that opinion. And also, "The ADU is too large for the allowable building space, and will be too close to the residence and will block important views as seen from the public right of way, and negatively affect the historic character of the residence." This was further followed up in the report just last month with a similar thing. However, it's size and massing does not comply with the standards because there's not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU. This seems to be very consistent with the comments that were made back 10, 12 years ago, that this property has achieved its maximum program. And the Heritage Committee, as was reported, vehemently... I think their words they actually used were vehemently opposed, five-nothing, commenting again on the mass and the scale and the neighborhood compatibility, and didn't see how anything really could fit well on this property.

Let's face it. It's a box that blocks views, light, and air, to many of the properties on Chiquita Street.

It also deprives the public of views of the historic structure, as well as ocean and sunset views from Chiquita for the public, and it's not neighborhood compatible. Thank you for your time.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Melanie Lewis (Neighbor):

Good evening, I'm Melanie Lewis. I'm Mark's wife. We own the property at 248 Chiquita, which is one above 238. We have lived in Laguna for 40 years, and for 30 of them, we've owned our house at 248 Chiquita Street. And one of the reasons we chose Laguna Beach is because of the unique character that we have here in Laguna Beach. We protect our historic sites, and not only homes but buildings throughout the city, and it's an important characteristic of our city. If somebody wants to 176
176 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

build to mass capacity of a footprint on a property, there are other beautiful beach cities that they can go to, and that would be possibly Corona Del Mar, which is what they are okay with. That's not what Laguna Beach is about.

View, light, and space is a huge characteristic protected entity here in Laguna Beach, just as the woman said before us. We hope, as a DRB, that you recognize not just the public view, but people that live right there every single day about that view. When we bought our property, we knew that the back of the property was going to be blocked by the current house, and we did work with them in regards to getting some of the things that he wanted. We actually gave up some of our view in the back so that he could have what he wanted. The...

Excuse me. In Laguna, we talk about view, light, and space all of the time. It is important. It is important to each and every one of us. And the fact that someone values it over somebody else without taking into consideration what they are doing to their neighbors, to that next person. In consideration to keeping to the character of the neighborhood is working with your neighbors and coming to something that you can work together on. And there's been no discussion at all about this, other than the fact that we did get the card, no story poles. I can tell you right now that that structure, and I know we talk about public view and how important that is, but I'm going to tell you as a property owner, it's important to me too. As a breast cancer survivor, view, light, and space, when I was recovering, was very important to me. Our family is going to own that property. Our grown children will be moving into it to raise their family. It's an important thing for us to be able to look out and see the ocean, the light, the space.

It's not just a structure from beginning of the property to the back. I don't care if it's 13 feet back or 21 feet back. It's 16 feet high in our windows, our only view corridor that we have on that property because of the existing structure that's in the back. We just want to maintain the character of this city just as the predecessors wanted us to do back then. And we hope that DRB will see that, and hopefully we can maintain the view. Not just for him, but us, because he will have a beautiful ocean view across this whole property. Not us. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Go ahead.

Ian Wolcott:

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Ian Wolcott. I am the attorney representing the homeowners of 245 Cajon Street, across the alley. I'll keep my comments brief because the facts and law in this situation seem to be pretty clear-cut in favor of denial.

We're aware of the limited areas in which state law allows local governments to regulate the impacts of ADUs. However, even under the permissive structure of state law, the applicant has still managed to propose a project location and design that the city legally can and should deny. To start, we appreciate the staff's analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on the public view of coastal resources. When we received the public hearing notice and inquired about the project, we came to believe that there would be an impact, but it was difficult to assess that impact because the applicant declined to install the required story poles.

The staff report confirms that construction of the proposed ADU would block important views of the coast and of the undeveloped hills from Chiquita Street and the PCH. We believe views from the Hillcrest Drive, Chiquita intersection would also be blocked, but without story poles, we can't independently confirm that. Furthermore, as the staff report discusses, construction of the proposed project would substantially obscure the public's view of a home on the city's historic 177
177 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

register, which is subject to a Mills Act contract. The owner has received a benefit from the public in the form of publicly subsidized property taxes in return for protecting the historic resource he now proposes to obscure from public view. The owner cannot have it both ways. Either this is a historic property that contributes to the public street views or it is no longer a historic property.

Said street views are obscured, and the public no longer benefits from them. I was present at the Heritage Committee's hearing on this item on Monday night. They described their recommendation of denial as unanimous and vehement. We concur.

Finally, as mentioned by others and in the staff report, staff has determined that the applicant is asking for lot coverage in excess of what is allowed on this property. If the DRB can consider this and the severe impact the proposed ADU structure will have on the views of other homes on neighboring properties, I hope the Board will take the concerns of the residence of 248 Chiquita into account. We support the comments of Mr. and Mrs. Lewis on this matter. Thank you very much for your time.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Go ahead.

Cliff Legalt (Neighbor):

Good evening. My name is Cliff Legalt. I live at 241 Chiquita, and have lived there for 53 years. I'm now the oldest on the neighborhood, but I just want to reiterate that you guys are stewards of our future. Not just our impact, but my family's impact for generations to come, because this is a house that we're going to keep forever. It's not just for the vistas that are being obstructed, but the scale and the appearance of the streetscape is going to be changed. And right now, it has been the same for the entire time that I've lived there.

Yeah, we've upgraded this and that, but there hasn't been major changes like this proposing. And the public view from the street is going to be denied, beach and sunset views. And so, I vehemently request that this project be denied. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Thank you very much. One more speaker.

Adam Rochber (HRG Representative):

Good evening, Board members. My name is Adam Rochber, and I represent Historic Resources Group or HRG. You should have before you both of the memos we prepared, the original one in 2023 and the other one from January of this year. In summary, this property is listed in the Laguna Beach register and it's a Mills Act property. The bar is high for this property. Our firm has therefore reviewed the project against the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and I want to say that that was done neutrally. We just looked at the standards. We're not interested in the design quality, just the standards strictly. The project fails to meet the standards, which relate to new construction adjacent to historic buildings.

The proposed location of the ADU is incompatible with the property. The standards specifically advise against placing new structures in front of historic buildings. The proposed placement would obscure the home's primary elevation from the public right of way, and negatively impact the spatial relationships that characterize the property, including its existing relationship with the street and the neighborhood. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer questions if you have any. 178
178 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Seeing none, I return to the applicant. You have three minutes.

Jonathan Lukoff (Applicant & Owner):

Thank you. Change is hard, and everything built has mass and obstructs view at some level. So, the statements are true. And I do thank Mark and Melanie for helping me with a remodel of the rear that was falling down, but it was actually two stories. There was a huge attic with a window in it that was replaced by a bedroom and a bathroom, and totally reinforced the structural integrity of the home and made it better. Also, is now more fireproof because of the sprinklers. This is an historically our two lot. A home is expected historically. I am putting a home, 800 square feet is a third the size of the existing home. By any standard, even half is usually allowed. Sixteen feet high, a foot down is actually... A foot down from the front, a foot up from the street is, again, not massive relative to the hugely tall structure.

It also elevated another two feet from up the porch. So, we're really not obstructing the views of the entire upper story of the beautiful design of the roof. Several of you have been there and seen that's what's important, not the porch 1960s and its cover. They're absurd. Actually, the city has recurrently asked me to change it and make it more historic. I'd like to someday if they made it reasonable and doable. I'd love to change that back to something that fits the home, the door, the porch, the front window maybe. I'm trying to preserve views from the street. It would be better if it's in the front setback somewhat, and the front setback by law cannot be used to stop me from building. So if you're pushing me all the way to 21 feet and then say I'm obstructing, you're giving me a catch-22 you're not allowed to do by state law.

You must allow me to build. I must be allowed the 800 square feet. I must be allowed the 16 feet total height, and you got to tell me where. I've tried to cantilever it. I think that design both allows for me to have the parking. It allows four views somewhat under and completely over. It's an elegant design that we came up with to preserve views and to consider that. Mark and Melanie have told me recurrently they will never let me build. They told me it before I did anything to that property. They told me when I moved in. I can build. It's an R2 lot. I'm just trying to build something ministerially by state law. But please, you have the ability to allow me to move it in the front stepback. That's what I'd like. Thank you.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Thank you very much. Any questions?
Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

I have a question for staff. For a heritage project like this, a property like this, is it a state law to not be able to build in front of the house?
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Why don't you address it back? This is Mills Act which is aJessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

Part of the Mills Act.
179
179 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

It's a contract with the applicant.

Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

Okay. Right. So, I read the contract. You have a contract. Well, I'll save my comments for later.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Yeah, let me go through it. There's no state law, and correct me if I'm wrong, that says if you have a Mills Act, you can't, but you might be in breach of the contract with the city. Am I shootingPatrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

Correct, Mr. Chair. So, that's fair. It is a fair statement to say the city's position is not that nothing can be built on this lot. That is unequivocally not the case. It just must go through the process. And as the Chair said, there are certain contractual obligations, as well as, which is your guys' purview, the entitlement, i.e. a CDP, that is the focus of your guys' [inaudible 00:27:28].

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

And I'll be going through the Mills Act contract. All right, any other questions? Jonathan Lukoff (Applicant & Owner):
[inaudible 00:27:33]
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

No, you can't. Public hearing is closed, unless somebody has a question of you.

Louis, any questions?
Louis Weil:

No, I'm okay.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Okay. I'm closing the public hearing, and I'll start. First of all, I want to hit two things. One is the staff report was excellent. It laid out, I think, the issues, the standards correctly, and I'll get into the conclusions. The conclusions, notwithstanding the staff report, are mine, and each Board member will be able to state theirs. The second thing is, because of the conditional use permit criteria that we may have to make findings, one of them, Criteria 6, deals with visual compatibility. And in many cases, that requires story poles. And I think it's unfortunate you didn't put up story poles. But that being said, in my view, story poles are not necessary for my conclusions. If they were, I would state so and continue, or suggest continuing the hearing for story poles. But story poles are important when we're dealing with ADUs that are subject to coastal development permits. But in this case, I think that I can make the determination without the need for them based on the information we have.

First, I'll hit the coastal development permit. There's been statements by the applicant about what's the law, and I must respectfully disagree. I think the staff report lays it out pretty clearly, but I'll just summarize. There's a carve-out from the ADU law for, basically, matters within the Coastal 180
180 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

Act of 1976. This city has a local coastal plan that was approved by the Coastal Commission, which is pursuant to the carve-out. The required actions and entitlement standards and criteria are not subject to the ADU law, but rather subject to the Coastal Act, and specifically our own local coastal plan. In that plan, we are required, in connection with ADU, to evaluate a coastal development permit, and the ADU requires a coastal development permit.

There's two criteria that are triggered here. But let me say the finding we have to make for a coastal development permit is, one, that it meets various criteria. I'll be talking about Criteria 6 and 3. It must comply with general land use plan elements, and I'll address a few of those. And it must comply with the zoning provision on building site coverage, and I'll be addressing that. Criteria 6 is the proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. I have looked at the proposal. I walked the streets. I don't think this comes close to being visually compatible. The houses in this vicinity on Chiquita are primarily cottage where there is two-story. The second story is set back much like the applicant's property is currently. Up the street, there are a few homes or a few, actually apartments, that go to the setback in very large mass, but that's at the top of the street.

I find the relevant visual compatibility in a neighborhood to be middle to lower Chiquita. And in that, this house would stick out like a sore thumb if this ADU is permitted. So, the ADU is not visually compatible from the homes in the vicinity of the project. Criteria 3 reads, "The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational, or visitor-serving facilities, or coastal scenic resources." I find that this project does not comply with Criteria 3 for three reasons. First, coastal resources include ocean views from public areas. It's called, in our code, coastal visual resources.

The Open Space and Conservation Element, which is part of our local coastal plan, defines visual resources as "coastal scenic resources as shoreline features or the natural appearance of the coast." Here, the placement of the ADU and its height block public views of the ocean, and therefore impact coastal resources.

Second, the historic house is a protected resource under our local coastal plan, further bolstering the need for protection of the view of the house and the ocean. Third, the historic house itself qualifies as a recreation or visitor-serving facility. It's much like seeing a piece of art in a plaza in a coastal area. And there are tours and people do seek out and look at our historic homes. And one of those prime lists of historic homes or Mills Act... I also should point out that this was put on the historic registry and a Mills contract sought by the applicant based on a claim, which I think is clearly substantiated that this is a Laguna Beach historic house and must be treated as such under the local coastal plan.

Okay. The next element after the criteria is Land Use Element 2.2, which encourages the preservation of historically significant residential structures, and protect the character-defining components of Laguna Beach's traditional neighborhoods. I think this project falls within the sweet spot of what should not be allowed under this Land Use Element. We heard from HRG. I read the reports. I think the HRG reports are spot on. It, among other things, concludes that under the standards applicable to historic homes, the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard 2 and 9 in particular, really states the rule effectively that you cannot block historic homes with structures. I agree 100% with its analysis and conclusions in that regard, and specifically its conclusion in the supplemental report that "The project does not comply with the standards because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource, and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterized the property."
181
181 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

I also point out that the Heritage Committee was vehement, and I go through this to make the applicant and the public understand that this is not a close case on historic preservation of historic resources. Not only does he carve-out from the ADU law, our local coastal plan, but numerous other things which I'll get into really require that we preserve jewels like the house the applicant owns, but the applicant taught to take advantage of that jewel by applying and receiving a Mills Act contract. So, I just don't think this project complies with the Land Use Element 2.2. It also doesn't apply with Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 12-C, which again, is to protect houses of historic significance. So for those reasons, I cannot make finding one required for the issuance of a coastal development permit.

Now with respect to the Mills Act, the Mills Act, what this applicant did to receive the benefits of the Mills Act in the form of reduced property taxes is agreed to a contract. And that contract, among other things under Section 3, requires that the owner preserve, maintain, and where necessary, restore or rehabilitate, and its character-defining features. Notably, the general architectural form, style, design, scale, proportions, and so forth of the exterior of the property. I think that that provision precludes, among other things, blocking the view of that historic home from the public. It would be effectively as if you were putting over a shroud over the historic house, and saying, "No one can see it, but I want to get all the benefits, and deprive the city of property tax revenues." That's not how it works.

Finally, building site coverage. It exceeds with the ADU building site coverage, which is another cause for denying a coastal development permit in this case. The last point I'll make, and I know I've gone a little long, but I think it's important for the applicant and the public to understand how this Board and how this city deals with historic resources: CEQA. Under the California Environment Equalities Act guideline Section 15303... I should point out initially that CEQA compliance is not required where we are going to deny a project. I want to hear what the other Board members, but if the decision is to deny, we don't have to comply with CEQA. But it's important to point out that if CEQA was to apply, the category exemption would not apply to this project. Categorical exemption means it's a way of not having to comply with CEQA. If you have a certain project that is not likely, and it's defined in the CEQA guidelines to impact the environment, you don't have to proceed with all the CEQA compliance requirements, including initial study, negative declaration, or even an EIR.

However, there are exemptions to the categorical exemption, one of which relates to historical resources. So where historical resources are in play, in other words, a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource, then CEQA must be complied with. If there were no problems with this project, and we would otherwise be in a position to approve it, which we're not even close to, it would not comply with CEQA, and there would have to be a full-blown CEQA compliance.

So, those are my comments. I would deny this project. Would you want us to go next, Jess? Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

I just had three comments and then three little markings, and I heard you say each one. Yeah, I agree it doesn't compliment the existing structure, and it doesn't compliment the neighborhood.

The CDP public views are being taken. The objective standard findings are not met as proposed, and you have a contract with the Mills Act. So anyway, I'm not supportive of the project and would approve denying it.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

I'll just point for the record that the applicant just left the hall. 182
182 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

Go ahead, MJ.

MJ Coveny:

In light of what just occurred, I concur with my Board member here. And I want to thank you, Chair Gibbs, for drilling down in that, and having tenacity and knowledge and ability to thread through all of that. And I really appreciate you have your lifting there. Yeah, I concur that this blocking this historic house and taking advantage of the Mills Act is not acceptable. I think the design was completely shoehorning something in that has no relevance and no compatibility with the neighborhood. And it does not meet Finding 6 and 3 of the Land Use, that I believe you called out specifically for the CDP. So, I would also deny this project tonight.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Louis?
Louis Weil:

I want to thank Chair Gibbs for his in-depth analysis. I think that really covered a lot of the basis, and I concur with his commentary, and concur with my other Board members as well. I think the staff report was well outlined for where the criteria of the project is not met. I think the HRG analysis, that Standards 2, 4, and 9 were significantly compromised. And their conclusion, there's just not enough room to accommodate the ADU design without blocking the existing historic residents from the public view right away. And I think those are significant components that the design and the layout of this application just doesn't work for the neighborhood compatibility.

Yeah. So, I'm supportive of denying theThomas Gibbs (Chair):

Okay, I'd like to make the motion. I move that the Board adopt Resolution 2026-0148, denying coastal development permit 2026-0148 for the property located at 238 Chiquita Street.

Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to be sure. Myself, Madam Associate Planner, and Mr. Planning Manager, we're all taking notes during your synopsis. And it's a little bit broader than the existing resolution, which is fine. We can incorporate that. I just want to make sure that the resolution... Excuse me, the motion, reflects that. That you are adopting the denial based off of the myriad of reasons that you listed, whichThomas Gibbs (Chair):

As I was stating, I was thinking about that. There are grounds that I included in my description that are not in the resolution.

Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
183
183 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

It may be worthwhile because this may go to litigation and may go to the city council. For you to review my comments, revise the resolution, and bring it up at the next hearing on consent calendar.

Or can we do it now?
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

Yeah. I think I'm comfortable, and I'll defer to Sammi or Bill. I think we're comfortable that we can take your... Obviously, taking notes. We will re-listen to it, and then simply update the resolution.

However, it is up to the Board whether or not you all are comfortable with that, or you would like it to come back on it.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

I think that that could be challenged, and I just don't want to challenge. So I'm happy to listen to it, but I would like to do it on consent calendar with the revisions.

Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

That's entirely the purview of the Board.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Yeah. My only concern is thatJessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

Sir, we'd like to just deny it, and I have faith that staff can get it done.

Louis Weil:

Maybe we shouldThomas Gibbs (Chair):

I have aNo, hold on a second. I have 100% faith. It's not that question. It's just that if the resolution is changed materially on a substantive matter without our review, that could be a ground to challenge it in court. And that's why I would just feel more comfortable...

I think it's important to get into some of my comments, but I would feel more comfortable from the city's standpoint. It's not a question of trusting staff.

Louis Weil:

Can I provide this, maybe, suggestion?
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Go ahead.

Louis Weil:

Since the agenda's not that heavy, and maybe this would be subject to Patrick's weigh-in, we've had a discussion. We've kind of given our vote. What if we tabled this, or trailed this item and go on 184
184 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

to the next one? Giving staff the time to update that resolution, and then we conclude the vote at the end of the item.

Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

Yeah.

Louis Weil:

Since the applicant left, we could close this item and then finish it off with the correct resolution, with adjustments from Patrick.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

I think ordinarily that would be a good idea, but I would prefer that they go through my comments, and there's a couple of things that really need to be well drafted. It won't take long to do it on consent calendar.

Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

And there was too much that was said.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Yeah.

Louis Weil:

Okay.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

I'd rather do it right than do it quick. So, why don't we continue this, or how do you want us to do this?
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

Yeah. So I think the motion is to direct staff to come back with the resolution of denial, including all of the additional points made by Chair Gibbs at the next hearing on consent. Such that when we hear that item, it is not a rehearing of the item. It is rather just, did staff accurately jot down and incorporate the decision of the Board into the updated resolution? Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Okay. I'll move that the Board direct staff to revise the resolution of denial, to incorporate additional points made during the deliberations, and that it be presented on the consent calendar that the matter will not be subject to rehearing or questioning. It will be just to confirm that the resolution as revised conforms to what was discussed during deliberations.

Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

And that'll be on March 12th, Mr. Chair.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
185
185 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

Thank you very much. Do I have a second?
MJ Coveny:

Second.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Please call the roll.

Paola Miller (Clerk):

Board Member Coveny?
MJ Coveny:

Yes.

Paola Miller (Clerk):

Board Member Wile?
Louis Weil:

Yes.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Louis, you got to say it again.

Louis Weil:

Yes. Sorry, the thing just glitched. Can you hear me?
Paola Miller (Clerk):

No worries.

Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Yeah.

Paola Miller (Clerk):

Chair Gannon?
Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

Yes.

Paola Miller (Clerk):

Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):

Yes.
186
186 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript

Paola Miller (Clerk):

Motion has passed, 4 to 0.
187
187 of 1108
P.O. Box 655
Sierra Madre, CA 91025
www.sapphosenvironmental.com
430 North Halstead Street
January 6, 2023
Project No. 2751-001
Design Review for the Project Located at
238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

2.6 2751-001.M01
TO: Mr. Jonathon Lukoff
FROM: Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
(Mr. Scott Torres and Ms. Carrie Chasteen)
SUBJECT: Design Review for the Project Located at 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
ATTACHMENT: A. Key Personnel Resumes
Attachment 7
188
188 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Memorandum for the Record (MFR) has been completed in support of the property owner’s desire to construct an accessary dwelling unit (ADU) on the lot located at 238 Chiquita Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number 05312418) in the City of Laguna Beach (City), Orange County, California.

The owner seeks to add to the subject property in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOIS). In 2008, the subject property was listed in the City Historic Register as a “K”-rated property. Thus, for the purpose of this MFR, the subject property is a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (Mr. Scott Torres and Ms. Carrie Chasteen) was retained by the property owner to evaluate and inform the proposed ADU project to comply with the Standards. After careful research and evaluation of the proposed project, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. concluded that the proposed ADU project would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines. 189
189 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 3

INTRODUCTION
This Memorandum for the Record (MFR) recounts the design review for the proposed project located at 238 Chiquita Street, City of Laguna Beach (City), Orange County, California, 92651 (Figure 1, Sketch Map, 238 Chiquita Street). The subject property was listed as a “K”-rated property on the City Historic Register; thus, is a historical resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (Mr. Scott Torres and Ms. Carrie Chasteen; Attachment A, Key Personnel Resumes) was retained by the client to complete a design review of the proposed exterior renovations to the subject property.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) project complies with the regulations set forth by the State of California and the City. The proposed project shall not exceed a height requirement of 16 feet. The proposed project shall not exceed 850 square feet for a single-bedroom unit and 1,000 square feet for a dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom. The proposed project will construct a cantilevered 2-bedroom, 999-square-foot ADU.

IDENTIFICATION OF CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES
The subject property is a Craftsman-style residence that was constructed in 1925. The subject property is set back from the public right-of-way (ROW) approximately 50 feet. The primary façade is partially obscured by a hedge from the public ROW. Character-defining features from the immediate public ROW include a steep-pitched cross-gable roof, triangular attic vent, fixed-glass picture window, second-story windows with valance grids, and a wood trellis. As is, the subject property is a modest Craftsman-style cottage. Based on views from the north and south, the subject property’s cross-gabled roof and second-story windows are the most significant features visible from the public ROW.
190
190 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 4 Figure 1. Sketch Map, 238 Chiquita Street
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2022
191
191 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 5

REGULATORY SETTING
State of California
65852.2. 1
(a) (B)(1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multi-family dwelling residential use. The ordinance shall do all of the following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where ADUs may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety. A local agency that does not provide water or sewer services shall consult with the local water or sewer service provider regarding the adequacy of water and sewer services before designating an area where ADUs may be permitted.
(B) (i) Impose standards on ADUs that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.
(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any ADU located within its jurisdiction. (C) Provide that ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the ADU is located, and that ADUs are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. (D) Require the ADUs to comply with all of the following:
(i) Except as provided in Section 65852.26, the ADU may be rented separate from the primary residence, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence.
(ii) The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multi-family dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing dwelling. (iii) The ADU is either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling.
1 California Department of Housing and Development. December 2020. “Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook.” 192
192 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 6 (iv) If there is an existing primary dwelling, the total floor area of an attached ADU shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling.
(v) The total floor area for a detached ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
(vi) No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an ADU.
(vii) No setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an ADU or to a portion of an ADU, and a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an ADU that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(viii) Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate.
(ix) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required.
(x) (I) Parking requirements for ADUs shall not exceed one parking space per ADU or per bedroom, whichever is less. These
spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway. (II) Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions.
(III) This clause shall not apply to an ADU that is described in subdivision (d).
(xi) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, the local agency shall not require that those offstreet parking spaces be replaced.
(xii) ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
193
193 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 7 (3) A permit application for an ADU or a junior ADU shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an ADU or a junior ADU within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multi-family dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an ADU or a junior ADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or the junior ADU until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or junior ADU shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs incurred to implement this paragraph, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of an ADU.
(4) An existing ordinance governing the creation of an ADU by a local agency or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. If a local agency has an existing ADU ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of ADUs, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.
(5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. (6) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed ADU on a lot that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be used or imposed, including any owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. (7) A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an ADU if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. (8) An ADU that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The ADU shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(b) When a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing ADUs in accordance with subdivision (a) receives an application for a permit to create an ADU pursuant to this 194
194 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 8 subdivision, the local agency shall approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to subdivision (a). The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an ADU or a junior ADU within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multi-family dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an ADU or a junior ADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or the junior ADU until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or junior ADU shall still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. (c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached ADUs.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency shall not establish by ordinance any of the following:
(A) A minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached ADU that prohibits an efficiency unit.
(B) A maximum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached ADU that is less than either of the following:
(i) 850 square feet.
(ii) 1,000 square feet for an ADU that provides more than one bedroom. (C) Any other minimum or maximum size for an ADU, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot ADU that is at least 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.
(d) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing ADUs in accordance with subdivision (a), shall not impose parking standards for an ADU in any of the following instances:
(1) The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. (2) The ADU located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (3) The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure.
(4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU.
195
195 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 9 (5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU. (e) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
(A) One ADU and one junior ADU per lot with a proposed or existing singlefamily dwelling if all of the following apply:
(i) The ADU or junior ADU is within the proposed space of a singlefamily dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress.
(ii) The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing singlefamily dwelling. (iii) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. (iv) The junior ADU complies with the requirements of Section 65852.22. (B) One detached, new construction, ADU that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The ADUf may be combined with a junior ADU described in subparagraph (A). A local agency may impose the following conditions on the ADU:
(i) A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet. (ii) A height limitation of 16 feet.

City of Laguna Beach

25.45.010 Procedures for Alteration of a Historic Resource2 (A) Review. Prior to the issuance of a building permit to remodel or alter any historic resource, City staff shall review the proposed changes to determine if the proposal is consistent with the design review criteria, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) or the City’s Local Design Guidelines. Interior changes shall not be reviewed unless the changes will alter a character-defining feature(s) of the historic resource or if the interior area is publicly accessible.
(B) If the project is found to be consistent with the SOIS or the City’s Local Design Guidelines, but otherwise requires design review pursuant to Section 25.05.040(B), the Heritage Committee shall make a recommendation to the approval authority prior to 2 City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code. 25.45.010
196
196 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 10 design review. Repair or replacement of existing materials with in-kind or historically appropriate materials, in the same location, does not require design review approval.

Minor alterations may be subject to Section 25.05.040 (B)(3). (C) If staff believes the project is not consistent with the SOIS and/or the City’s Local Design Guidelines, then after the appropriate environmental documentation has been prepared pursuant to CEQA, design review shall be required. The Heritage Committee shall make a recommendation to the approval authority prior to design review. (D) Historic Resource Assessment Report. If an historic resource assessment has not been prepared for the property, the Heritage Committee or the design review authority may require that an historic resource assessment, paid for by the City, be prepared prior to the review of the project to evaluate the project impacts to the property. (E) Environmental Determination. During its review, the design review authority will adopt the appropriate environmental determination pursuant to CEQA. An historic resource assessment may be required to evaluate a project’s potential environmental impact.

Projects that comply with the SOIS and the local design guidelines may be eligible for a categorical exemption.
(F) Pre-construction Meeting. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a preconstruction meeting shall occur and shall consist of the property owner, contractor, inspector assigned to inspect the structure, a City staff member, the project architect/designer and historic monitor (if required). This meeting will be used to convey the obligations and responsibilities of the property owner and his or her contractors and architects in protecting and avoiding destruction of the identified historic fabric that is to be retained. (Ord. 1670 § 1, 2022).

City of Laguna Beach
Second Residential Units 25.17
This Chapter 25.17 of the Laguna Beach municipal code was affected by Ordinance NO.16663 (A) The lot on which the second residential unit is proposed shall be zoned for single-family use only within either the R-1 or the R/HP zones.
(B) A second residential unit may be attached to or detached from the existing dwelling on the building site, with the exception of certain historic structures as described in subsection (O). Attached and detached second residential units shall be allowed on lots having a minimum site area of six thousand square feet and may range in size from two hundred seventy-five square feet to a maximum of six hundred forty square feet, as follows: The maximum second residential unit size shall be determined by multiplying the square footage of the building site by seven percent. (For example, a maximum second residential unit size of four hundred twenty square feet shall be allowable on a 3 An ordinance of the City of Laguna Beach, California repealing and replacing Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.17 (second residential units) and amending sections 25.10.004 (R-1 Residential low density zone- uses permitted), 25.15.006 (R/HP residential/hillside protection zone uses permitted), and 5.07.030 (Building Construction Tax-Imposition-Rates-Due Date) relating to the regulation of accessory dwelling units, and making a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. 197
197 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 11 building site of six thousand square feet, and a maximum second residential unit size of six hundred forty square feet shall be allowable on a building site of nine thousand one hundred forty-two square feet or more.)
(C) A second residential unit shall only be constructed concurrently with or after the construction of a single-family residence on the same building site. An application to establish a second residential unit on a vacant lot shall not be accepted as complete for processing prior to the acceptance of a completed application for the main residence; and a determination on an application to establish a second residential unit shall not be made prior to the approval of an application for the main residence. An application to establish a second residential unit, whether attached or detached, shall require zoning plan check for compliance with applicable zoning standards and criteria; however, the application shall not be subject to the design review board public hearing and approval process, with the following exceptions: (1) whenever a second residential unit is proposed in conjunction with the construction of a main residence, or in conjunction with construction modifications to an existing main residence that is subject to design review; or (2) whenever subsequent additions and/or exterior modifications to an existing second residential unit are proposed, a design review board public hearing and determination shall be required for the entire project; however, design review shall be limited to issues related to the main residence and subsequent additions/modifications to an existing second residential unit shall not result in the removal of or reduction in the size of the existing second residential unit.
(D) The design of a second residential unit, including building form, materials, exterior finishes, color scheme and landscaping, shall be compatible with the main residence. A second residential unit shall be clearly subordinate to the main residence on the site with reference to height and building envelope, location and appearance, and the floor area of the second residential unit shall comprise no more than fifty percent of the main residence floor area, up to the maximum set forth in subsection (B). (E) The second residential unit application shall include a written summary explaining how the proposed second residential unit has been designed to comply with the City’s residential design guidelines.
(F) The creation of a second residential unit through conversion of part of the existing floor area of the main residence shall be allowed provided that it complies with the standards outlined in this chapter and that the floor area of the second residential unit shall be no more than fifty percent of the main residence floor area, up to the maximum set forth in subsection (B).
(G) An attached or detached second residential unit shall be limited to a single story and shall be no more than twelve feet above any point of the existing adjacent grade elevation, including chimneys, skylights and other rooftop equipment, and shall not exceed the highest elevation of the main residence. This height limitation shall not apply to the establishment of a second residential unit within an existing structure, provided that no exterior building additions, including new exterior above-grade stairs, are proposed. The addition of windows and doors shall be allowed in existing walls. (H) The second residential unit shall meet all applicable building and construction requirements set forth in Titles 14 and 17, the zoning requirements of Title 25, and any 198
198 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 12 quantifiable, objective conditions and/or constraints related to design review pursuant to development entitlements previously approved for the subject property. (I) No more than one second residential unit shall be permitted on a single lot. At no time shall a lot contain a second residential unit and a guest house or guest room concurrently. (J) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided on-site for a second residential unit, with the exception of low- or moderate-income second residential units as set forth in subsections (R) and (S). The required parking space may be uncovered and located anywhere on the building site, provided that it shall not be located closer than five feet to a side property line or within a required on-site turnaround area. (K) The main residence shall comply with the parking regulations set forth in Chapter 25.52, or other such applicable regulations, and shall have no less than two covered parking spaces at the time a second residential unit is developed/established. (L) A lot on which a second residential unit is proposed shall abut and have the right to the use of a street improved to the standards of design set forth in Chapter 21.12. A paved turnaround area or a device that enables motor vehicles to head into the street shall be provided in compliance with Section 25.53.004(C) whenever a second residential unit is proposed on any lot fronting on an arterial or a primary residential collector street. (M) A second residential unit shall utilize the same vehicular access that serves the main residence. If the lot abuts an alley or is a “through lot” or a “corner lot” as defined in Section 25.08.022, access for both the main residence and the second residential unit shall be limited to one point or side of the lot for both dwelling units. The driveway approach or access ramp serving both residences shall be no more than twenty feet wide (excluding the driveway apron, if required) unless it is wider than twenty feet prior to the establishment of a second residential unit, in which case it shall not be widened further. (N) The building site coverage limitation shall include all structures, including the main residence, the second residential unit, garages, etc. The totality of the structure(s) on the lot shall not exceed the allowable building site coverage specified in the zone in which the second residential unit is proposed.
(O) New second residential units shall not be attached to any historic structure listed on the Historic Register, unless provided by state law.
(P) The addresses of both the main residence and second residential unit shall be clearly visible from the street.
(Q) A second residential unit shall not be rented for less than thirty days, and shall not be converted at any time to short-term lodging pursuant to Chapter 25.23, as otherwise allowed in the R-1 zone.
(R) All city building, planning, and zoning fees shall be refunded at the time of building permit finalization for the development of any second residential unit that the property owner limits by deed restriction, covenant and/or other instrument satisfactory to the City, to occupancy by low-income households for a minimum of fifty-five years, based on the income limits and applicable rental rates established annually by the state of California. 199
199 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 13 As an additional incentive, no parking shall be required for low-income second residential units, provided that the main residence complies with subsection (J). The City may impose conditions and penalties for noncompliance with the affordability restrictions, and such conditions may include monitoring and reporting requirements.

The deed restriction, covenant and/or other instrument shall be approved by the city attorney prior to recordation, and such restrictions shall not be amended or removed without the prior approval of the city council.
(S) Fifty percent of all City building, planning, and zoning fees shall be refunded at the time of building permit finalization for the development of any second residential unit that the property owner limits by deed restriction, covenant and/or other instrument satisfactory to the City, to occupancy by moderate-income households for a minimum of fifty-five years, based on the income limits and applicable rental rates established annually by the state of California. As an additional incentive, no parking shall be required for second residential units, provided that the main residence complies with subsection (J). The city may impose conditions and penalties for noncompliance with the affordability restrictions, and such conditions may include monitoring and reporting requirements.

The deed restriction, covenant and/or other instrument shall be approved in form and content by the City attorney prior to recordation, and such restrictions shall not be amended or removed without the prior approval of the City Council. (Ord. 1670 § 3, 2022; Ord. 1590 § 1, 2014; Ord. 1570 § 1, 2012; Ord. 1427 § 1, 2003). 200
200 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 14

HISTORY OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
The brief historic context of the area was adapted from the existing Laguna Beach Historic Resources Element4:
“Elmer Jahraus came to Laguna from Santa Ana in 1903 to open a cigar factory and curio shop in the lower floor of the Yoch Hotel. In 1912, his son, Joe Jahraus, started a lumberyard on upper Ocean Avenue, which enabled the community to grow at unprecedented rates.

Prior to the lumberyard, construction materials were hauled by mule down Laguna Canyon, or were floated in on the tide from boats - usually the schooner Emma. The third school was built on Park Avenue in 1908 on the site of an old cemetery. This two-room school was still in use in 1926, when it was moved down the hill to its present location on Legion Street, where it is used as Legion Hall.

By 1920 Laguna Beach had gained distinction as an art colony and popular vacation spot.

The building boom that took place in Southern California in the 1920s hit Laguna as well.

Laguna also became a destination point for the movie industry. This created a demand for hotel lodging for film crews and actors, and some of the stars even bought homes for themselves in Laguna Beach. With the increase in summer visitors, the demand for permanent residents to provide services for vacationers also increased. More and more beach cottages began to be built, and those who had previously been seasonal residents began to make Laguna Beach their permanent home. All manner and style of housing began to be erected in what was almost an “anything goes” atmosphere with very lax building requirements. During this period, the Craftsman style, was very popular around the region and was utilized in all sizes of construction. The Craftsman style was a derivative of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which spread across Europe and the United States. It was a back-tonature life-style movement resulting from a reversion from the Machine Age and the Industrial Revolution. The Craftsman style of architecture was an organic design intended to visually anchor homes to the ground and to create a design that was harmonious with the natural setting, much like a mushroom popping out of the ground. The vast majority remaining are in the mid-sized bungalow category, which are humble interpretations of the Craftsman bungalow style set forth by the architects Charles and Henry Greene of Pasadena.

The Bungalow style was derived from housing constructed for British residents in India, designed to maximize comfort in a hot climate. Almost every house built in Laguna Beach prior to 1927 had its roots in the Craftsman tradition. Greene and Greene designed large Craftsman style houses for the very wealthy, but the designs for a wide variety of smaller, more affordable Craftsman homes were readily available in catalogs throughout the country.

Those, however, which were built economically and had the least resemblance to a prevailing architectural trend, were simply beach cottages. So many of these structures still exist today that they make up an architectural category in and of themselves”.

The subject property is Craftsman style cottage that was constructed in 1925. An original building permit was not available. Therefore, the architect, if any, and builder remain unknown, and it appears the residence is not the work of a master architect and builder. The subject property has been altered outside the period of significance for Craftsman-style building. In 2018, the subject property underwent a major renovation. The project included the addition of a 202-square-foot garage, a 293- square-foot upper-level addition, a 273-square-foot lower-level addition that converted the extant garage space into living space, grading for crawl space access, skylights in the roof, air conditioning 4 City of Laguna Beach, “Historic Resources Element,” Originally Adopted July, 1981, amended August 11, 2020. 201
201 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 15 unit, fire sprinklers, and perimeter fencing. Based on a visual inspection, the subject property was also altered with the replacement of updated windows and doors that are visible from the public ROW. The second-floor windows appear to have been replaced with vinyl tilt-up windows that include glued-on wood inserts to give the appearance of window muntins. The primary entryway door and window also appear to be replacements. The picture window is a vinyl replacement. The window and door replacement appear to have been added over the course of time and are not associated with the 2018 renovation. Based on a review of the permit record and visual inspection, the subject property has been substantially altered outside the period of significance. However, in 2008, the subject property was listed in the City Historic Register as a “K”-rated property. Alterations to the primary façade including the porch, picture window, and entry door were completed prior to the inclusion of the subject property on the City Historic Register in 2008. Thus, for the purpose of this MFR, the subject property is a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Projects that meet the SOIS are considered to be mitigated to the level of less than significant (Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines) and may qualify for a Class 31 Categorical Exemption.

DESIGN REVIEW
The property owner wishes to construct a cantilevered ADU that measures 32 feet by 16 feet tall.

The cantilevered design will include a 2-bedroom unit that measures approximately 999 square feet.

The height and square footage of the proposed project meets the building requirements for ADUs in the City.

The SOIS5regarding new construction and additions to a historical resource recommends that the addition and construction of new additions result in in the least possible loss of historic materials so that the character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed. The cantilevered design of the proposed ADU will not obscure the character-defining features of the primary façade nor will it obscure the view of the building from the public ROW. Based on a visual inspection of the subject property, character-defining features located on the primary façade include the steep-pitched crossgabled roof, picture window, trellis, and primary entryway door (Figures 2A–B, Primary Façade).

Figure 2A. Primary Façade (view west)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2022
5 National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm 202
202 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 16 Figure 2B. Primary Façade (view southwest)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2022
As is, the subject property is set back from the public ROW approximately 50 feet and is not clearly visible. A privacy hedge obscures character-defining features almost completely (Figures 3A–B). In 2018, the subject property was renovated. Based on a visual inspection, the primary entry door and vinyl picture window are replacements. Based on correspondence with the property owner, the picture window and door were extant upon purchase of the subject property in 2007. A review of the City building permit record did not reveal a date the door and window alteration was completed.

Figure 3A. View of the Subject Property Obscured by Privacy Hedge (view west) SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2022
203
203 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 17 Figure 3B. View of the Subject Property Obscured by Privacy Hedge and Set Back, (view west); red arrow points to subject property
SOURCE: Google Earth, 2022
The SOIS do not recommend “Duplicating the exact form, material, style, and detailing of the historic building in a new addition so that the new work appears to be historic.” 6 The proposed project does
not aim to replicate the subject property in form, material, and style. The cantilevered design will be differentiated from the subject property.

The SOIS recommend new construction projects “retain the historic relationship between buildings and landscape features in the setting.”
7 Additionally, the SOIS highlight preserving the relationship between adjacent buildings and landscape features. The proposed project will not substantially impact the setting of the neighborhood. The subject property is the only known resource located on Chiquita Street and is not clearly visible to pedestrians traveling north and south along Pacific Coast Highway. The distance from Pacific Coast Highway to the subject property is approximately 240 feet to the south. Additionally, the subject property is not clearly visible from Hillcrest Drive to the north.

The distance from Hillcrest Drive to the subject property is approximately 298 feet. Additionally, the subject property is set further back than the adjacent residences to the north and south. The average setback of residential properties located on Chiquita Street, from north to south is 20 feet. The addition of the proposed ADU will not protrude beyond adjacent residential buildings to the north and south of the subject property. The addition will not result in a visual impact to the linear massing of the block. Therefore, the proposed ADU will not result in a direct visual impact to the setting of the neighborhood and would not disrupt the spatial relationship between adjacent buildings and landscape features. The residences located on Chiquita Street do not represent a cohesive architectural style, therefore would not merit a potential designation as a historic district.

The SOIS also recommend that “Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.” The subject property is zoned R-2 and can accommodate an additional building. The proposed project will not encroach or be appended to in any way to the existing building located on the subject property. Therefore, the physical structure and design characteristics will not be altered. Therefore, the subject property will remain in its original location and remain utilized as single-family residence. Therefore, the subject property will remain a physical record if its time, place, and use. The addition of the ADU will be differentiated from the subject property and will not aim to create a false sense of historical 6 National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm 7 National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm 204
204 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 18 development. The proposed project will not add features or elements from the subject property or surrounding properties.

Finally, the SOIS state: “New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.”
8 The proposed ADU would not result in a permanent
fixture and if needed could be removed at any time at the property owner’s discretion.

CONCLUSION
The proposed project located at 238 Chiquita Street complies with the SOIS and will not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource. The proposed project meets the State and City requirements for ADUs in terms of size, scale, massing, and placement. All aspects of the proposed project comply with the SOIS and will not result in the loss of historic materials so that the characterdefining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed. The proposed project will not obscure the view of the building from the public ROW. The project will not replicate the subject property building in form, material, and style. The proposed project will not be appended to the subject property. Therefore, the physical structure and design characteristics will not be altered, and the subject property will remain in its original location and remain utilized as single-family residence.

The project will preserve the historic relationship between buildings and landscape features in the setting in addition. Therefore, the project will not result in a substantial negative impact to the setting of the neighborhood. The cantilevered design will be differentiated from the subject property.

Finally, the proposed ADU would not result in a permanent fixture and if needed could be removed at any time at the property owner’s discretion. The proposed project has been evaluated against the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67) and the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and is considered to be mitigated to below the level of significance as defined in Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Should there be any questions regarding the contents of this MFR, or should additional information be required, please contact Mr. Scott Torres at (626) 683-3547, extension 115. 8 National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm
205
205 of 1108
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 19

REFERENCES
California Department of Housing and Development. December 2020. “Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook.”
City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code. 25.45.010
City of Laguna Beach, “Historic Resources Element,” Originally Adopted July 1981, amended August 11, 2020.

National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm 206
206 of 1108

ATTACHMENT A

KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES
207
207 of 1108
Carrie E. Chasteen, MS
Cultural Resources Manager
Master of Science (Historic
Preservation), School of the
Art Institute of Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois, 2001
Bachelor of Arts (History and
Political Science), University
of South Florida, Tampa,
Florida, 1997
• Cultural resources
management and legal
compliance
• History of California
• Identification and
evaluation of the built
environment
• Archival documentation
• Historic preservation
consultation
Years of Experience: 20+
• Oregon Transportation
Investment Act (OTIA) III
CS3 Technical Lead
• Chair, Historic
Preservation Commission,
City of Pasadena
• Design Commission, City
of Pasadena
• Phi Alpha Theta
• Extensive experience
documenting and
evaluating parks and
recreational facilities
• Extensive experience in
the City of Riverside
Ms. Carrie Chasteen has more than 20 years of experience in the field of cultural resources and the built environment, including project management, agency coordination, archival research, managing large surveys, preparation of compliance reports, preparation of Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) sections, peer review, and regulatory compliance. She meets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the fields of History and Architectural History.

Ms. Chasteen has served as Principal Investigator / Principal Architectural Historian on projects in Kern, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Imperial, and San Diego Counties in Southern California. She has experience in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Illinois, Florida, West Virginia, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. She has extensive experience with the California Office of Historic Preservation, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, the City of Los Angeles, and various state, county, and local government agencies.

On behalf of the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), Ms. Chasteen managed the documentation and evaluation of 54 parks, golf courses, and arboreta. The historic evaluations assess County facilities that were identified as priorities due to the age of the facility, architect of record, or affiliation with event of importance to the history of development of Los Angeles County. The historic evaluations consider eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the County Register of Landmarks and Historic Districts, and standards provided in CEQA. The results were used by the County DPR to address future projects in the facilities, alter plans as needed, and to inform a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan (CRTP) and Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training. She also provided consultation services for the Arcadia County Park Pool and Bathhouse Replacement Project, which included documenting and evaluating the park as a historic district for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Because the park was found to be eligible for listing in both registers, Ms. Chasteen provided additional consultation services to ensure the replacement pools and bathhouse were in
compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in order to minimize potential impacts to the historic district.

Additional experience includes preparing Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS / HAER) documentation for the former Caltrans District 7 headquarters building, Roosevelt Annex at the California Veterans’ Home in Yountville, and the Space Flight Operations Facility, commonly referred to a Mission Control, a National Historic Monument, at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena.
208
208 of 1108
Scott E. Torres, MA
Architectural Historian
Master of Arts, History,
California State University
Fullerton, Fullerton, CA,
2020
• History
• Architecture
• California History
• Historic Preservation
• Cultural Survey
Years of Experience: 3+
• Historic Resource
Documentation and
Evaluations for Sierra
Madre Ca, Hollywood,
San Marino, Ontario,
Fontana, Glendale, and
Los Angeles
• High Speed Rail
Construction Package 4
• Society of Architectural
Historians Member
Mr. Scott Torres has more than three years of experience in the field of historic research and writing, including primary and secondary source analysis, conducting oral history interviews, peer review, and editing.

Mr. Torres has served as a project architectural historian and conducted historic assessments in the Cities of Los Angeles, including Hollywood, San Marino, Los Angeles, Orange, and surrounding communities within Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Mr. Torres has conducted a historic resource evaluation of the Little Tokyo Towers as part of a historic resource assessment report in support of the Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources.

Additional resource assessments in Hollywood include early Craftsman residences and the Period Revival Bungalow Court Apartments associated with early development and the
entertainment industry. On behalf of the County of Los Angeles, Mr.

Torres provided research and documentation on unincorporated East LA’s Unique Theater, in support of its nomination for Historic Landmark designation. Mr. Torres has also provided historic documentation and literature review in support of the Los Angeles Music Center Electric Replacement Project; the project included an impact assessment regarding identified historic resources located within the music center campus. Additionally, Mr. Torres has conducted research in support of residential design reviews in the Cities of Glendale, San Marino, and Hollywood. Mr. Torres has also provided cultural resources support for the High-Speed Rail (HSR) Construction Package (CP) 4.

Mr. Torres has conducted Department of Parks and Recreation documentation and evaluations in support of site assessments in the Cities of Sierra Madre, Monrovia, Hollywood, Los Angeles, and Ontario. This work includes site photographs, database research, and map review.

Mr. Torres is a member of the Society of Architectural Historians. 209
209 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 1 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review MEMO
TO: CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
ATTN: CHRISTIAN DOMINGUEZ, SENIOR PLANNER
FROM: LAURA JANSSEN, SR. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
DATE: JULY 12, 2023
Introduction
At the request of the City of Laguna Beach, Historic Resources Group (HRG) was asked to peer review an impacts analysis and design review for a proposed project at 238 Chiquita Street in the City of Laguna Beach prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. in January 2023.1 The purpose of this peer review is to determine if the Memorandum for the Record (MFR) prepared by Sapphos adequately analyzes the proposed project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards). This peer review includes an examination of the Sapphos MFR, review of the proposed project drawings by Keary & Associates, observation of the site, and additional review of building permits and property files, Sanborn fire insurance maps, historic aerials, and other primary and secondary sources.2 The proposed project consists of adding an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to the property.

Although not explicitly explained in the Sapphos memo, the proposed ADU would be located at the east end of the parcel between the east (primary) facade of the subject property and the street. The Sapphos MFR found the project would comply with state and local ADU regulations and conform with the Standards.

HRG concurs the project would comply with state and local ADU regulations; however, the Sapphos MFR provided insufficient information for an adequate project review and HRG found 1 “Design Review for the Project Located at 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651,” prepared by Sapphos
Environmental, Inc., January 6, 2023.
2 HRG conducted a site visit on June 1, 2023.

Attachment 8
210
210 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 2 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review the project would not comply with the Standards.

PROPERTY INFORMATION
The subject property is a two-story Craftsman style single-family residence located in McKnight’s Addition of the Hillcrest neighborhood north of the village of Laguna. It was constructed in 1925-26 by owner-builder Nils Anderson. Anderson and his wife Anna purchased the property in 1925 and the residence was completed by 1926. Anderson’s obituary in 1950 noted he was born in Sweden and was a retired contractor and rancher. He built some of the first houses in Arch Beach and built the house on Chiquita Street when he and his wife moved to Laguna Beach permanently after living in Alta Loma and Pasadena.3 The property was sold to husband and wife Richard and Mary Rogan in 1963, and in 2007 the property was sold to current owner Jonathan Lukoff.4
The property was identified and evaluated as part of earlier historic resource survey efforts conducted by the City. The residence at 238 Chiquita Street was included in the City’s 1980-81 historic resources survey and was identified as a potential heritage property. It was listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Resources Inventory, adopted in December 1982, with a “K” rating.5 At the time the property was surveyed and added to the Inventory it was considered eligible for listing in the City’s Historic Register. In 2008 the property was listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register, and in 2009 the property owner entered into a Mills Act historic property contract with the city, which is an economic incentive program for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic buildings by private property owners. Listing in the local historic register qualifies the property as a historical resource in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).6
Because the property is listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register and has a Mills Act contract it is a presumptive historical resource and the impacts from a proposed project must be reviewed for compliance with nationally recognized preservation standards. The Standards provide guidance for reviewing proposed projects that may affect historic resources.7

PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project consists of adding a two-story detached ADU to the property. No work is planned for the existing historic residence. The existing residence on the property is located at the rear of the parcel and the ADU is proposed to be located at the front of the parcel between the residence and the street. The total volume of the ADU is 32 feet in width by 20 feet in depth and 16 feet in height and equaling 999 square feet. As noted in the Sapphos MFR the ADU complies with the building requirements set forth for a two-bedroom ADU by the State of California and the City of Laguna Beach. The ADU will be placed 3 feet from the front porch and will be approximately 10 feet total from the east (primary) façade of the existing residence.

The east (primary) facade of the residence is approximately 20 feet wide at the east end and the 3 “Nils Anderson, 82, Pioneer Builder Here, Dies Friday,” South Coast News, January 24, 1950.
4 Chain of Title for 238 Chiquita Street prepared by Orange County Archives.
5 “City of Laguna Beach Historic Resources Inventory”
(Resolution No. 82.111), adopted December 21, 1982.
6 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(2),
https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf
(accessed June 2023).
7 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services,
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/ stand.htm. Accessed June 2023.
211
211 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 3 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review new ADU will be 32 feet wide, so this indicates the ADU will be 12 feet wider than the existing residence. The parcel is approximately 40 feet wide and considering setbacks, there does not appear to be another location on the parcel to place the ADU. There are no measurements provided on the drawings for the height of the existing residence, but it appears it may be approximately 25 feet in height and the ADU will measure 16 feet in height. The ADU will be set back 4 feet from the north property line, 6 feet from the south property line, and 20 feet from the east property line (Chiquita Street); these are required setbacks.

The ADU will have a flat roof, horizontal siding and cement plaster details. There will be single light casement style and horizontal sliding windows. A portion of the second story will overhang the first story leaving an open void under south end of the second story. The first story will measure approximately 18 feet x 22 feet in plan and the second story, which will measure 32 feet x 22 feet in plan will overhang the first story by 16 feet towards the south. It is not clear from the drawings whether this will be a true cantilever or if it will have a support system.

The project proposes to remove the existing driveway at the north side of the parcel and replace it with a 4 foot wide walkway, and the driveway will be relocated to the south side of the parcel. The privacy hedge along the east property line will be removed. The drawings do not indicate the material of the driveway or walkway.

Peer Review Findings
This peer review was conducted to ensure that the impacts analysis of the subject property as presented by Sapphos is complete and accurate in order to determine if the proposed project is compliant with the Standards. The Sapphos MFR is written in a narrative report style format, and while it generally follows the accepted standard format for impacts analysis and Standards compliance, the report has some obvious omissions. HRG’s findings are addressed below following the format of the memo.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION/IDENTIFICATION OF CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES The memo begins with the Project Description and Identification of Character-Defining Features. The Project Description is perfunctory at best and does not describe the project except to say that it meets the regulatory requirements for an ADU at the state and city level. It does not describe the location, setting, size, or materials of the project. In fact, nowhere in the memo does it describe where the ADU will be located on the parcel. (Please see project description as provided by HRG above.)
Identification of Character-Defining Features would benefit from a proper development history and architectural description prior to identifying features. There is no architectural description in the memo and there is a brief development history later in the memo. The features noted are only those that can be seen from the street, and the list is incomplete. There is a privacy hedge at the property line that partially blocks the view of the residence from the street; however, a hedge (even a fence) is ephemeral and should not determine what is and what is not character defining. The whole residence must be evaluated on its own merit and not just what can be observed from the street. A complete list of character-defining features would include:
212
212 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 4 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review  Two story massing
 Asymmetrical composition
 Irregular rectangular plan
 Deep front yard setback
 Front gable roof with two shed dormers flanking gable ridge and two gable dormers on south slope of roof
 Horizontal louver attic vent in front gable
 Open eaves with exposed rafters and fascia boards
 Wood brackets under eaves
 Horizontal wood siding
 Window openings with flat wood casing and protruding sills  Main entry with flat wood casing
 Raised concrete stoop at main entry
 Wood pergola spanning primary facade

REGULATORY SETTING
The Sapphos MFR provides the text for the State of California and City of Laguna Beach regulations for ADUs as set forth by the California Department of Housing and Development and Chapter 25.17 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, respectively. Unfortunately, neither of these regulations provides design guidelines for ADUs on historic properties. Sapphos also provides the City’s “Procedures for Alterations of a Historic Resource” from Chapter 25.45.010 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code; however, they fail to include a copy of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which are referenced in the first paragraph of the chapter, “Prior to the issuance of a building permit to remodel or alter any historic resource, City staff shall review the proposed changes to determine if the proposal is consistent with the design review criteria, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) or the City’s Local Design Guidelines.” This is an significant oversight because the memo uses language from the Standards in their design review, and it is standard preservation practice to include a copy of the Standards with a brief explanation to inform the reader what the Standards are and how they will be applied. A link to the Standards is provided in a footnote in the Design Review section, but seeing as the memo is primarily reviewing the project against the Standards, it would have been advantageous to include them in the regulatory section. They are included below.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards) are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources.

While compliance with the Standards does not necessarily determine whether a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource, projects that comply with the Standards are presumed to have a less than significant adverse impact on a historic resource.8
Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
8 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(b)(3),
https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf
(accessed January 2023).
213
213 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 5 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review Generally, a project that follows The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings
9 (Treatment Guidelines) shall be considered as
mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.

This section references the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and guidelines for four distinct historic treatments, including: (1) preservation; (2) rehabilitation; (3) restoration; and (4) reconstruction. The specific Standards and guidelines associated with each of these possible treatments are provided on the National Park Service’s website regarding the treatment of historic resources.10
For analytical purposes, a threshold decision must be made regarding which treatment Standards should be used to analyze a project’s potential effect on historic resources. The Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards (the Rehabilitation Standards) provide a more conservative impact analysis and account for the fact that the property will undergo alterations for its continued residential mixed use.

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are as follows:

Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the 9 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, by Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer (1995), revised by
Anne E. Grimmer (Washington, DC: 2017),
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines2017.pdf. 10 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, “The Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards” and “The Treatment of Historic
Properties,” https://www.nps.gov/Tps/standards.htm.
214
214 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 6 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

HISTORY OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
The memo copies text from the Laguna Beach Historic Resources Element to provide a brief background on the growth of Laguna and an explanation of its eclectic building stock, which is not necessary in a Standards compliance memo. The residence is already a historic resource, and the development history of the property is far more important, in this case.

The memo does provide some development history, but it is also incomplete. The residence was constructed in 1925 and there is no original building permit on file with the city, that is correct; however, it was reported in the South Coast News in 1950 that local contractor Nils Anderson was the owner-builder of the residence and the residence was constructed in 1925.11 In 1930, the paper reported he was issued a permit for an addition to the property valued at $2,000.12 This is likely the one-story addition at the rear of the house that is also shown on the 1948 Sanborn map. Historic aerial photographs from 1931 and 1947 also show the addition and show the massing and rooflines of the front portion of the house which looks much the same as it does today. Prior to the Anderson family selling the house in 1963, there was a permit issued for minor remodeling in 1961. The permit indicated the front door was replaced, the concrete stoop and porch were added, and the pergola was added over the porch.13 This indicates these items are not original to the residence; however, they were added to the residence over 60 years ago and have acquired significance in their own right.

In 1963, the new owner added a fence to the property,14 but there was no other permitted work until 2008. The current owner mentioned many of the windows had already been replaced when he purchased the property, so they were likely replaced sometime between 1963 and 11 “Nils Anderson, 82, Pioneer Builder Here, Dies Friday,” South Coast News, January 24, 1950.
12 “Permits in May Total $43,150,” South Coast News, June 27, 1930.
13 City of Laguna Beach Building Permit No. 17313 issued May 9, 1961.
14 City of Laguna Beach Building Permit No. 63-322 issued November 14, 1963.
215
215 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 7 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review 2008 and without a permit clearance. However, it appears they were replaced in original window openings. In 2008, permits were issued to upgrade the electrical and for interior remodeling, no work was done to the exterior of the residence.15 The 2018 project which enlarged the garage and added the second story to the rear of the residence is adequately explained in the Sapphos MFR. The statement that “the subject property has been substantially altered outside the period of significance,” is not entirely accurate. The residence has been altered; however, a majority of the work was done to the interior or rear of the property, the street facing primary facade has not been substantially altered.

DESIGN REVIEW
While the Design Review section appears to be using the Rehabilitation Standards and Treatment Guidelines to determine whether the proposed project will be considered “mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource” it is not clearly organized and does not reference which Standards are being applied.

There are ten Rehabilitation Standards (as noted previously), most of them apply to work on historic properties, and two refer to additions to historic properties; however, that is not explained in the Sapphos MFR. In addition, the Treatment Guidelines are intended to provide general guidance for work on historic properties and assist in applying the Standards. The Guidelines provide methods and procedures that are consistent with the Standards. One supports the other and are not mutually exclusive. As the Sapphos MFR is written it goes back and forth between referencing the Standards and the Guidelines without explanation.

HRG concurs with portions of the design review including the view that the proposed ADU will be a compatible design and differentiated from the existing residence, that it will not impact the setting of the neighborhood because it will retain the required setback, and that it will be a stand-alone structure and not physically impact the existing residence.

However, the crux of the Sapphos design review is that the proposed ADU will meet the Standards because it will not obscure the view of the existing residence (a designated historic resource) as viewed from the street. The justification is that the existing privacy hedge already obscures the residence and the new ADU will similarly obscure it. HRG does not concur with this finding. As noted in the project description, the privacy hedge will be removed to enable the driveway to be relocated, and even if the privacy hedge were to remain it would not minimize the impact of the new construction on the existing residence because the ADU is over one-third wider than the existing residence and there would be minimal view sheds from the street. Currently the residence may be seen in its entirety when viewing it from the street from the northeast. This view will be obstructed with the addition of the new ADU. Even though the front facing gable and two windows of the residence may still be visible, this is less than half of the primary façade that would remain visible which will negatively affect the historic character of the residence.
15 City of Laguna Beach Building Permit No. BP08-00111
issued January 23, 2008 and Permit No. BP08-00371 issued March 7, 2008.
216
216 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 8 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review In order to clarify the design review, HRG will evaluate the project against the Rehabilitation Standards as follows:

Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

The existing residence at 238 Chiquita Street will continue to be used as a single-family residence. The property will remain residential. The project meets Standard 1.

Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

Because the detached ADU is proposed to be placed in front of the existing residence it will alter the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. The existing residence was constructed at the rear of the parcel and has approximately a 50-foot setback from the street. Placing the ADU within the setback will remove a space that has been historically open since the residence was constructed in 1925. In addition, because the ADU will be located 10 feet from the existing residence it will obscure a majority of the view of the residence from the street. In the Chapter “New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings and Related New Construction,” the Treatment Guidelines recommend, “Constructing a new addition on a secondary or non-character defining facade and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building,” and “Constructing a new addition that results in the least possible loss of historic materials so that characterdefining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed.”16 The height of the new ADU will be lower than that of the existing residence and because it is not attached to the residence it will not remove any physical character-defining features; however, the close proximity of the ADU to the existing residence will obscure several features, including the porch and pergola, the main entry door, the fixed picture window, and because the ADU is wider than the existing residence oblique views of the residence will also be blocked. The Treatment Guidelines do not recommend, “Placing new construction too close to the historic building so that it negatively impacts the building’s character, the site, or setting.”17 The project will not meet Standard 2.

Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

No conjectural features will be added to the existing residence, and it will remain physically unchanged. The new siding and fenestration of the ADU will not match those on the existing residence, thus no proposed new construction will create a false sense of historical 16 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, by Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer (1995), revised by
Anne E. Grimmer (Washington, DC: 2017), 156-162.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines2017.pdf 17 Ibid.
217
217 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 9 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review development. The project meets Standard 3.

Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

As mentioned previously, the main entry door was replaced, and the concrete stoop and porch, and pergola on the east (primary) façade were added to the property in 1961. They have acquired significance in their own right. No physical changes will be made to these features; however, they will be obscured from the public right-of-way by the new ADU.

The project will not meet Standard 4.

Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

The project does not intend to remove or alter distinctive features or materials that characterize the property. The project does not propose to alter the existing residence on the property, which will remain intact. The project meets Standard 5.

Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

There are no character-defining features that need repair or replacement within the scope of this project. This Standard is not applicable to this project.

Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

The project does not propose chemical or physical treatments that might cause damage to historic materials. This Standard is not applicable to this project.

Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

The proposed project may include some shallow excavation for the ADU. If unexpected archaeological resources are found, they will be identified, protected, preserved, and/or documented in consultation with a qualified archaeologist. If these recommendations are followed the project will meet Standard 8.

Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

As noted above under Standard 2, the ADU will alter the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. The property has a 50-foot setback and needs to maintain a 218
218 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 10 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review 20-foot setback. The ADU is 22 feet in depth which seemingly allows 10 feet between the ADU and the residence; however, the porch and pergola measure 7 feet in depth, which in reality only allows for 3 feet between the ADU and the existing residence. The ADU is too large for the allowable building space and will be too close to the residence and it will block important views as seen from the public right-of-way and negatively affect the historic character of the residence. The project does not meet Standard 10.

Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

The project proposes to add an ADU to the property; no work is proposed at the existing residence. The ADU will be located approximately 10 feet from the existing residence, and it will not physically touch the residence. If removed in the future will not negatively impact the historic character of the existing residence or property. The project meets Standard 10.

Conclusion
The single-family residence at 238 Chiquita Street was constructed in 1925 and is listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register. It is therefore a presumptive historical resource as defined by CEQA. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. reviewed a proposed project on the property for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. HRG was asked to peer review the Sapphos memo, which found the ADU addition would comply with the Standards. The project consists of adding a detached two-story ADU to the property in the existing setback between the residence and the street. Sapphos found the proposed project would meet state and local ADU requirements and that the addition of the ADU would comply with the Standards because it would not obscure the view of the residence from the public right-of-way. This peer review found that the Sapphos memo provided insufficient information for an adequate project review of the proposed project for conformance with the Standards.

HRG reviewed the proposed project and found the project would comply with state and local ADU regulations; however, it does not comply with the Standards because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without blocking the view of the existing historic residence from the public right-of-way. 219
219 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 1 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Revised ADU Review MEMO
TO: CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
ATTN: SHAVETA SHARMA, SENIOR PLANNER
FROM: LAURA JANSSEN, SR. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
DATE: JANUARY 26, 2026
Introduction
At the request of the City of Laguna Beach, Historic Resources Group (HRG) was asked to review a revised design for a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 238 Chiquita Street in the City of Laguna Beach. In 2023, HRG provided a peer review to the City to address a Memorandum for the Record (MFR) prepared by Sapphos Environmental that analyzed the proposed ADU for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards).1 The peer review included an examination of the Sapphos MFR, review of the proposed project drawings by Keary & Associates, observation of the site, and additional review of building permits and property files, Sanborn fire insurance maps, historic aerials, and other primary and secondary sources.2
The proposed project consists of adding an ADU to the property. The proposed ADU would be located at the east end of the parcel between the east (primary) facade of the subject property and the street. HRG found the Sapphos MFR provided insufficient information for an adequate project review, and HRG reviewed the project and found it would not comply with the Standards.

HRG has reviewed the revised ADU design, which appears very similar to the 2023 ADU design.

It will be placed in the same location, the volume and height are very similar – the 2023 design measured 16 feet in height, 32 feet in width, and 22 feet in depth, and the revised project 1 “Design Review for the Project Located at 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651,” prepared by Sapphos
Environmental, Inc., January 6, 2023.
2 HRG conducted a site visit on June 1, 2023.
556 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101-514
Pasadena, CA 91105
Attachment 9
220
220 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 2 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Revised ADU Review measures 16 feet in height, 31 feet in width and 25 feet in depth. The square footage is less (799 sq. ft. down from 999 sq. ft.) because the living space on the interior has been reduced, but the exterior dimensions are the same, give or take a foot or two. Because the two designs are very similar and the volume and location of the ADU has not changed, HRG concludes this revised design will not meet the Standards.

Property Information
The subject property is a two-story Craftsman style single-family residence located in McKnight’s Addition of the Hillcrest neighborhood north of the village of Laguna. It was constructed in 1925-26 by owner-builder Nils Anderson. Anderson and his wife Anna purchased the property in 1925 and the residence was completed by 1926. Anderson’s obituary in 1950 noted he was born in Sweden and was a retired contractor and rancher. He built some of the first houses in Arch Beach and built the house on Chiquita Street when he and his wife moved to Laguna Beach permanently after living in Alta Loma and Pasadena.3 The property was sold to husband and wife Richard and Mary Rogan in 1963, and in 2007 the property was sold to current owner Jonathan Lukoff.4
The property was identified and evaluated as part of earlier historic resource survey efforts conducted by the City. The residence at 238 Chiquita Street was included in the City’s 1980-81 historic resources survey and was identified as a potential heritage property. It was listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Resources Inventory, adopted in December 1982, with a “K” rating.5 At the time the property was surveyed and added to the Inventory it was considered eligible for listing in the City’s Historic Register. In 2008 the property was listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register, and in 2009 the property owner entered into a Mills Act historic property contract with the city, which is an economic incentive program for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic buildings by private property owners. Listing in the local historic register qualifies the property as a historical resource in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).6
Because the property is listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register and has a Mills Act contract it is a presumptive historical resource and the impacts from a proposed project must be reviewed for compliance with nationally recognized preservation standards. The Standards provide guidance for reviewing proposed projects that may affect historic resources.7 Revised Proposed Project
HRG reviewed the revised plans provided by Sunset Coast Remodels of San Juan Capistrano, dated October 1, 2025. The proposed project consists of adding a two-story detached ADU to the property. No work is planned for the existing historic residence. The existing residence on the property is located at the rear of the parcel and the ADU is proposed to be located at the 3 “Nils Anderson, 82, Pioneer Builder Here, Dies Friday,” South Coast News, January 24, 1950.
4 Chain of Title for 238 Chiquita Street prepared by Orange County Archives.
5 “City of Laguna Beach Historic Resources Inventory”
(Resolution No. 82.111), adopted December 21, 1982.
6 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(2),
https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf
(accessed June 2023).
7 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services,
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/ stand.htm. Accessed June 2023.
221
221 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 3 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Revised ADU Review front of the parcel between the residence and the street.

The project data indicates the revised ADU will be 799 square feet, however the total volume and dimensions will remain the same as the previous design. The total volume of the ADU is 31 feet in width by 25 feet in depth and 16 feet in height. The ADU will be placed 3 feet from the front porch of the existing residence and will be approximately 10 feet total from the east (primary) façade of the existing residence. The east (primary) facade of the residence is approximately 20 feet wide at the east end and the new ADU will be 31 feet wide, so this indicates the ADU will be 11 feet wider than the existing residence. The existing residence is 25 feet in height and the ADU will measure 16 feet in height. The ADU will be set back 4 feet from the north property line, 6 feet from the south property line, and 20 feet from the east property line (Chiquita Street); these are required setbacks.

The ADU will have horizontal siding and a flat standing seam metal roof. The material of the siding is not indicated on the drawings. There will be single light casement, fixed, and horizontal sliding windows. The material of the windows is not indicated on the drawings. A portion of the second story will overhang the first story leaving an open void under south end of the second story. The first story will measure approximately 21 feet x 22 feet in plan and the second story, which will measure 31 feet x 25 feet in plan and will overhang the first story by 9 feet towards the south and four feet to the west.

The project proposes to remove the existing driveway at the north side of the parcel and replace it with a 4 foot wide walkway, and the curb cut of the existing driveway will be retained to access a new carport.

COMMENTS ON DESIGN:

From a preservation perspective, design is evaluated as it relates to the existing historic resource. The revised design of the ADU is similar in size and materials to the design from 2023.

The living space was reduced by 200 feet; however, the volume and dimensions are the same as the 2023 design. The horizontal siding is a compatible material with the existing residence; the flat roof and window geometry is differentiated from the gable roofs and the fractional windows of the existing residence. These design elements are differentiated yet compatible and are in compliance with the Standards. However, because the revised design is similar in size and placement to the design from 2023 its size and scale will impair the view of the primary façade of the historic resource and is not compliant with the Standards.

COMPATIBILITY:

This residence is not in a historic district; it is single historic resource on one parcel. In this instance, the ADU is not considered infill to a district but is “related new construction” to a single historic resource on a single parcel as noted in Standard 9 below. As such, the design and scale of the ADU must be compatible with the existing resource on the parcel and not the neighborhood in order to comply with the Standards. The design is compatible as noted above, but the size is not compatible and will negatively impact the spatial relationship that characterizes the property.

Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy 222
222 of 1108
Historic Resources Group 4 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Revised ADU Review historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

Conclusion
The single-family residence at 238 Chiquita Street was constructed in 1925 and is listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register. Listing in the local Historic Register qualifies it as a historical resource in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the impacts from a proposed project must be reviewed for compliance with nationally recognized preservation standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation provide guidance for reviewing proposed projects that may affect historic resources.

The project consists of adding a detached two-story ADU to the property in the existing setback between the residence and the street.

HRG reviewed the revised design of the ADU and found the design is compatible with the existing historic residence; however, the size and massing have not changed. It does not comply with the Standards because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. 223
223 of 1108
Attachment 10
224
224 of 1108
225
225 of 1108
226
226 of 1108
227
227 of 1108
228
228 of 1108
229
229 of 1108
230
230 of 1108

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
March 12, 2026
Agenda Item No. 4.1
Case No: Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
Request: To consider granting a coastal development permit to develop a new, two-story 799- square foot detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and replacement-parking carport that exceeds allowable building site coverage on property containing a twostory City of Laguna Beach-designated historic single-family residence.

Location: 238 Chiquita St. | APN: 053-124-18
Applicant: Bill Dickey, Designer
(949) 412-5208 | [email protected]
Owner: Jonathan Lukoff
Staff: Community Development Department
Sammi Montalto, Associate Planner
(949) 715-0821 | [email protected]
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-0148 denying Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 for the property located at 238 Chiquita Street
Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None.

DISCUSSION
On February 26, 2026, the Design Review Board (“Board”) directed staff to amend Resolution 2026-0148 so it reflects the additional reasons stated by the Board in support of the project denial. The attached resolution has been updated as directed and is ready for the Board’s consideration and adoption.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Amended Resolution 2026-0148
Attachment 11
231
231 of 1108
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.

Kisiel Law
1205 Victory Walk
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 549-9650
[email protected]
March 11, 2026
City of Laguna Beach
Design Review Board
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Design Review Board Agenda Item 4.1 – Draft Resolution 2026-0148 APN: 053-124-18
Application: CDP 2026-0148
Address: 238 Chiquita Street
Dear Design Review Board Members:

I am writing regarding Agenda Item 4.1 for the March 12, 2026 Design Review Board meeting for Resolution 2026-0148 and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 for the proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 238 Chiquita Street in the City of Laguna Beach (the “property”). Due to the erroneous nature of the processing of the application for planning approval and Coastal Development Permit (CDP), on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Jonathan Lukoff, I recommend that the Design Review Board re-open the public hearing on this item, disapprove the draft Resolution 2026-0148, and remand the project to the Director of Community Development for ministerial processing of the project and CDP in accordance with the clear requirements of state law.

We assert that the City’s proposed action to discretionarily deny Mr. Lukoff’s ADU and the accompanying draft resolution rests on incorrect factual and legal bases and is tantamount to an unconstitutional taking of Mr. Lukoff’s property rights. Since Mr. Lukoff owns a 4,500 square-foot R-2 zoned lot, Mr. Lukoff is entitled to build not only an ADU, but also a second main dwelling unit, under Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) §§ 25.12.004; 25.12.008.

Here, Mr. Lukoff is seeking to build an ADU consistent with his rights under Gov. Code §§ 66310, et seq. (“State ADU Law”). Furthermore, the City’s proposed action, the draft resolution, and the highly irregular nature of this proceeding do not comport with either of the Coastal Commission’s handling of similar cases or the City’s handling of similar cases. The City’s processing of Mr. Lukoff’s application for a discretionary hearing is contrary to State ADU Law and the Permit Streamlining Act. Most importantly, the City’s stated positions and proposed action would constitute a regulatory taking under Fifth Amendment jurisprudence.

Erroneous Factual Bases for the Proposed Action
There are several erroneous assertions within the staff report and the draft resolution denying a CDP that render the City’s proposed action unsupportable and subject to litigation risk.

Attachment 12
232
232 of 1108
2 The factual findings of the draft resolution are flawed. With regard to the visual compatibility finding, the draft resolution fails to note that there are two-story homes and twostory ADUs within the neighborhood. This property is in close proximity to 1673 Louise Street, where the City approved a second-story ADU over neighbor opposition. Additionally, as was alluded to during the February 26, 2026 hearing, there is a mix of one- and two-story homes in the Hillcrest neighborhood of North Laguna, including apartment buildings with up to four units.

In the 1673 Louise Street approval, the City made that a finding for a second-story ADU was met because the surrounding areas “consist of both one-story and two-story homes” (CDP 25-0036).

Mr. Lukoff disputes the City’s assertion that the application is “incomplete” and asserts that his application is deemed complete by operation of law under the Permit Streamlining Act.

Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65943, for a government agency to deem an application incomplete, the list of incomplete items “shall be limited to those items actually required on the lead agency’s submittal requirement checklist.” When Mr. Lukoff’s architect submitted the application on November 8, 2024, it is Mr. Lukoff’s position that the City did not request a certified staking plan in its checklist for the application, which is why Mr. Lukoff has not provided staking for the project. In the November 2024 timeframe, staking plans were not a City-mandated ADU application requirement but is instead a more recent demand. Previously, the approach was that only projects requiring Design Review needed a certified staking plan. Additionally, the City was holding Mr. Lukoff’s application as “incomplete” in order to extort peer review fees for consultant reports that had been obtained prior to the submission of the application in order to conduct a regulatory taking. In order to more fully develop this argument, we are awaiting the results of Public Records Act requests 2026-0149 and 2026-0150. Indeed, with regards to Mr.

Lukoff’s ADU application, the City has consistently moved the goalposts and made demands that are not permitted under Gov. Code § 65943, which applies to ministerially-handled projects. The City’s processing of Mr. Lukoff’s ADU application for a hearing of the Design Review Board also shows an indication that the City is indeed treating Mr. Lukoff’s application as complete; otherwise, the City would have simply refused to process it.

Finally, there is a difference of opinion between Mr. Lukoff’s consultant and the City’s consultant regarding potential effects to historic resources. Mr. Lukoff’s consultant correctly identified the historical characteristics of the home being the upper story windows and roof gable that is still visible with Mr. Lukoff’s design. The City’s consultant incorrectly asserts that Mr.

Lukoff’s entire front façade is historical, including the modifications made to the front entry that the City has previously asked Mr. Lukoff to change to make it more historically accurate. From a factual standpoint, the City cannot have it both ways. This is all a clear indication that the City is applying subjective standards and not objective standards to Mr. Lukoff’s project. Under Gov.

Code 66313(i), “‘objective standards’ means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant ... and the public official prior to submittal.” The fact that the City seeks to deny Mr. Lukoff’s project based on dueling consultant reports that come to different conclusions shows that the City is applying subjective, and not objective standards.
233
233 of 1108
3 Flimsy Legal Grounds for the Proposed Action
If the City persists in approving the draft resolution and denying the CDP, the City’s action rests on dubious legal standing. The Coastal Act and the LCP cannot be used to employ widespread subjective criteria to deny projects and effect regulatory takings as an end run around State ADU law and a property owner’s rights under the California and U.S. Constitutions. While Gov. Code § 66329 holds that the provisions of the Coastal Act (and processing for CDPs) applies, the State ADU law applies on non-coastal matters such as historic resources, building setbacks, and lot coverage that are not protected by the Coastal Act.

There is no adverse impact to coastal resources by Mr. Lukoff’s proposed project. First, the level of impact to find a significant adverse effect is not met. Second, the draft Resolution erroneously conflates a historic property with coastal resources.

With regard to the standard of adverse effect, both case law and recent Coastal Commission appeals, applied a significance standard. In order for adverse impact to apply, there has to be significant impact to coastal resources. Pub. Res. Code § 30250(a); LT-WR v.

California Coastal Commission (2007), 152 Cal.App.4th 770, 797-99 (evaluating adverse impacts according to a significance standard). See, e.g., Appeal No. A-6-PEN-23-0053 (not significant adverse impact when project blocked “fleeting” views from public roadway); Appeal No. A-6-DMR-22-0034 (found that an obstructed view from a certain point does not constitute substantial view impact because the view is unobstructed once the individual moves along); City of Laguna Beach Coastal Development Permit 2025-0036 (finding lack of significant adverse effect when one can walk five yards away and see the protected ridgeline). In the case of the proposed action, while there would be minor view blockage of a peripheral view if a person is standing in a particular spot on Chiquita Street, there would be no view blockage a few steps further up the street. Also, Chiquita Street is a residential street and not an arterial road or one of the protected main view corridors of Coast Highway or Laguna Canyon Road. There is no stoplight at the intersection of Chiquita Street on Coast Highway. Members of the public are not likely to be using Chiquita Street except for visiting the homes on this street. Also, the primary view from the public street is down Chiquita Street, which opens onto Crescent Bay, and not across Mr. Lukoff’s property.

If the City were to take the view espoused in the draft resolution that Mr. Lukoff’s proposed ADU creates an adverse effect because of slight view curtailment, then it would preclude most development in Laguna Beach, making it impossible for the City to meet its housing obligations under the Housing Accountability Act and Housing Element. If Mr.

Lukoff’s project were ineligible for a CDP based on public view impacts, it would be difficult in many ways to allow development in this City at all. As Councilmember Kempf noted in a similar situation involving public views and a two-story ADU, the City may not like the law, but as a city in California, it is required to follow California law.

A historic home is not a coastal scenic resource. There is no express definition provided within the LCP or Coastal Act of “coastal resource,” aside from temporary use CDPs, where coastal resources are defined within LBMC 25.07.006, as “public access opportunities, visitor and recreational facilities, water-oriented activities, marine resources, biological resources, 234
234 of 1108
4 environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural lands, and archaeological or paleontological resources.” Furthermore, the 1984 Laguna Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix discusses scenic or visual resources as “views from public areas such as highways, beaches, parks and vista points,” with a main focus being “property situated adjacent to the major transportation systems in the city, i.e., Laguna Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway, since it is along these roadways that a majority of residents and non-residents view the community and have visual access to scenic corridors.” Furthermore, neither the review criteria under LBMC §

25.07.012(F) nor the findings at (G) expressly mention historic properties. The draft resolution is in error because historic properties are not contemplated within the concept of a coastal scenic resource, and the draft resolution fails to make the connection to the language of the LCP.

Outside of narrow range of resources regulated by the Coastal Act, it is the State ADU law, and not the City’s subjective design review process, that applies. Under State ADU Law, a city “shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone” to create specified units (emphasis added). Gov. Code § 66323(a). This includes one detached ADU that has four-foot side and rear setbacks that is no more than 800 square feet of livable space and not taller than 16 feet in height. Gov. Code § 66323(a)(2).

Furthermore, a local agency “shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section” for a qualifying project. Mr. Lukoff’s project is a qualifying project under Gov. Code § 66323(a)(2). It is a detached ADU that abides by 4-foot side and rear setbacks, is under 800 square feet, and is no taller than 16’ in height from the finished floor.

Even where Gov. Code § 66323(a) by-right approval does not apply, in evaluating an application under Gov. Code § 66314(b)(1), a city may only “[i]mpose objective standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places” (emphasis added). A listing under the City’s Historic Register is not a listing on the California Register of Historic Places. In fact, in review of the California Register of Historic Places, within the City of Laguna Beach, only the Museum of Art, Mariona, and St. Francis Catholic Church are listed, not the subject property. See, California Historic Resources, available at https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=30 (last visited Mar. 10, 2026).

The processing of Mr. Lukoff’s application also raises an Equal Protection issue under the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Lukoff appears to have been singled out for disparate treatment by having had his application heard by the Design Review Board when ADUs are mandated to be ministerially processed under Gov. Code § 66317(a). Under LBMC § 25.07.012(D), when only a CDP is required, such as a ministerially approved ADU, the CDP decision is within the purview of the Director of Community Development, not the Design Review Board. Moreover, the City is not following the requirements of Gov. Code § 66317(b), which states, If a permitting agency denies an application for an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to subdivision (a), the permitting agency shall, within the time period described in subdivision (a), return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.
235
235 of 1108
5 Additionally, “No local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than an accessory dwelling unit ordinance consistent with this article shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this section” per Gov. Code § 66317(d). The City’s proposed action violates both of those State ADU Law requirements. The City proposes to issue Mr. Lukoff a blanket denial based on non-coastal and non-ADU ordinance bases with no direction on how Mr.

Lukoff could remedy any purported defective items.

The City appears to take a position that Gov. Code § 66329(a) allows the City to impose the provisions of the ordinary zoning code to deny ADU projects based on lot coverage and front yard setbacks. For instance, staff has made the assertion that because the City’s entire zoning code is incorporated wholesale into the LCP, the City escapes the requirements of State ADU Law entirely since it can use of the standard provisions of the zoning code to prevent ADU construction. Under Gov. Code § 66321(b)(3), a city may not impose:

Any requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review or any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit an accessory dwelling unit with at least 800 square feet of interior livable space and with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.

Under canons of statutory construction, a statute that speaks to a specific matter applies over a general statute. Additionally, the State ADU law “shall supersede a conflicting local ordinance.” Gov. Code § 66325. Here, although the City is able to consider coastal impacts under the Coastal Act per Gov. Code § 66329(a), the City is abusing its authority to assert that on issues not contemplated by the Coastal Act, that the LCP can wholesale override provisions of the State ADU Law. Even more telling is that whilst other cities have sought review of their ADU laws by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as required by Gov. Code § 66326(a), the City of Laguna Beach does not appear to have done so with either Ord. 1713 or Ord. 1715, which were passed after the enactment of Gov. Code § 66326.

The Mills Act does not provide cover for the City to conduct a regulatory taking of Mr.

Lukoff’s property rights under State ADU Law. Mr. Lukoff purchased the property in 2007 and entered into a Mills Act contract in March 2009. No clause in the Mills Act contract waives Mr.

Lukoff’s rights to improve his property, as long as he complies with the terms of the contract.

For instance, while he is prohibited from demolition of the house or exterior alterations not within Secretary of the Interior Standards, Mr. Lukoff’s proposal is for a detached structure that does not physically alter or add onto the existing Mills Act residence. Under SB 131, which creates the “near miss” category of CEQA processing, a City-registered historic home is not a barrier to the project under CEQA. The Board seems to believe that Mr. Lukoff consented to waive his Fifth Amendment rights when he signed onto the Mills Act because of the tax break associated. Mr. Lukoff received consideration of tax breaks under the Mills Act to provide for the upkeep and maintenance of his historic property. The Fifth Amendment standard for a taking is “just compensation,” not a tax break. By entering into the Mills Act contract, Mr. Lukoff did not receive just compensation and did not consent to a taking of his property rights under the State ADU Law as the Design Review Board deliberation and the draft resolution seeks to allege. 236
236 of 1108
6 The City’s purported legal arguments in the staff report and draft Resolution 2026-0148 to weaponize the LCP against Mr. Lukoff’s proposed project are not only contrary to the stated provisions of State ADU Law but also would also constitute an unconstitutional regulatory taking to deprive Mr. Lukoff of his ability to make an economically viable use of his property based on reasonable investment-backed expectations. When Mr. Lukoff purchased 238 Chiquita Street in 2007, before the Mills Act contract and well before the State ADU Law, Mr. Lukoff understood that his R-2 lot was sufficient in size under the City Zoning Code to allow the construction of two primary dwelling units. Furthermore, Mr. Lukoff has an expectation of the ability to construct an ADU pursuant to State ADU Law. The City’s clear position, from its consultant report through the deliberations of the Design Review Board, and current City ordinances, makes clear that the City would not approve any ADU on Mr. Lukoff’s property.

This is a classic regulatory taking under Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. The City’s proposed action would deprive Mr. Lukoff of his constitutional property rights without providing just compensation, which creates a high level of litigation risk for the City.

Conclusion
We recognize that there is tension between the California Coastal Act and the California ADU Laws, both of which apply to Mr. Lukoff’s project. The City’s proposed action in the draft resolution does not follow either, however. The City is not appropriately harmonizing to resolve the tension and is instead asserting Coastal Act to bootstrap draconian discretionary requirements on non-Coastal Act issues to deprive Mr. Lukoff of his right to construct an ADU that meets the specific requirements of state law on the Property. Any potential impact to public ocean views does not rise to the level of substantial impairment. Furthermore, Mr. Lukoff is being singled out for disparate treatment by the City as compared to other property owners. Finally, if the City were to adopt the approach to Mr. Lukoff’s property wholesale City-wide, the City risks encountering widespread litigation from property owners, project applicants, and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for violation of the Housing Accountability Act, State ADU Law, Permit Streamlining Act, Coastal Act, and the U.S. and California constitutions.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments regarding the draft Resolution 2026-0148 and Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148. We urge the Design Review Board to disapprove the draft resolution and remand the project to the Community Development Director to process Mr. Lukoff’s application according to the requirements of the State ADU Law.

Kind regards,
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.

Attorney
Counsel for Mr. Jonathan Lukoff
237
237 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, March 12, 2026
Hearing Transcript

Design Review Board Meeting, March 12, 2026
Coastal Development Permit for ADU located at 238 Chiquita Street Revised Resolution on Consent Calendar
Chair Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Seeing none, we will proceed with the consent calendar. There's only one item on the consent calendar, which I will pull.

So I will be calling item 4.1 at 238 Chiquita Street Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148. This is a matter in which the Board approved a certain action and it was left for a resolution to be prepared.

That resolution has been prepared, so I will provide the public any opportunity to speak as to the resolution that's part of the agenda package. With that, do you wish to come up and speak? You have three minutes.

Edwin Kisiel (Applicant’s Attorney):

Thank you, Chair Gibbs, members of the Board. I'm Edwin Kisiel. I'm an attorney here representing Mr. Jonathan Lukoff. He's the owner of 238 Chiquita Street. He's a nearly 20-year resident of Laguna Beach.

With regards to item 4.1, I recommend that the Board disapprove the draft resolution and remand the matter to the community development director for ministerial processing and coastal development permit consistent with requirements of state ADU law.

It's curious as to why this matter came before the Design Review Board when ADUs are supposed to be processed ministerially. This is highly irregular.

The draft resolution on the consent agenda, which proposes to deny a coastal development permit for Mr. Lukoff's proposed ADU is legally problematic for several reasons. I submitted a letter to the board to more fully explain this, but I will briefly highlight three most problematic areas.

First is the treatment of coastal scenic resource. Second is the treatment of historical resources.

And third is how the Board purports to apply the Mills Act with regards to takings jurisprudence.

The Board's concerns regarding any slight public view impairment that may be presented by this project does not meet the level of substantial adverse effect. The case law and the Coastal Commission and recent City Council action from last summer applies when looking at public view impacts under the Coastal Act.

We're talking about a slight view, you walk up the street a little bit, you will still be able to have both the ocean view down the street as well as on top of the... above the proposed ADU.

As City Council and other city officials have noted in other cases, to prevent slight public view impairments such as these would be to effectively preclude most development in the city, jeopardizing both the city's ability to meet its obligations under its housing element, as well as the requirements of the Housing Accountability Act.

Second, the Board's position that a historic property is to be treated as a coastal scenic resource also appears untenable. From reviewing the local coastal program and the OSCE, we look at coastal scenic resources, ocean view, hillside view, not historic property itself.

Attachment 13
238
238 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, March 12, 2026
Hearing Transcript

Finally, entering a Mills Act contract does not provide consent to a taking. And as a policy standpoint, if we were to adopt this position that you consent to a taking of your property right by entering into a Mills Act contract, it would result in a chilling effect on historic preservation.

Chair Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much.

Edwin Kisiel (Applicant’s Attorney):

Thank you, Chair Gibbs.

Chair Thomas Gibbs:

All right. Any other members of the public? Seeing none. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. When I ask you, stand up. Okay. State your name. You have three minutes.

Ian Wolcott:

My name is Ian Wolcott. I am the attorney representing the homeowners of 245 Cajon Street.

Chair Thomas Gibbs:

I'll remind you to keep your comments limited to the resolution. We're not here to re-litigate the merits, okay?
Ian Wolcott:

Of course. Yes. On February 26th, this Board thoroughly reviewed and discussed the proposed project. You set forth a detailed set of findings that fully supported your unanimous denial of the proposal.

Factually, nothing has changed since that meeting, except that the applicant has consulted an attorney, which he could have done at any time prior to that hearing.

The fact that he has retained an attorney should not undo the Board's decision. It would violate the procedures set forth in the city's municipal code.

If the applicant disagrees with the Board's decision, the remedy set forth in the code is to appeal the Board's decision to the planning commission. The applicant knows this, he has done it before.

Rather than giving the applicant a second bite at the apple and wasting city resources, we urge the Board to keep the denial of 238 Chiquita's application on the consent calendar and allow us all to move on to the appeal phase.

Chair Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Melanie Lewis:

Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, I'm representing my husband, Mark Lewis, and myself, Melanie Lewis at 248 Chiquita Street. We're right above 238. 239
239 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, March 12, 2026
Hearing Transcript

You received our written comments from the last DRB meeting, as well as you heard our verbal comments and testimony. We support the Board's decision from the last DRB meeting on February 26 denying the proposed project at 238 Chiquita.

We appreciate the Board's diligence, thoroughness, and thoughtfulness in providing directions to staff to include numerous provisions supporting the Board's decision to deny the proposed project and memorialize those decisions in the confirming resolution for denial that you are considering this evening. We appreciate your time. Thank you.

Chair Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you very much. Any other speaker? All right. With that, I'll close the public hearing and I'll proceed to deliberations.

Let me respond by saying this. First, we're here to evaluate whether the resolution incorporates our direction from the prior hearing. I have read it carefully. I think it's very well written and well reasoned. It does comply with our direction and describe our findings thoroughly and accurately.

Second, with respect to the new comments, which, from my mind essentially repeat the arguments that were made previously, although with some legal gloss, and I've read the letter submitted by Counsel.

Even if we were to consider it, I would not find it convincing in the slightest. I think the facts and the law were adequately stated in the staff report, were further described by me at the last hearing in which I went through the... I carefully reviewed the issues, law, and applicable factual findings, and nothing I've read or seen or heard changes those views in any way.

So with that, I find the resolution fine and I would approve it tonight.

Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

I can piggyback off that. I agree with everything that you just said. I thought that you spoke very well the first time, and again, this time, and I agree with all your testimony, your comments.

Chair Thomas Gibbs:

Thank you.

Imer Bauta:

Chair, I'm going to abstain. I was not at the last hearing.

Chair Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. And Lewis, any comment?
Louis Weil:

And I find the resolution to be consistent with not only the staff report recommendation of denial, but the Board's deliberation. I think the grounds that are presented in the resolution meet those discussions, and so I'm prepared to support the resolution as written. 240
240 of 1108
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, March 12, 2026
Hearing Transcript

Chair Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. I'll move that the Board approve resolution, as I'm looking at it, resolution 2026-0148 attached to the agenda. Do I have a second?
Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

I'll second that.

Chair Thomas Gibbs:

Paola?
Paola Miller (Clerk):

Board Member Bauta?
Imer Bauta:

Abstain.

Paola Miller (Clerk):

Board Member Weil?
Louis Weil:

Yes.

Paola Miller (Clerk):

Chair Gannon?
Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):

Yes.

Paola Miller (Clerk):

Chair Gibbs?
Chair Thomas Gibbs:

Yes.

Paola Miller (Clerk):

Motion is passed three to one.
241
241 of 1108
Attachment 14
242
242 of 1108
243
243 of 1108
244
244 of 1108
245
245 of 1108
246
246 of 1108
247
247 of 1108
248
248 of 1108
Attachment 15
249
249 of 1108
250
250 of 1108
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.

Kisiel Law
1205 Victory Walk
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 549-9650
[email protected]
March 18, 2026
City of Laguna Beach
City Council
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Notice of Appeal – Design Review Board Resolution 2026-0148 APN: 053-124-18
Application: CDP 2026-0148
Address: 238 Chiquita Street
Dear City Council Members:

Mr. Lukoff submits his appeal to request that the City Council set aside the Design Review Board’s (“DRB”) March 12, 2026 decision to adopt Resolution 2026-0148 to deny Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 for a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 238 Chiquita Street in the City of Laguna Beach (the “property”).

The DRB’s decision is both factually and legally insufficient, as discussed below.

Furthermore, the DRB’s decision is tantamount to an unconstitutional taking of Mr. Lukoff’s property rights. Since Mr. Lukoff owns a 4,500 square-foot R-2 zoned lot, Mr. Lukoff is entitled to build not only an ADU, but also a second main dwelling unit, under Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) §§ 25.12.004; 25.12.008. This is the understanding that Mr. Lukoff had when he purchased the property in 2007, which was then dilapidated and has been restored. Here, Mr.

Lukoff is seeking to build an ADU consistent with his rights under Gov. Code §§ 66310, et seq. (“State ADU Law”), and the findings for a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) can be satisfied. We are confident that the errors in the DRB’s decision will be made clear in the City Council’s exercise of independent judgment of the evidence. We ask that the City Council grant the owner’s appeal, overturn Resolution 2026-0148, and either approve the project and CDP asis, or in the alternative, remand the project to the Director of Community Development for ministerial processing of the project and CDP in accordance with clear requirements of state law.

Background
Mr. Lukoff purchased the property at 238 Chiquita Street in 2007. This property consists of one residence on a 4,500 square foot lot in the R-2 zone. When Mr. Lukoff bought the property, he made his purchase with the expectation that based on zoning and lot size, he could build a second main dwelling unit. As Mr. Lukoff stated at the DRB hearing, the property was thoroughly dilapidated with many health and safety problems that made it not useable as a residence. Mr. Lukoff undertook extensive efforts to rehabilitate and restore the property, and 251
251 of 1108
2 listed the home on the Mills Act in 2009. The property tax incentive that Mr. Lukoff received under the Mills Act was instrumental to restoring the property from a state of disrepair and continuing to maintain the property.

Between 2016 – 2018, Mr. Lukoff added an addition to the rear of the property. Prior to obtaining planning approval of the addition, he obtained a historic consultant report from GPA, relied upon by the City, which specified significant characteristics of the historic property as including the upper story windows and cross-gable roof and excluding the first-floor picture window, front entry door, porch, and pergola, which were understood to be 1960s modifications.

Mr. Lukoff desires to age in place and anticipates needing home care. At this stage, he is seeking to construct a second residence, in the form of a 799 square foot ADU, so that the property can accommodate both his residence as well as that of an on-site, full-time caregiver.

As such, he began discussing the ADU project with the City in 2022. Based on direction from City planning staff, he obtained a historic consultant report from Sapphos in 2023. He further engaged with planning staff regarding design, and he submitted a complete planning application in November 2024 with all items required on the submittal checklist. In July 2025, he submitted a revised version of the design based on feedback from planning staff. Overall, there have been six planners assigned to the project, each of whom made conflicting demands regarding project design. Feedback from planning staff included a required front yard setback of 21 feet, which pushed the ADU closer to the historic home. However, as permitted under State ADU Law, Mr.

Lukoff’s expressed preference throughout the planning process is to have greater separation between the main house and the ADU by applying a 13’-15’ front property line setback, which would better maintain views of the historic residence.

Standard of Review
Mr. Lukoff submitted a timely appeal to City Council on March 18, 2026. The standard of review for a City Council appeal is contained in LBMC § 25.05.070. Resolution 2026-0148, the matter under review, was approved by affirmative vote of three members of the Design Review Board. Thus, the scope of review under LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(2)(b) applies. This provision states,
If the decision or determination was not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.

Thus, City Council is required to conduct de novo review, exercising its independent judgment and discretion in resolving the appeal. Because the DRB’s action to deny Mr. Lukoff’s application rests on erroneous facts and is legally unsupportable, the DRB’s action constitutes 252
252 of 1108
3 abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion on the part of public officials occurs when an agency’s action is arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. California Hospital Ass’n v. Maxwell-Jolly (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 559, 568. To support a decision, agency action must consider all relevant factors and demonstrate rational connection between those factors, the choice(s) made, and the purposes of the enabling statute. O.W.L. Foundation v. City of Rohnert Park (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 568, 585-86. Furthermore, the DRB’s actions constitute a regulatory taking without just compensation. Mr. Lukoff can satisfy the burden of proof to demonstrate that the DRB’s actions were unreasonable, invalid, and an abuse of discretion based on the erroneous factual and legal bases of the DRB’s decision. Thus, City Council should grant the appeal.

Denial Rests on Erroneous Factual Findings
There are several erroneous assertions within the DRB’s deliberations and Resolution 2026-0148 that render the City’s action unreasonable, invalid, and an abuse of discretion. First, the DRB’s findings with regards to the neighborhood compatibility of the CDP are factually incomplete and not reflective of actual conditions. Second, the City consultant’s flawed report, which was relied on by the DRB for its findings, is not consistent with the greater weight of the evidence, consisting of a City-accepted February 2013 historic review of the property as well as the January 2023 pre-application Sapphos consultant report. Finally, Mr. Lukoff asserts that his application is not incomplete but is instead deemed complete by operation of law.

Neighborhood Compatibility Finding
The factual findings of the resolution regarding the neighborhood compatibility finding are flawed because they are woefully incomplete. The compatibility finding states, Here, many of the homes along Chiquita are single-story structures (including 248 Chiquita St. directly to the north and 239 Chiquita St., directly across the street) or appear as a singlestory from the street. A two-story ADU in front of a two-story home would not maintain this neighborhood development pattern.

This conclusory analysis fails to note that there are two-story homes and two-story ADUs within the Hillcrest neighborhood. Additionally, from review of GIS map, which was shown by City staff during the hearing, there appear to be many other R-2 zoned lots in the vicinity developed with multiple units. This property is near 1673 Louise Street, where the City approved a secondstory ADU. For the 1673 Louise Street approval, which is in the same Hillcrest neighborhood, the City made that a finding for a second-story ADU was met because the surrounding areas “consist of both one-story and two-story homes” (CDP 25-0036). Additionally, as was presented to the Design Review Board, there is a mix of one- and two-story homes in the Hillcrest neighborhood of North Laguna, including apartment buildings with up to four units, which is evident during any site visit. Finally, the City’s consultant report provided by HRG concluded that “the proposed ADU will be a compatible design and differentiated from the existing residence, that it will not impact the setting of the neighborhood because it will retain the required setback, and that it will be a stand-alone structure and not physically impact the 253
253 of 1108
4 existing residence” (emphasis added).1 The DRB chose to ignore the findings of the City’s own consultant that did not suit the City’s findings, demonstrating an unreasonable decision and abuse of discretion.

Misplaced Reliance on Erroneous City-Procured Consultant Report

It is clear that the DRB based its findings on errors contained in the City-procured HRG consultant reports. The earlier 2023 Sapphos report found that a two-story ADU project was consistent with Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic preservation. That report analyzed a larger structure than what was considered by the DRB. A core factual inconsistency between the reports, leading to the divergent conclusions, is that the Sapphos report states that the significant characteristics of the home are the upper story windows and cross-gabled roof:
2 1 Historic Resources Group, 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review, 7 (2023). 2 Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Design Review for the Project Located at 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651, 15 (2023).
254
254 of 1108
5 Mr. Lukoff’s belief is that the historically significant features of the property as he understood it were the upper story windows and cross-gable roof. This is consistent with Sapphos’ opinion. Mr. Lukoff’s position is also grounded in a 2013 historical report for the property, contained in City records, that the City of Laguna Beach relied on for a prior addition to Mr. Lukoff’s property. The GPA report found that on the front façade of the property, the pergola, first floor window, porch, and main entry door “are non-character defining”:3 On the other hand, the City’s consultant incorrectly asserts that Mr. Lukoff’s entire front façade is historical, including the 1960s or later modifications made to the front entry:
4 As Mr. Lukoff stated at the DRB hearing, during prior discussions of Mills Act rehabilitation projects, the City had asked Mr. Lukoff to modify front entry door, first-floor picture window, porch, and pergola to make them more historically compatible. This provides further evidence of the City’s understanding that these are not historically significant features. Starting from a faulty understanding of the historically significant characteristics of the property leads to faulty analysis 3 Galvin Preservation Associates, Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Proposed Alterations to 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, 4 (2013). 4 Historic Resources Group, 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review, 3-4 (2023). 255
255 of 1108
6 and conclusions regarding potential compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards. The through line for the historic reports is that the significant features of the property are the upper story windows and cross-gable roof. Mr. Lukoff’s design preserves way more than 50% of the views of these significant features, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

Also, in terms of discussing Mills Act requirements, it is important to consider the contract terms as they were at the time the contract was commenced and not 17 years later. See, e.g., King v. Dep’t of Navy, 130 F.3d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir, 1997). This includes Mr. Lukoff’s obligations regarding preservation of the significant features of the historic residence. Extrinsic evidence is available to aid in contract interpretation when contract terms may be ambiguous.

See, e.g., Beta Sys. v. U.S., 838 F.2d 1179, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In that vein, the 2013 GPA report, finding that the “[t]he extant pergola, front first floor window, porch, and main entry door are non-character defining” is more contemporaneous to the Mills Act transaction than the Cityprocured 2023 HRG report, and the 2013 GPA report is thus more reliable for interpretation of the Mills Act contract. From a factual standpoint, the DRB’s decision rests on erroneous analysis from HRG and ignores precedent from the 2013 report available in City records and dismissing the Sapphos report, which found that a (larger) two-story ADU project was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic preservation.

Application Deemed Complete by Operation of Law
We recognize that when the DRB made its decision, it stated that it was treating the application as if it was complete under the Permit Streamlining Act. However, to the extent that the DRB made its decision based on an allegedly “incomplete” application as stated in the staff report, Mr. Lukoff disputes the City Staff’s assertion that the application is “incomplete” and asserts that his application is deemed complete by operation of law under the Permit Streamlining Act. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65943, for a government agency to deem a development application incomplete, the list of incomplete items “shall be limited to those items actually required on the lead agency’s submittal requirement checklist.” When Mr. Lukoff’s architect submitted the application on November 8, 2024, it is Mr. Lukoff’s position that the City did not request a certified staking plan in its checklist for the application, which is why Mr.

Lukoff has not provided staking for the project. In the November 2024 timeframe, staking plans were not a City-mandated ADU application requirement but is instead a more recent demand.

Previously, the approach was that only projects requiring Design Review needed a certified staking plan. Additionally, the City was holding Mr. Lukoff’s application as “incomplete” to extort peer review fees for consultant reports that had been obtained prior to the submission of the application to conduct a regulatory taking. In order to more fully develop this argument, we are awaiting the results of Public Records Act requests 2026-0149 and 2026-0150.

Indeed, with regards to Mr. Lukoff’s ADU application, there was constant turnover of staff assigned to the project, each of whom made different demands, to which Mr. Lukoff responded by submitting revised plans for a smaller structure. City Staff consistently moved the goalposts and made demands that are not permitted under Gov. Code § 65943, which applies to ministerially handled projects. The City’s processing of Mr. Lukoff’s ADU application for a hearing of the Design Review Board also shows an indication that the City indeed treated Mr.

Lukoff’s application as complete; otherwise, the City would have simply refused to process it. 256
256 of 1108
7 Based on these factual errors in the Resolution and underlying analysis for the DRB’s decision, the DRB resolution to deny Mr. Lukoff’s project application is unreasonable, invalid, and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Denial Lacks Legal Sufficiency
The DRB’s decision to deny Mr. Lukoff’s application for a CDP is legally insufficient.

First, the DRB made conclusory findings regarding potential coastal view impacts from Chiquita Street and clearly failed to apply the Coastal Act’s significance standard. Second, the DRB makes the unsupported assumption that a historic property is a “coastal scenic resource” and a “recreational” or “visitor-serving facility” which is not supported by either the Coastal Act or the City’s LCP. Third, from a procedural standpoint, the City failed to abide by State ADU Law mandating ministerial approval and imposition of solely objective criteria. Overall, the City failed to harmonize the requirements of State ADU Law with application of its LCP.

Failure to Apply Significance Standard for Potential Public View Impacts There is no adverse impact to coastal resources by Mr. Lukoff’s proposed project. First, the level of impact to find a significant adverse effect is not met. Second, the DRB’s analysis and Resolution 2026-0148 erroneously conflates a historic property with coastal resources.

Regarding the standard of adverse effect, both case law and recent Coastal Commission appeals, applied a significance standard. For adverse impact to apply, there must be significant impact to coastal resources. Pub. Res. Code § 30250(a); LT-WR v. California Coastal Commission (2007), 152 Cal.App.4th 770, 797-99 (evaluating adverse impacts according to a significance standard). See, e.g., Appeal No. A-6-PEN-23-0053 (not significant adverse impact when project blocked “fleeting” views from public roadway); Appeal No. A-6-DMR-22-0034 (found that an obstructed view from a certain point does not constitute substantial view impact because the view is unobstructed once the individual moves along); City of Laguna Beach Coastal Development Permit 2025-0036 (finding lack of significant adverse effect when one can walk five yards away and see the protected ridgeline). In the case of the proposed action, while there would be minor view blockage of a peripheral view if a person is standing in a particular spot on Chiquita Street, there would be no view blockage a few steps further up the street. Also, Chiquita Street is a residential street and not an arterial road or one of the protected main view corridors of Coast Highway or Laguna Canyon Road under the City’s Open Space and Conservation Element of the LCP. There is no stoplight at the intersection of Chiquita Street on Coast Highway. Members of the public are not likely to be using Chiquita Street except for visiting the homes on this street. Also, the primary view from the public street is down Chiquita Street, which opens onto Crescent Bay, and not across Mr. Lukoff’s property.

Taking the DRB’s decision, that Mr. Lukoff’s proposed ADU creates an adverse effect because of slight public view curtailment, would preclude most development in Laguna Beach, making it impossible for the City to meet its housing obligations under the Housing Accountability Act and Housing Element. If Mr. Lukoff’s project were ineligible for a CDP based on public view impacts, it would be difficult in many ways to allow development in this 257
257 of 1108
8 City at all. Thus, the DRB’s action is legally insufficient because it failed to apply the required analysis under the Coastal Act, which would have resulted in a different conclusion.

Misunderstanding of Coastal Resources
While Gov. Code § 66329 holds that the provisions of the Coastal Act (and processing for CDPs) applies to ADUs, the State ADU law applies on non-coastal matters such as historic resources, building setbacks, and lot coverage that are not protected by the Coastal Act. The DRB erroneously claimed “coastal resources” of items clearly outside the purview of the Coastal Act or City’s LCP in reaching its decision to deny Mr. Lukoff’s project.

Resolution 2026-0148 erroneously holds that the project be denied because Mr. Lukoff’s historic home is a “coastal scenic resource.” To the contrary, under the Coastal Act and Laguna Beach’s LCP, a historic home is not a coastal scenic resource. There is no express definition provided within the LCP or Coastal Act of “coastal resource,” aside from temporary use CDPs, where coastal resources are defined within LBMC 25.07.006, as “public access opportunities, visitor and recreational facilities, water-oriented activities, marine resources, biological resources, environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural lands, and archaeological or paleontological resources.” Furthermore, the 1984 Laguna Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix discusses scenic or visual resources as “views from public areas such as highways, beaches, parks and vista points,” with a main focus being “property situated adjacent to the major transportation systems in the city, i.e., Laguna Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway, since it is along these roadways that a majority of residents and non-residents view the community and have visual access to scenic corridors.” Furthermore, neither the CDP review criteria under LBMC § 25.07.012(F) nor the CDP findings at (G) expressly mention historic properties. It is obvious that the City’s Historic Resources Plan is not part of the City of Laguna Beach’s Local Coastal Plan.5 The DRB’s analysis in deliberation and Resolution 2026-0148 is legally erroneous because historic properties are not contemplated within the concept of a coastal scenic resource.

Furthermore, based on the DRB deliberations, the Board based its decision on the fact that Mr. Lukoff’s property is allegedly a “recreational or visitor-serving facility.” Definitions of recreational or visitor-serving facilities as well as examples are provided in the Coastal Land Use Plan Technical document, incorporated into the City’s LCP. Definitions and examples are provided below:6
5 See, City of Laguna Beach, Local Coastal Program,
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/government/departments/ community-development/planning-zoning/land-use-plans/local-coastal-program#!/ (last visited 18 Mar. 26) (omitting any discussion of the City of Laguna Beach’s Historic Resources Element). 6 Laguna Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix 6-7 (1984). 258
258 of 1108
9 Mr. Lukoff’s property is a private single-family home, not a recreational facility or visitorserving facility. His private home is not used by tourist population and does not provide accommodations to the public. Mr. Lukoff has been retired for several years and does not operate a business from his home. Moreover, the public is not permitted to enter Mr. Lukoff’s property for recreational or visitor-serving purposes. For the DRB to characterize Mr. Lukoff’s property as otherwise constitutes a physical invasion of Mr. Lukoff’s property by the City, as such a designated by the City in a public hearing actively encourages the public to enter Mr.

Lukoff’s property. Interestingly, this finding made by Chair Gibbs was not included in the adopted Resolution 2026-0148 of March 12, 2026. This calls into question the consistency of the resolution with the Board’s decision and understanding of the project. The DRB’s failure to correctly understand what is or is not a coastal scenic resource is further indication that the decision of the DRB was unreasonable, invalid, and an abuse of discretion.

Failure to Abide by Permit Streamlining Act and State ADU Law Outside of narrow range of resources regulated by the Coastal Act, it is the State ADU law, and not the City’s subjective design review process, that applies to Mr. Lukoff’s project.

Under State ADU Law, a city “shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone” to create specified units (emphasis added). Gov. Code § 66323(a). This includes one detached ADU that has four-foot side and rear setbacks that is no more than 800 square feet of livable space and not taller than 16 feet in height. Gov. Code § 66323(a)(2). Furthermore, a local agency “shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section” for a qualifying project. Mr. Lukoff’s project is a qualifying project under Gov. Code § 66323(a)(2). Mr. Lukoff proposed a detached ADU that abides by 4-foot side and rear setbacks, is under 800 square feet, and is no taller than 16’ in 259
259 of 1108
10 height from the finished floor. However, the Board imposed lot coverage standards to deny the project, claiming that the 48% lot coverage was greater than the 42.88% lot coverage for the R-2 zone and purporting to deny the ADU project on that basis.

The discussion captured during the February 26, 2026 and March 12, 2026 DRB hearings, as well as Resolution 2026-0148, provide a clear indication that the City is applying subjective standards and not objective standards to Mr. Lukoff’s project. Under Gov. Code 66313(i), “‘objective standards’ means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant ... and the public official prior to submittal.”
Even where Gov. Code § 66323(a) by-right approval does not apply, in evaluating an application under Gov. Code § 66314(b)(1), a city may only “[i]mpose objective standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places” (emphasis added). A listing under the City’s Historic Register is not a listing on the California Register of Historic Places. In fact, in review of the California Register of Historic Places, within the City of Laguna Beach, only the Museum of Art, Mariona, and St. Francis Catholic Church are listed, not the subject property. See, California Historic Resources, available at https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=30 (last visited Mar. 10, 2026). The fact that the City seeks to deny Mr. Lukoff’s ADU project based on dueling consultant reports that come to different conclusions shows that the DRB is applying subjective, and not objective standards.

Furthermore, the DRB’s decision is based on zoning standards that State ADU Law supersedes.

The processing of Mr. Lukoff’s application also raises an Equal Protection issue under the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Lukoff appears to have been singled out for disparate treatment by having had his application heard by the Design Review Board when ADUs are mandated to be ministerially processed under Gov. Code § 66317(a). Under LBMC § 25.07.012(D), when only a CDP is required, such as a ministerially approved ADU, the CDP decision is within the purview of the Director of Community Development, not the Design Review Board. The DRB’s decision is inconsistent with a recent project at 239 Viejo St. where the City permitted demolition of a historic home that contained the same historically significant characteristics (upper story windows and cross-gable roofline) as Mr. Lukoff’s home as well as the project at 320 North Coast Hwy. (the former Madison Square & Garden Café) that blocks the front façade of a historic cottage. Furthermore, Moreover, the City is not following the requirements of Gov.

Code § 66317(b), which states,
If a permitting agency denies an application for an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to subdivision (a), the permitting agency shall, within the time period described in subdivision (a), return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.

Additionally, “No local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than an accessory dwelling unit ordinance consistent with this article shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building 260
260 of 1108
11 permit or a use permit under this section” per Gov. Code § 66317(d). The City’s proposed action violates both of those State ADU Law requirements. The City proposes to issue Mr. Lukoff a blanket denial based on non-coastal and non-ADU ordinance bases with no direction on how Mr.

Lukoff could remedy any purported defective items, which is an issue that Mr. Lukoff raised during his testimony before the DRB.

The City appears to take a position that Gov. Code § 66329(a) allows the City to impose the provisions of the ordinary zoning code to deny ADU projects based on lot coverage and front yard setbacks. For instance, staff has made the assertion that because the City’s entire zoning code is incorporated wholesale into the LCP, the City escapes the requirements of State ADU Law entirely since it can use of the standard provisions of the zoning code to prevent ADU construction. However, it is clear that the State ADU Law governs non-Coastal Act aspects of a project. For instance, under Gov. Code § 66321(b)(3), a city may not impose:

Any requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review or any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit an accessory dwelling unit with at least 800 square feet of interior livable space and with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.

Under canons of statutory construction, a statute that speaks to a specific matter applies over a general statute. Additionally, the State ADU Law “shall supersede a conflicting local ordinance.” Gov. Code § 66325. Here, although the City can consider coastal impacts under the Coastal Act per Gov. Code § 66329(a), the City is abusing its authority to assert that on issues not contemplated by the Coastal Act, that the LCP can wholesale override provisions of the State ADU Law. For instance, the City directed Mr. Lukoff to submit a project with a 21’ front yard setback, and then obtained the HRG historic consultant to state in their report that the proposed ADU is too close to the existing residence. If Mr. Lukoff had been able to submit with a 13’ – 15’ front yard setback as permitted under Gov. Code § 66323(a)(2) and (b), this would allow for increased spacing from the existing home, since under this provision, front yard setbacks cannot be applied to deny an ADU project for up to 800 square feet. Even more telling is that whilst other cities have sought review of their ADU laws by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as required by Gov. Code § 66326(a), the City of Laguna Beach does not appear to have done so with either Ord. 1713 or Ord. 1715, which were passed after the enactment of Gov. Code § 66326.

Misunderstanding of CEQA
The DRB deliberations and Resolution 2026-1048 also show a misunderstanding of CEQA. The Board alleges that the project could not be approved on the basis that a Class 3 (Small Structures) categorical exemption may not apply because of the historic home. The DRB ignored that under SB 131, which creates the “near miss” category of CEQA processing, a Cityregistered historic home is not a barrier to the project under CEQA. Since the historic home is the only purported condition that could potentially render the project ineligible, the City would not need to conduct a full initial study or EIR and instead limited to analysis of the potential 261
261 of 1108
12 effects of the action on the historic property. Pub. Res. Code § 21080.1(b) (2025). Furthermore, had the Board fully analyzed the potential effects on the historic property in line with the GPA and Sapphos reports, the Board would have concluded that the CEQA Class 3 (Small Structures) categorical exemption would apply.

DRB Denial Constitutes Unconstitutional Taking
In the DRB’s deliberation, the Board Members used both the Mills Act, and a designation of Mr. Lukoff’s property as a “recreational” or “visitor-serving facility” to justify unconstitutional taking of Mr. Lukoff’s property rights. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, and Art. 1, Sec. 19(a) of the California Constitution guarantee the right to just compensation in the event of a physical or regulatory taking of private property. Unless just compensation is provided to Mr. Lukoff by the City, the DRB’s actions are unconstitutional pursuant to the three-part framework established in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 483 U.S. 104, 124, based on economic impact, investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.

The Board seems to believe that Mr. Lukoff consented to waive his Fifth Amendment rights when he signed onto the Mills Act because of the tax break associated. Mr. Lukoff received consideration of tax breaks under the Mills Act to provide for the upkeep and maintenance of his historic property. The Fifth Amendment standard for a taking is “just compensation,” not a tax break. By entering into the Mills Act contract, Mr. Lukoff did not receive just compensation and did not consent to a taking of his property rights under the State ADU Law or development rights of an R-2 zoned property, contrary to the Design Review Board’s assertion.

First, the economic impact is substantial. Resolution 2026-0148 and the deliberations of the DRB effectively foreclose not only the ADU as proposed, but signals that no ADU would be permitted on Mr. Lukoff’s property at all, thereby depriving Mr. Lukoff of a significant and expressly authorized residential use on an R-2 zoned lot that otherwise allows multiple dwelling units. Additionally, as Mr. Lukoff plans to age in place, his current residence may not be adequate. Thus, Mr. Lukoff’s proposed ADU is instrumental to his aging-in-place plan.

Second, the DRB’s denial directly interferes with reasonable, investment-backed expectations. Mr. Lukoff purchased the property prior to the Mills Act designation, and as he stated during the DRB hearing, the property was in serious disrepair. Based on the Real Property Report obtained from the City at the time of purchase, Mr. Lukoff formed the understanding he would be able to construct a dwelling unit on the property. Mr. Lukoff later relied on State ADU Law to develop a compliant detached ADU. The Mills Act does not provide cover for the City to conduct a regulatory taking of Mr. Lukoff’s property rights under State ADU Law. Mr. Lukoff purchased the property in 2007 and entered into a Mills Act contract in March 2009. Mr. Lukoff used the benefits of the Mills Act to rehabilitate a dilapidated property. There is no clause in the Mills Act contract that waives Mr. Lukoff’s rights to improve his property, as long as he complies with the terms of the contract. For instance, while he is prohibited from demolition of the house or exterior alterations not within Secretary of the Interior Standards. Here, the proposed ADU is for a detached structure that does not physically alter or add onto the existing 262
262 of 1108
13 Mills Act residence, which is why Mr. Lukoff applied for a detached instead of an attached ADU.

Since Mr. Lukoff bought the property with the intention and understanding of developing a second unit, the DRB’s action interferes with his reasonable, investment-backed expectations.

Third, the character of the governmental action strongly favors a finding of a taking.

First, the DRB’s categorization of Mr. Lukoff’s home as a “recreational, visitor-serving facility” encourages the public to trespass a physical invasion of Mr. Lukoff’s property to tour Mr.

Lukoff’s historic property.7 Rather than a general land use regulation evenly applied, the City has engaged in ad hoc, discretionary decision-making, including shifting application requirements, reliance on conflicting consultant analyses, and the imposition of subjective criteria and non-ADU standards to single out and deny this project, effectively “weaponizing” the Local Coastal Program and historic designation to preclude otherwise lawful residential development. Furthermore, as discussed above, the obligations under the Mills Act contract are fixed at the time of contract in 2009 and not as the City would like them to be in 2026. Thus, in terms of the Mills Act, Mr. Lukoff is held to the preservation of the significant features of his home as it was in 2009, which did not include the first-floor window, pergola, porch, or entry door. Taken together, these factors demonstrate that the City’s action goes beyond legitimate regulation and instead operates as the functional equivalent of a taking, depriving the owner of core property rights without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Conclusion
The DRB’s decision to deny Mr. Lukoff’s ADU and CDP is unreasonable, invalid, and abuse of discretion. The DRB’s deliberation and Resolution 2026-0148 make clear that the Board used invalid facts and improper legal arguments to justify its decision. Moreover, the DRB’s actions show that Mr. Lukoff is being singled out for disparate treatment by the City as compared to other property owners. Finally, if the City were to adopt the approach to Mr.

Lukoff’s property wholesale City-wide, the City risks encountering widespread litigation from property owners, project applicants, and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for violation of the Housing Accountability Act, State ADU Law, Permit Streamlining Act, Coastal Act, and the U.S. and California constitutions.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments regarding Mr. Lukoff’s appeal of Resolution 2026-0148. We urge the City Council to disapprove the DRB’s actions approve the project as-is, or in the alternative, remand the project to the Community Development Director to process Mr. Lukoff’s project and CDP according to the requirements of the State ADU Law.

Kind regards,
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.

Attorney
Counsel for Mr. Jonathan Lukoff
7 Feb. 26, 2026 DRB Meeting Video at 42:20.
263
263 of 1108

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:

Appeal of denial of Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 for a new detached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) with excess building site coverage at 238 Chiquita Street in the R-2 zone. A Coastal Development Permit is required for the detached ADU.

Applicant: Jonathan Lukoff
A person has appealed the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to deny the project.

SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

For additional information, contact City staff: Sammi Montalto, Associate Planner (949) 715-0821 or [email protected]. Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.

CEQA: This project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved).

COASTAL: This project is located in the Coastal Zone. This project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone.

The project is proposed as non-appealable development. The application was filed on November 8, 2024 by Jonathan Lukoff and is assigned application number CDP-2026-0148. The application was denied by the Design Review Board. The decision by the Design Review Board is appealable to the City Council upon the payment of $2500 and in accordance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.070. The decision by the City Council is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

Notice posted 10 days prior to hearing date at the following three public places (CA Government Code Section 65090 and 65091):
238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, CA; 505 Forest Ave., Laguna Beach, CA; and 380 3rd St., Laguna Beach, CA; and Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ Property Posted/ California Coastal Commission / Interested Persons List/ Publish Date: 5/1/2026
Attachment 16
264
264 of 1108
Alta Archaeological Consulting, LLC
2681 Cleveland Ave.

Santa Rosa, CA 95403
office (707) 544-4206
fax (707) 546-2135
www.altaac.com
May 8, 2026
Jonathan Lukoff
238 Chiquita Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: 238 Chiquita, Laguna Beach (ADU - City Council Appeal) Introduction
The applicant proposes to construct an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on the property located at 238 Chiquita Street (proposed project). The residence on the subject property is a designated historical resource afforded protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is referred to hereafter as the historic house. Although the proposed project meets applicable state and Laguna Beach (City) requirements for ADUs, including zoning and building codes, the proposed project application was denied by the City’s Heritage Commission and Design Review Board over historic preservation concerns. The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the concerns articulated in the Historic Resources Group (HRG) memo dated January 26, 2026 (Attachment 9),1 which is updated
from a memo prepared by HRG on July 12, 2023 (Attachment 8).2 The HRG memos indicate the proposed project does not meet the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) 2, 4, and 9 of the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Rehabilitation (Standards). The purpose of this memorandum is to demonstrate the project meets the Standards and would not result in a significant impact or substantial adverse change to a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Background
The subject property contains a single-family residence (historic house) constructed in 1925/26 by Nils Anderson as noted in both HRG memos. The historic house was identified as potentially significant in the City’s 1981 survey. The 2-story historic house is noted as a Craftsman Cottage of key significance (“K”) in the City’s Historic Register Index List, July 2024.3 Based upon a review of the
public record, a request for formal listing in the City’s historical register was submitted by Jonathon Lukoff on September 27, 2008, which indicates the subject property is significant for representing “Old Laguna.”4 Mr. Lukoff indicated that distinctive features included that the historic house is “one 1 Historic Resources Group, “238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, Revised ADU Review,” City of Laguna Beach, January 26, 2026,
https://lagunabeachcity.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=768. 2 Historic Resources Group, “238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach Peer Review,” City of Laguna Beach, July 12, 2023,
https://lagunabeachcity.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=768. 3 City of Laguna Beach, “Historic Register Index, July 2024,” n.d., https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/9102/638563011154330000. 4 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/Browse.aspx?id=244295&repo=r-1645a77d 265 of 1108

Alta Archaeological Consulting, LLC — 2681 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 www.altaac.com / office (707) 544-4206 / fax (707) 546-2135 of few home[s] set back but visible, looking older, but well maintained. Represents its era well.”5 The historic house was listed in the City’s Historic Register the same year.

The historic house was assigned a status of “K.” The City’s published Historic Properties Categories defines “K” or Key as buildings that are significant for architectural, historical, and/or aesthetic values.

The applicant entered into a Mills Act contract that was recorded with Orange County on August 22, 2012. Subsequent to execution of the Mills Act contract, the applicant constructed an addition to the historic house that was reviewed by the City’s historic preservation consultant and determined the proposed addition met the Standards.6
Definition of Setting
The Standards recognize historic properties are not meant to be frozen in time and provide a series of standards and guidelines to ensure alterations and new construction are designed and built in a sympathetic manner to minimize physical impacts but also impacts to a property’s setting.

Setting is one of the seven criteria to evaluate a property’s integrity, or a property’s ability to convey its significance.The How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation bulletin defines setting as:

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property placed its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. …. These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property, but also between the property and its surroundings. This is particularly important for districts. 7
Analysis
Standard 2: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

The proposed project would not alter the existing historic house because no work is proposed.

Therefore, no historic materials or alteration of features will occur.

The property was constructed prior to incorporation of the City and therefore zoned uses and lot line setbacks were not a requirement at the time of development. Construction of a second unit in the space created by the 50-foot setback is consistent with other properties in the 200 block of Chiquita 5 Jonathan Lukoff, “City of Laguna Beach Application for Placement on Historic Register: 238 Chiquita Street,” September 27, 2008.
6 GPA, “Compliance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Proposed Alterations to 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach,” February 15, 2013,
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=4a84051eef&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msgf:1863655619752160328&th=19dd08e97efcec48&view=att&disp=inline&realattid=f_mohmifbe0& zw&acrobatPromotionSource=gmail_chrome-card.
7 Patrick W. Andrus and Rebecca H. Shrimpton, eds., How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin 15 (National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1995). 266 of 1108

Alta Archaeological Consulting, LLC — 2681 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 www.altaac.com / office (707) 544-4206 / fax (707) 546-2135 Street that have two buildings on a single parcel. Although partially obscured from view currently and as proposed, the historic house will remain visible from the public right-of-way through implementation of the cantilevered design which maintains the site lines from the public right-of-way and preserves ocean views.

The Standards indicate alteration of the spaces that characterize the property, in this case, open space created by a 50-foot setback, should be avoided. Standard 2 does not indicate a change in space should be denied. In this case, constructing the second unit in the front of the historic house is consistent with the setting created by neighboring properties. The neighboring properties on the 200 block of Chiquita Street generally contain two units resulting in a uniform setback of approximately 13 and 20 feet. The proposed ADU would yield a 20-foot setback on the subject property, consistent with the setting created by the neighboring properties. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Standard

2. Standard 4: Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

The discussion of whether the 1961 stoop, porch, and pergola have achieved significance or not is moot. The HRG assertion these features have achieved significance was not supported by facts or other justification and was rejected by the Heritage Commission and Design Review Board during deliberations and was not carried forward to the DRB resolution. The proposed project would not alter the existing historic house because no work is proposed to the historic house. Therefore, no historic materials or alteration of features will occur. Although partially obscured from view currently and as proposed, the historic house will remain visible from the public right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Standard 4.

Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

The proposed project would not alter the existing historic house because no work is proposed to the historic house. Therefore, no historic materials or alteration of features will occur. As proposed, the project would not destroy historic materials that characterize the historic house because the ADU is detached and the landscaping was not previously identified as a significant character-defining feature of the historic house. The proposed ADU will be discernable as new construction based upon modern materials and design, and subordinate in massing, size, and scale as noted in the current proposed plans. Therefore, the proposed project will be differentiated from the old and compatible with the historic house.

In order to determine if the proposed project meets Standard 9, the setting impacts must behisthisto evaluated for the property itself but also in the context of the neighboring properties. The existing historic house will not be relocated and will retain its 50-foot setback. The proposed project includes landscaping and other open space elements such as walkways, which although reduced, will contribute to the retention of the setting within the parcel the historic house is located. Although the proposed project would impact the open space created by the 50-foot setback, this change is consistent with the setting created by the neighboring properties that contain two detached units. The neighboring properties reflect a variety of architectural styles constructed over a period of time and do not create 267 of 1108

Alta Archaeological Consulting, LLC — 2681 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 www.altaac.com / office (707) 544-4206 / fax (707) 546-2135 a cohesive setting. The buildings on the neighboring properties do however generally create a uniform setback of approximately 13 to 20 feet, which the proposed project will contribute to the overall setting of the neighboring properties.

Conclusion
Based upon this additional analysis, the proposed project meets applicable state and City requirements for ADUs, including zoning and building codes, and the Standards. The proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act.

Preparer Qualifications
Carrie Chasteen possesses a MS in Historic Preservation, BAs in History and Political Science, and 25+ years preparing regulatory compliance documents, including Standards review. She meets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification standards as a Historian and an Architectural Historian (36 CFR Part 61).

Sincerely,
Carrie Chasteen
Senior Architectural Historian
[email protected]
Office: (707) 544-4206
268 of 1108
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Appeal of DRB Decision re: 238 Chiquita Street Case No. Coastal Development Permit 26-1048
Attachments: City Council Letter re 238 Chiquita Street 3-13-26.pdf From: sweetlews
Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 7:18 AM
To: Orgill, Mark <[email protected]>; Jones, Hallie <[email protected]>; Whalen, Bob <[email protected]>; Rounaghi, Alex <[email protected]>; Kempf, Sue <[email protected]>
Cc: Montalto, Sammi CD <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]> Subject: Appeal of DRB Decision re: 238 Chiquita Street Case No. Coastal Development Permit 26-1048 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

Attached you will find our letter regarding the subject project/property. While this may not be an item of which you are aware currently, it is our understanding that this appeal will be presented to and heard at the City Council meeting on May 13, 2026 beginning at 3:00 pm. We are out of the country during this time and, unfortunately, cannot be present to provide testimony. Our son, Brandon, plans to be present to speak on behalf of our family. We want to provide this letter in advance to make sure it is included in the record for your consideration. We have copied both Sammi Montalto, Associate Planner, who has been the lead for the City on this project as well as Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk.

If you have any questions for us and/or would like to talk with us and visit the property, we welcome those opportunities. We leave for our trip April 12, so the time for those communications is short. We will have access to email while we are away; although, it will be spotty.

We appreciate your receipt and consideration of our comment letter and the deliberation you will conduct on this matter.

Respectfully,
Mark and Melanie Lewis and the Lewis Family
248 Chiquita Street
(949) 677-0391 (Mark’s cell)
269 of 1108
270 of 1108
271 of 1108
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.

Kisiel Law
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
May 4, 2026
City of Laguna Beach
City Council
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Letter and Exhibit - Analysis of Public Coastal Views APN: 053-124-18
Application: CDP 2026-0148
Address: 238 Chiquita Street
Dear City Council Members:

In support of Mr. Lukoff’s appeal to request that the City Council set aside the Design Review Board’s (“DRB”) March 12, 2026 decision to deny Coastal Development Permit 2026- 0148 for a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 238 Chiquita Street in the City of Laguna Beach (the “property”), we submit this letter with demonstrative evidence to examine potential public coastal view impacts, discussion of dangerous inconsistency between the Staff Report and City Council’s prior actions in similar cases, and how granting the appeal avoids potential Equal Protection violations and resolves breach of the Mills Act contract on the part of the City.

Examination of Potential Effect on Public Views
Review of the video provided by City staff, architect Bill Dickey’s plans, and Google Maps imagery, shows that the proposed structure would not have an adverse impact on public coastal views. With an understanding of cinematography and spatial relationships, it is possible to determine the potential for view impact through understanding of the siting of the proposed ADU in relation to Mr. Lukoff’s home and other homes on the street.

First, by examination of the site plan, and along with Google Maps imagery, it is apparent that the front of the proposed ADU will line up approximately with the front façade of the neighboring homes on each side, especially with 248 Chiquita Street. From there, it is then possible to extrapolate the position of the proposed ADU onto the Google Maps imagery:
272 of 1108
2 We insert the proposed ADU footprint into its proper place on the Google Maps imagery:
273 of 1108
3 Now that the position of the ADU relative to the other structures on the street is known, the next step is to use the front and side elevations to find the relationship between the height of the proposed ADU, the height of Mr. Lukoff’s home, and the height of the other homes on the street. Here is the extrapolation of the front elevation onto Google Maps imagery of the front of Mr. Lukoff’s home, which shows the height relationship with the neighboring homes:

From this, it is known that the height of the proposed ADU is approximately the same height as the eaves for 248 Chiquita Street and is under the peak of the second story for 234 Chiquita Street. Now, combined with the side context elevation, it is possible to extrapolate onto Google Maps and City-provided photos taken from the street:
274 of 1108
4 At the closest point, the height of the proposed ADU roof lines up with the eave of 248 Chiquita Street and under the peak of the roof for 234 Chiquita Street. The front of the proposed ADU is in line with the front of the two neighboring homes. There is insignificant view blockage created by the ADU, especially since the location of the ADU lines up with the area where coastal views are already impeded by the 234 Chiquita Street neighbor’s home and trees planted further towards the ocean. The predominant ocean view from the public street remains untouched, showing a lack of adverse effect:

Moving further up the street and applying the same methodology to line up the proposed ADU with the rooflines of neighboring properties and their front facades, the result is the same.

The proposed ADU does not impede ocean views from the public street because those views are already impeded by other buildings and trees. The proposed ADU does not create any additional adverse effects. The street also climbs steeper as one heads away from the ocean, further preventing view impacts:
275 of 1108
5 This same methodology to extrapolate the footprint and roof height also applies to still photo frames from the video that City staff used in the February 26, 2026 Design Review Board hearing. The height lines up along the roof of 234 Chiquita’s second story and the front corner.

Again, starting from close to the proposed structure, there is no adverse impact because the view is already blocked by the neighbor’s house, trees, and other structures:
276 of 1108
6 The same holds true moving further up the street—the location and height of the ADU is in an area where the view is already blocked by other structures and trees:

Finally, even further up the increasingly steep street, there is a clear ocean view over the top of the roof of the proposed ADU, demonstrating lack of adverse impact on public views:
277 of 1108
7 This demonstrative analysis provides clear evidence such that a reasonable person would conclude there is no adverse impact to public coastal views. Views from the street where the ADU is proposed are already blocked by other structures and trees. The view down the street is not impacted. There is no indication in the record that either City staff or Design Review Board members performed any analysis using publicly available data or the evidence from City staff’s video. Had the City staff and Design Review Board followed a reasonable methodology as is proposed here and performed this view impact analysis, they would have found that the proposed ADU does not create an adverse impact to public coastal views. Story poles are not necessary to perform this analysis and arrive at this conclusion since the photographic evidence is sufficient.

A reasonable person would find that there is no adverse impact to public views from the proposed ADU, and for the Design Review Board to conclude otherwise constitutes clear abuse of discretion. Thus, based on this evidence, we request that the City Council overturn the Design Review Board’s findings and find that the proposed ADU will not adversely impact public coastal views.

Inconsistency of City Staff’s Position on the Adverse Impacts Standard In its July 8, 2025 staff report regarding CDP 25-0036 at 1673 Louise Street, the City took the unequivocal position that the applicable standard for denying a CDP based on impacts to coastal scenic resources requires a showing of “significant adverse effects.” Staff expressly relied on Public Resources Code Section 30250(a) and LT-WR v. California Coastal Commission (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 770, 797–99, concluding that the Coastal Act “requires an analysis as to whether new development has ‘significant adverse effects’ to coastal scenic resources.” Staff further acknowledged that while the City's certified LCP does not use the word “significant,” the LCP likewise does not direct the City to analyze “any” impact—only “adverse impacts”—and staff cited the significance standard as authority to analyze whether adverse impact existed. The City Council in that matter concluded that a minor visual impairment of a view from one location on a public street does not rise to the level of an adverse or negative impact. The City Council adopted these findings in its resolution. The excerpt of the 1674 Louise Street staff report is attached to this letter.

On the other hand, in the April 2026 staff report regarding CDP 2026-0148 at 238 Chiquita Street, the City reversed course entirely. Staff now asserts that “[t]he LCP does not require a separate or explicit ‘significance threshold’ analysis” and that the City's discretion is not “limit[ed]… to only deny projects that result in severe or complete obstruction of views.” Staff dismisses the very authorities it previously relied upon—Section 30250(a) and LT-WR—as “fact-specific” decisions that “do not establish a uniform rule.” This is a direct contradiction. The City cannot invoke a significance standard to approve one ADU over neighbor objections and then disavow that same standard to deny another. The City is bound by its own prior interpretation, and its inconsistent application of the adverse impact standard to the homeowner's detriment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
278 of 1108
8 Granting Appeal Avoids Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause
City’s staff’s request for City Council to implement inconsistent application of the significance standard also raises serious concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under rational basis review, a municipality may not treat similarly situated property owners differently absent a legitimate governmental purpose. Under the “class of one” theory recognized in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000) 528 U.S. 562, 564, an equal protection claim exists where a government entity treats one applicant differently from others similarly situated, with no rational basis for the difference in treatment.

Here, the homeowner at 238 Chiquita Street and the homeowner at 1673 Louise Street are similarly situated in all material respects: both proposed two-story ADUs in the coastal zone, both were subject to CDP review under the same certified LCP, and both involved claims of minor public view impacts from residential streets. In the Louise Street matter, the City Council applied the legally recognized significance standard and concluded that a minor, localized view impact did not constitute an “adverse” effect on coastal scenic resources. In the Chiquita Street matter, City staff proposes to disavow the significance standard entirely, asserting that no significance threshold is required and that any view obstruction—even partial and from a single vantage point—may support denial.

The City has offered no rational basis for this divergent treatment. The two properties are governed by the same LCP provisions, the same CDP findings under LBMC § 25.07.012(F), and the same Open Space and Conservation Element policies. The City's decision to apply a more permissive standard to one ADU applicant and a more restrictive standard to another, based on the same legal framework, is the hallmark of arbitrary and discriminatory governmental action.

This inconsistency supports a viable equal protection claim, which can be resolved by granting Mr. Lukoff’s appeal.

Granting Appeal Cures City’s Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing under the Mills Act Contract
The City staff and DRB’s shifting interpretation of the City’s own regulatory standards also constitutes breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in Mr.

Lukoff’s Mills Act contract, which City Council can cure by granting the appeal.

Under California law, every contract—including contracts between private parties and public entities—contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which requires that neither party do anything to unfairly interfere with the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 654, 658. Applicable to this context is that the “covenant of good faith finds particular application in situations where one party is invested with a discretionary power affecting the rights of another. Such power must be exercised in good faith.” Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 342, 371-72.
279 of 1108
9 Mr. Lukoff voluntarily entered into a Mills Act contract with the City in 2009, accepting preservation obligations in exchange for property tax reductions. The contract requires compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and applicable City regulations, but it does not prohibit future development on the property. To the contrary, the contract contemplates that the homeowner will continue to use and improve the property consistent with its terms.

The DRB’s conduct and analysis in denying Mr. Lukoff’s ADU raises concerns of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in two ways:

First, the DRB decision weaponizes the Mills Act designation—which the homeowner voluntarily sought in reliance on the City's representations—as a basis to deny development that would otherwise be permitted under State ADU Law and the City's own zoning code, effecting a regulatory taking. The City now treats the historic designation not merely as a framework for preservation, but as a de facto prohibition on new construction anywhere on the lot, a result that was never contemplated by the contract and that no reasonable property owner would have agreed to.

Second, the City staff seeks to shift the regulatory goalposts by abandoning the significance standard the City Council previously applied to coastal view impacts. When the City approved the Louise Street ADU in July 2025, City Council established that minor, localized view impacts from a residential street do not constitute adverse effects on coastal scenic resources. The homeowner at 238 Chiquita Street was entitled to rely on that same interpretive framework in planning his ADU. By reversing its position ten months later—without any change in the governing law—the City has deprived the homeowner of the predictable regulatory environment that formed part of the consideration for entering into the Mills Act contract. A public entity that induces a property owner to accept preservation obligations in exchange for tax benefits, and then retroactively expands those obligations through inconsistent regulatory interpretations to prevent otherwise lawful development, acts in bad faith and breaches the implied covenant. By granting the appeal, the City Council can resolve this issue as well.

Conclusion
Thank you for your consideration of this demonstrative evidence regarding public coastal views analysis in support of Mr. Lukoff’s appeal of Resolution 2026-0148. If you would like to schedule a site visit in advance of the May 13th hearing, please contact me by phone at (949) 549-9076 or by email at [email protected].

Kind regards,
Edwin C. Kisiel, Esq.

Attorney
Counsel for Mr. Jonathan Lukoff
Attachment:

Excerpt of 1673 Louise St. Staff Report, July 8, 2025, 4 pages 280 of 1108

281 of 1108
282 of 1108
283 of 1108

284 of 1108
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Letter in opposition to May 13 appeal of CDP 2025-0148, 238 Chiquita From: Catherine
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 6:50 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Garibaldi, Megan AO <[email protected]>; Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]> Subject: Letter in opposition to May 13 appeal of CDP 2025-0148, 238 Chiquita Re: Agenda Item B, City Council Appeal Hearing, May 13, 2026 238 Chiquita, Denial for Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 To the City Council and staff of the City of Laguna Beach:

As the owner of 245 Cajon Street, I am writing to urge the Laguna Beach City Council to reject the appeal of the Design Review Board’s (“DRB”) denial of Coastal Development Permit 26-0148 for a detached ADU in front of the historic property located at 238 Chiquita Street.

Our home of 26 years is located across the alley behind, and one lot uphill from, the applicant’s property. Therefore, I am familiar with the conditions currently present on the property, and the evolving and increased size of the historical structure at 238 Chiquita.

In the staff report for this matter, City staff has provided a comprehensive description of the complex interaction between the various state and local laws governing this particular application. Based on my own experience as a municipal law attorney, I believe staff has fairly addressed and refuted all the arguments made in the applicant’s appeal. I will not attempt to duplicate staff’s herculean efforts here.

Besides the concerns noted by staff and the findings made by the DRB in denying this application, I have three primary areas of concern with this proposed project.

1. The Proposed ADU Structure Will Effectively Eliminate the Only Remaining Public View of a Registered Historic House From the Public Right of Way.

The owner of 238 Chiquita is party to a contract with the City of Laguna Beach to preserve the historic character of the property, and that contract is enforceable independent of the state laws governing ADUs. The owner was under no obligation to place his property on the City of Laguna Beach’s Historic Register, or to enter a Mills Act contract. He proactively chose to do so after he purchased the property. He did this, presumably, because of the significant benefits that the Mills Act contract offers, including reduced property taxes. Essentially, the public subsidizes the owners of Mills Act properties in return for the public being able to see well-maintained historic structures in their city. Without a public benefit, the contract would lack a valid public purpose.

The ability for the public to see historic elements of this structure has already been reduced since the owner entered his Mills Act contract. Prior to 2013, our home looked across the alley at the original back of 238 Chiquita, with its vintage windows and structural features. After the initial application for the 2013 remodel of 238 Chiquita was denied by the DRB, the then-City Council, on appeal, remanded the project to the DRB for approval. The applicant then negotiated with his adjacent uphill neighbor and the DRB, leveraged the 285 of 1108
2 historic designation of the house, and a new expansion at the rear of the house was approved and constructed.

The 2013 expansion extended construction along the property line between 238 and 248 Chiquita. There is now no open setback along that portion of the property line. It also created a new second-story addition at the rear of the property. The 2013 expansion removed the vintage rear windows and original rear façade. Now, other than still having a high, pitched roofline at the rear, no historic elements can be seen from the public right of way along the Chiquita/Cajon alley.

This means that the only remaining benefit the public receives in exchange for the reduced property tax and other advantages conferred on the owner by his Mills Act contract is an unimpaired view of the structure from the public right of way on Chiquita Street.

If the proposed ADU is approved at the front of the property, the public’s view of the historic home behind it will be eliminated, or so severely changed and eroded as to be functionally eliminated. The context elevations submitted by the applicant illustrate the front elevation straight on, from a mid-building height. This does not reflect what a pedestrian would see from the street level. (Story poles would have allowed us to asses what the remaining front view from street level would be, but the applicant refused to install them.) Being able to see some small portion of the peaked roofline peeking out from behind a twostory box is not comparable to the current unimpeded public view of the front of the historic home and its spatial location with the street. A small portion of peaked roofline is presumably not all the City was trying to preserve when it entered the Mills Act contract for this property.

The owner cannot have it both ways; either this is a historic property that contributes to the public views from Chiquita, or it is no longer a protected historic property because the public gains no benefit from it. If any ADU is approved that further erodes, reduces, or eliminates the remaining public view of the historic home, all benefits of the historic designation should be rescinded from the property, and the owner should be found to be in violation of his Mills Act contract with all the penalties that entails.

2. The Proposed ADU Structure Exceeds the Permitted Lot Coverage of the Site.

One reason the house at 238 Chiquita has such a large front yard is that the home is built right up to a portion of the rear lot line at the alley, and right up to a portion of the uphill lot line. The owner may continue to assert that the area at the front of the lot is “buildable,” but the area he wishes to build on is available in part because the current house already covers side and rear setback areas other homes in Laguna Beach must leave open. This rear massing already impacts neighboring properties. When the DRB approved the 2013 addition at the back of the house, it stated that the approved expansion represented the maximum amount of building program that could be allowed at this property while the current structure remains in place. Having leveraged the benefit of his historic structure and DRB approval in 2013 in a way that cannot be undone, the applicant now seeks to undermine the balanced deliberations of the 2013 DRB decision and cover even more of his lot with new construction.

3. Without Story Poles, Impacts on Public Views of Scenic Coastal Resources Cannot Be Assessed by the Public.

Independent of the impact the proposed ADU would have on the public’s view of a historic resource, the proposed ADU could also impact public views of coastal resources from the public rights of way. State law provides limited grounds for denying ADU permits in a non-historic setting, and obstructing views of coastal 286 of 1108
3 resources from the public right of way in the Coastal Zone are among those grounds for denial. Staff has examined the applicant’s plans and the setting, and determined that public views of coastal resources would, in fact, be impeded by this project.

I would like to be able to say that I can independently confirm whether the proposed structure would impair views of the ocean, coastline, or undeveloped hills from Chiquita Street, the Pacific Coast Highway, or Hillcrest Drive. I cannot definitively do so, however, because the owner of 238 Chiquita refused to install story poles. Therefore, I must defer to Community Development staff’s greater expertise in this area and give deference to their determination.

Story poles would have allowed all of us to see the outline and location of the proposed ADU structure. I did not object last year to a different two-story ADU at the back of a property across the street from our property on Cajon Street. This was because the owner installed story poles and I could see that, while it impacted neighboring private views, that project’s location did not appear to impact any public view of coastal resources from a public right of way.

In the absence of story poles delineating this project, the Council should adopt staff’s analysis and deny the project based on impacts to public views of coastal resources.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Catherine Wolcott
245 Cajon Street
287 of 1108

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

May 13, 2026
APPEAL
C
SUBJECT: 31985 AND 31987 COAST HIGHWAY: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0024, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0025, AND VARIANCE 2026-0026,

FOR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION

OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A TWO-CAR GARAGE AT 31985 AND 31987 COAST HIGHWAY IN THE R-1 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, receive a staff report and take public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0025, and Variance 2026-0026, and the California Environmental Quality Act 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 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 2026-0024, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0025, AND VARIANCE 2026-0026 FOR DEMOLITION OF

THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A TWO-CAR GARAGE AT 31985 AND 31987 COAST HIGHWAY IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303”, upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit 2026-0025, and Variance 2026-0026, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, 888 Pacific Holdings LLC and Rama Krishna1 (“Applicant”), of 31985 and 31987 Coast Highway (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 2026-0024, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2026-0025, and Variance (“VAR”) 2026-0026 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new single-family dwelling with a two-car garage in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design Review is required for the new structure, new vehicular access, elevator height, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, pool, spa, pedestrian entry feature, landscaping, and construction in an environmentally sensitive area (due to oceanfront proximity) pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1). A CDP is required for the abovedescribed improvements [LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(c)]. A Variance is requested for 1) reconstruction of the funicular and associated access components (stairs, landings, terrace, retaining walls, and gates) and 1 The Project’s agent is Morris Skenderian and the Project’s architect is Geoff Sumich, who are within the definition of Applicant. 1 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

maintaining stairs, walkways, and retaining walls within the bluff [LBMC Section 25.50.004(B)(4)]; and 2) to exceed the maximum wall height within the front yard setback [LBMC Section 25.50.012(B)(3)].

On February 26, 2026, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project that consisted of the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new single-family dwelling with a two-car garage, new vehicular access, elevator height, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, pool, spa, pedestrian entry feature, landscaping, construction in an environmentally sensitive area (due to oceanfront proximity), reconstruction of the funicular and associated access components (stairs, landings, terrace, retaining walls, and gates) and maintaining stairs, walkways, and retaining walls within the bluff, and to exceed the maximum wall height within the front yard setback (the “Project”).

After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, and upon review of the staff recommendation for approval, the Board voted (4-0)3, to approve the Project, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report and subject to the following Project-specific conditions, and a finding that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (the “Board Approval”):
1) The house shall be moved an additional 5 feet to provide for a 13-foot south side yard setback and that the electrical panel will be placed inside the garage; and 2) A lifeguard locker will be constructed/installed along with water and electrical power service below the lower platform at the base of the funicular and the design of this locker and specific placement of the water and electrical service will be worked out between that City and the applicant during the building permit plan check phase and that the locker and water and power service and maintenance obligations thereof will be included in the funicular’s easement document executed between the City and applicant; and, that the existing stairs and improvements that will remain shall be included in the funicular’s easement document executed between the City and applicant to ensure their use by emergency response personnel with the appropriate maintenance obligations, The February 26, 2026 Board-Adopted Resolution No. 2026-0024, Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Draft Minutes, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 4 through 9, respectively.4 3 Board Member Bauta was absent.
4 The February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Meeting Video is available to view on the City’s website at the following link (Refer to Agenda Item 5.9): https://lagunabeachcity.granicus.com/player/clip/2921?view_id=3&redirect=true 2 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

Figure 1: Aerial Views of Project Site
3 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

Figure 2: Existing Street Frontage of Project Site
Figure 3: Proposed Street-Facing Elevation of the Project Figure 4: Proposed 3D Renderings of the Project
4 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

On March 10, 2026, Bryan Menne (“Appellant”) of 31988 10th Avenue, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 2) for the following reasons, as summarized by staff:

1. The project fails to preserve the existing 45-foot-wide public view corridor along the southern property boundary and is inconsistent with the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element policies.

The Appellant further asserts that prior City Council approvals established a precedent for curblevel rooflines to preserve such views and requests similar conditions for the subject project.

2. The proposed bluff development encroaches into environmentally sensitive areas, may require additional environmental review and variances, and is inconsistent with Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program policies; removal of these features is requested.

3. The proposal does not maintain the existing driveway configuration, which is described by the Appellant as a grandfathered condition providing safe access for adjacent properties. An alternative site plan is proposed by the Appellant that maintains the existing driveway, reduces building scale, and preserves a public view corridor, and is asserted to improve safety, neighborhood compatibility, and protection of coastal views.

4. The project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to its size, massing, and design, including large decks and building scale, and asserts it exceeds allowable height limits.

5. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan, and the staff report contains inaccuracies, particularly regarding compliance with policies related to view protection, scenic resources, and neighborhood compatibility.

6. Public correspondence from adjacent property owners was misrepresented or not fully considered in the staff report.

7. Concerns with regard to the extent of grading and associated noise, traffic, and construction impacts, and notes that a reduced grading alternative is feasible.

8. Incomplete or compromised story pole installation affected public review, and additional noticing or re-staking should have been required.

LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the May 13, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065 and Chapter 25.07. 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 3).
5 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

6 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, 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.7 (LBMC § 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 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 Section 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. Coastal Development Permit and Variance
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a CDP and variance. 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 2026-0025 and VAR 2026-0026, 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.

2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review 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 not supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application but shall be limited to the grounds specifically 7 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.) 7 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence, including plans, that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to such evidence. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and 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 2026-0024, which was approved 4-0, 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 2026-0024, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 9 in such event, remand is not required.

3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.

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

2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15303, but modifying the Resolution to include 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 2026- 0024, CDP 2026-0025, and VAR 2026-0026 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a CDP and variance, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited 9 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 Board or Planning Commission for further consideration. 8 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

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 2026-0025 and VAR 2026-0026, 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 2026-0024, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo review, shall not reweigh evidence and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The City Council shall consider whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, with a presumption that the decision was reasonable, valid and not an abuse of discretion. The Appellant has the burden to proof, by a preponderance of evidence, that the decision was not. . Further, for DR 2026-0024, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.

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

1. “Public View Protection, Precedent, and Consistency with Prior Approvals” In short, the Appellant contends that the approved project blocks a recognized public ocean view corridor along Coast Highway and nearby public viewpoints, contrary to Landscape and Scenic Highways Element policies. Additionally, the Appellant asserts that prior City Council approvals for similar coastal properties established a precedent requiring rooflines to be set at curb-level to preserve public ocean view corridors along Coast Highway. The Appellant requests application of similar conditions to the subject project at 31985 and 31987 Coast Highway, including a maximum roof elevation aligned with curb height to maintain a 45-foot-wide public view corridor at the southern property boundary.

Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Project blocks a 45-foot-wide public ocean view corridor and conflicts with policies11 of the Land Use Element (“LUE”), coastal Land Use Plan (“LUP”), and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element. As an initial matter, while the Appellant references the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element generally, the Appeal does not identify any specific policy language with which the Project is inconsistent. In the absence of identified policy conflicts, there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that the project violates any particular provision of that Element. Notwithstanding, the Project was reviewed for consistency with all applicable General Plan and LUP policies, including those related to scenic resources and public views.

The applicable policies do not require absolute preservation of all existing public or private views, nor do they mandate the creation or maintenance of a fixed-width public view corridor. Rather, these policies require that new development protect and minimize impacts to public views to the extent feasible, while balancing other considerations such as site constraints, property rights, and compatible development. The project was evaluated in this context, including analysis of its visibility from Coast Highway and nearby public vantage points such as pedestrian areas and beach accessways.

The Board found that the proposed structure’s height, setbacks, and stepped massing reduce perceived bulk while flat roof elements and articulated forms maintain a lower visual profile relative to allowable envelope 11 LUE Policies 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 3.10, 7.3, 10.2; and LUP Policy 2.9 9 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

limits, resulting in a structure that remains visually compatible with the surrounding development pattern along Coast Highway. Based on staff analysis, site visits, and photographic simulations included in the record, the Project does not result in a complete obstruction of coastal views from Coast Highway or nearby public vantage points. Instead, views are partially affected but remain available from multiple locations along the corridor. Board Member Gannon stated, “As far as public views go, the house is lower than all the other homes. You're removing trees so it's a giving. It's not even a taking; it's a giving because the house is lower than all the other homes that are surrounding it. And then you're giving, you're going to take out the trees so that opens the view for people.13” Board Member Coveny noted, “I think the biggest thing here that seems to be that keeps coming up is public view impact. I don't see public view impact in this particular lot because of where it situates on PCH. You can't drive by and look, you are just keeping your eye on the road because there's a lot of activity right there. The place at the Montage, thank you for that. And the place down at the Shopoff’s, those areas are really active areas to walk or to drive, very open. You have much more space, it's not an active area like where this particular lot is. So, public views aren't really impacted from PCH proper. From the sidewalk, you are still allowing for public view because of the height of this house. So, it's not impacting public views there. So, I feel like the public view element is a non-issue with this particular home and the placement of the home.14”Accordingly, the Board concluded that the Project is consistent with applicable view protection policies, which allow for some degree of impact when balanced against property rights and design constraints.

The City’s Design Guidelines and Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) define “view equity” as a balancing standard, not an absolute protection of existing views. The approved Project was conditioned and reviewed to reduce bulk through articulation, setbacks, and terracing; remains within the applicable zoning envelope; is comparable in scale to other residences along this segment of Coast Highway, which include large, multilevel homes due to topography and lot configuration. The Board considered public input and determined that the project does not unreasonably deprive adjacent properties of views, nor does it exceed what is typical for the area.

Currently, ocean views from Coast Highway in the vicinity of the project are intermittent, occurring in the gaps between existing residential structures and experienced primarily by passing motorists, rather than stationary viewers (Figure 5). The proposed project would maintain view opportunities along the public right-of-way, particularly through the spacing afforded by the 100-foot-wide lot (Figure 6). Although the Project would somewhat narrow the oblique view angles currently available across the site, it would not eliminate a designated or formally recognized public view corridor, as none exists at this location, nor would it obstruct a notably prominent view of the coastline. In addition, broader and more prominent ocean and coastline views remain available elsewhere in the City and at various South Laguna locations. In this area, both existing and proposed public views are better characterized as brief, secondary ocean views, which are typical along the ocean side of Coast Highway in South Laguna, where narrow “windows to the sea” are created between structures on adjacent lots within their side yard setback areas. 13 Attachment 9 February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Gannon]. 14 Attachment 9 February 26, 2026 Design Review Board Transcript Page 12 [Coveny]. 10 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

Figure 5. Existing Intermittent Views and Relative Building Heights of Nearby Residential Development Along Coast Highway
Prior Coastal Commission decisions have determined that limited or transitory view obstructions do not constitute a significant adverse impact. For example, in Appeal No. A-6-PEN-23-005317, the Commission found no significant adverse impact where a project obstructed only “fleeting” views from a public roadway. Similarly, in Appeal No. A-6-DMR-22-003418, the Commission concluded that a view obstruction from a single vantage point did not constitute a substantial impact where the view is restored upon movement along the public way. Overall, while the project introduces some additional structure within the existing gap, it does not result in a significant adverse impact to a protected or established public viewing resource and provides for the removal of some vegetation which may open up views. 17 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2024/2/Th19b/Th19b-2-2024-report.pdf 18 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/9/W17a/w17a-9-2022-report.pdf 11 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

Figure 6. Existing and Proposed Street Elevation Renderings

Figure 7. Existing Site Conditions and Staking of the Project The subject site is located along Coast Highway and consists of an approximately 100-foot-wide frontage.

While Coast Highway is a public travel corridor, opportunities for the public to safely stop and experience stationary ocean views in the immediate vicinity of the project site are limited. The Project frontage and surrounding segments of Coast Highway are predominantly lined with red curbs on both sides, restricting vehicle stopping and parking. On the ocean side of the highway, much of shoulder consists of curb cuts for 12 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

existing driveway improvements, which further restrict parking opportunities. Figure 8 depicts the nearest area where members of the public are likely to park and access views from the intersection of Coast Highway and 7th Avenue in the Providence Mission Hospital vicinity, located inland and approximately 850 feet northwest of the Project site. Given these conditions, the Project frontage functions primarily as a pass-through visual corridor rather than a designated or practical public viewing area.

More suitable public coastal viewing opportunities are provided at established recreation and access points along Coast Highway, which are designed to accommodate visitation. These locations offer designated access and improved vantage points, including access to Thousand Steps Beach, where the public can experience broader and more scenic ocean views. The availability of these proximate, purpose-built facilities further supports that the Project frontage is not a significant or functional public coastal viewing area.
13 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

Figure 8: Project Site Along Coast Highway and Nearby Parking Conditions For these reasons, staff finds that the Project is consistent with applicable policies related to public views and does not result in a significant adverse impact warranting the modifications requested by the Appellant.

Any intermittent view interruption associated with the proposed development would be minor, peripheral, and limited to a narrow vantage point along Coast Highway. As such, the effect is brief and not materially different from the types of “fleeting” or location-specific obstructions previously found not to be significant.

Pedestrian activity in this vicinity is also transient in nature; individuals traveling along Coast Highway are typically en route to coastal access points such as Thousand Steps Beach rather than lingering along the roadway (Figure 9). This segment functions primarily as a through-traffic corridor within a predominantly 14 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

residential area, and meaningful public ocean views are more fully realized upon arrival at the beach itself.

From a motorist perspective, views along this stretch are similarly intermittent and constrained, generally limited to brief, oblique glimpses between existing residential development and roadside conditions, rather than broad or sustained viewing opportunities. Moreover, there is no signalized intersection along the Project frontage where both pedestrians and motorists are more likely to stop to take in the ocean view.

Figure 9: View Looking Southbound Demonstrating Motorist Perspective and Pedestrian Activity.

The Project Site is in the Foreground to the Right
Additionally, the absence of sidewalk infrastructure along the east (inland) side of Coast Highway in this location further limits the likelihood that members of the public would experience the asserted impact from the specific vantage point identified by the Appellant.

Figure 10: View Looking East Along Coast Highway, Across the Highway from the Project Site and Predominately Lined with Red Curbs with Absence of Sidewalk Infrastructure The Appellant conflates incidental, localized corridor views with recognized public coastal viewpoints.

More expansive and intentional public ocean views are available at nearby coastal access points, including the Montage area and Aliso Beach, which provide broad, elevated, and largely unobstructed coastal vistas with designated public access and parking and other public amenities. These locations function as primary public viewing destinations and offer significantly more expansive view opportunities than those available along this segment of Coast Highway.
15 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

Figure 11: Montage Views, Shown Looking Northbound (above) and West (below) Figure 12: Aliso Beach Views, Shown Looking Southbound (above) and Northbound (below) By contrast, the Project site is located along a developed residential stretch of Coast Highway that is not identified as a protected public view corridor under the City’s certified LCP, including the Open Space and Conservation Element. This segment is distinguishable from areas such as the vicinity of Montage Laguna Beach, Thousand Steps Beach, and Aliso Beach, where established access points and designated view corridors support intentional public coastal viewing. No comparable designated public view corridor exists at or near the Project site.
16 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

Accordingly, the evidence does not support a finding that the Project would result in a significant adverse impact to public coastal views. Interpreting minor, location-specific view interruptions as constituting adverse impacts would be inconsistent with established Coastal Commission precedent and would effectively preclude a wide range of otherwise permissible development throughout Laguna Beach. This is especially relevant here because the lot is wider than most nearby properties. A wider lot naturally allows for a broader building footprint, which can affect views differently than the narrower, more typical lots in the area.

The Appellant references precedent; however, staff’s review of nearby properties with similar frontage widths indicates variability in design outcomes and no uniform requirement for curb-height rooflines. 31971 Coast Highway and 32161 Coast Highway are both developed on lots of comparable width of approximately 100 feet. Each accommodates residential structures that partially frame and limit ocean views from Coast Highway, and neither site preserves a full-width, unobstructed public view corridor. The proposed Project is consistent with this established pattern, providing comparable spacing and view permeability relative to similarly sized parcels.

Figure 13: Comparative Street View of
31971 Coast Highway (left) and 32161 Coast Highway (right) With respect to the Appellant’s claim regarding precedent, the identification of two prior projects approved at different locations within the City does not establish a binding or controlling standard applicable to all development along Coast Highway. Land use determinations are inherently site-specific and must be evaluated based on the unique physical characteristics, the Project’s setting, zoning regulations, and applicable policies of each property. The City is not legally obligated to apply identical design constraints across dissimilar sites, particularly where the General Plan does not prescribe a uniform development standard such as a curb-height roofline limitation. Moreover, the broader development pattern along the Coast Highway corridor consists predominantly of residential, commercial and mixed-use structures with varying heights, massing, and architectural forms. The subject Project is consistent with this established pattern of development and does not introduce a scale or form that is materially out of character with the surrounding area.

The project site does not contain a formally recognized or protected public view corridor. Public viewing opportunities at this location are limited, intermittent, and primarily experienced in transit. The proposed development maintains a level of view permeability consistent with nearby properties of similar width. 17 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

Significant public ocean views remain readily available at nearby designated coastal access points. No consistent precedent supports the imposition of a curb-height roofline restriction or a fixed-width public view corridor requirement.

2. “Bluff Development and Environmental Constraints”
In short, the Appellant contends that proposed improvements within the coastal bluff area (including a funicular extension, stairs, decks, and retaining walls) would encroach into environmentally sensitive habitat areas, require variances and environmental review, and would be infeasible or inconsistent with Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program policies. The Appellant supports removal of the proposed public access easement and associated bluff development features.

Staff’s Response
The record does not support these assertions. The project is located on a previously developed infill residential site, and no environmentally sensitive habitat area (“ESHA”) has been identified on the Property.

The Project consolidates two legal lots into a single parcel, thereby eliminating a potential building site farther down the bluff. As a result, development is intentionally concentrated closer to the street, reducing the need for additional bluff encroachment and minimizing disturbance of the lower bluff area. This design approach concentrates improvements in a less environmentally sensitive portion of the site and is consistent with policies encouraging reduced intensity and greater protection of coastal bluff resources.

The Board evaluated and approved the requested variances for the funicular, stairs, and related improvements, finding them consistent with site constraints, surrounding development patterns, and applicable findings. The Board also determined that these features provide a public safety benefit, including enhanced emergency access, and incorporated project-specific conditions of approval. The variance findings collectively support the funicular as a justified public safety improvement due to the site’s unique conditions and constrained access to Thousand Steps Beach. The Property’s unusual width and location along a heavily used beach with a single, steep, and congested stairway (approximately 223 steps) create exceptional circumstances that limit timely emergency response. The proposed funicular secured for first responder use via easement provides a reliable, faster, and safer “express” route for emergency access and patient transport, supplementing existing stair access and aligning with privileges afforded to similarly situated properties. No general public access is contemplated. Given the high volume of rescues and medical incidents in the area, the Project enhances public health and safety without detriment to the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with General Plan policies that allow bluff development for public safety purposes. Moreover, the bluffs that overlook Thousand Steps Beach in this general area are typified not by pristine, natural conditions, but by limited improvements that traverse the bluff face down to the beach, which include private beach access stairs. In some cases, developed properties in the area also maintain dwelling units at beach level. While these conditions are legal, non-conforming as they do not comply with the blufftop setback requirement, the intensity of residential development is such that there is no known ESHA on the Project site.

The project was reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and determined to be exempt, with no substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts requiring further review. The CEQA determination is supported by specific findings that the Project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical 18 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

exemption (CEQA Guidelines §15303) as it involves demolition of existing development and construction of a single-family residence with accessory improvements in a residential (R-1) zone. The record confirms there is no substantial evidence of unusual circumstances or a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects. The site, while oceanfront, does not contain environmentally sensitive habitat areas, is not located on a hazardous materials site, and will not impact historical resources. Additionally, the Project will not result in cumulative impacts, nor will it damage scenic resources along Coast Highway, as the improvements are limited in height and scale relative to the surrounding streetscape. The Board further found that none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines §15300.2 apply. Accordingly, the approved entitlement record substantiates the exemption. Claims regarding infeasibility of the proposed improvements or the need for additional variances are speculative and not supported by the entitlement record.

With respect to Coastal Act policies, the site is within an urbanized coastal area. The Project is compatible with the surrounding built environment and incorporates design measures to reduce visual prominence in that it is proposed less than eight feet above the curb along Coast Highway. The Board’s findings appropriately apply Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program standards, which require visual compatibility, not the elimination of all development impacts21. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the Project, including bluff-related improvements, is consistent with applicable environmental and coastal resource policies.

3. “Driveway Access, and Alternative Site Plan Proposal” In short, the Appellant contends that the approved project does not utilize the existing driveway location and 20% gradient, which is asserted to be a grandfathered condition that currently provides safe access in a similar manner for adjacent properties. The Appellant proposes an alternative site plan that retains the existing driveway configuration, reduces building height and massing, and preserves a designated public view corridor across the site. The alternative design is asserted to improve vehicular safety, maintain neighborhood compatibility, and better protect coastal views.

Staff’s Response
The City’s Zoning Code regulates driveway design, location, and maximum allowable slopes for new development. While certain existing conditions may be considered legal, nonconforming (“grandfathered”), such conditions may not be preserved when a property is redeveloped, nor do they establish a right to replicate or expand nonconforming features. New development is required to comply with current Zoning Code standards to the maximum extent feasible, including provisions related to driveway gradients, safety, and site circulation, unless a variance is granted. The approved project was reviewed for consistency with these standards, and the proposed driveway configuration was determined to meet applicable Zoning Code requirements and public safety considerations.
21 Attachment 4 Signed Final Resolution 2026-0024, Section 4 (Pages 9-15). LCP Oceanfront and Bluff Top Policies: Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.10, LUE Actions 7.3.3, 7.3.4, 7.3.5, 7.3.5, 7.3.6, 7.3.8, 7.3.11; LCP Coastal View Policies: LUE Policy

2.8, 2.10, 3.10, 7.3, 10.2; and Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix Section 30251. 19 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

With respect to the Appellant’s assertion that the alternative driveway design would provide safer access, the Project was evaluated through the City’s established review process, including consideration of sitespecific constraints such as topography, sight distance, and access alignment with Coast Highway. The approved driveway location and design were found to provide safe and functional vehicular access consistent with City standards. The existence of other driveways in the vicinity with steeper gradients does not establish a requirement or preference for similar configurations, as each property must be evaluated on its own physical characteristics and in compliance with current regulations. The existing driveway for 31987 Coast Highway, which has an approximate slope of 15%, does not conform to the gradient standards set forth in LBMC Section 25.52.008(I)(3) and, as such, cannot and should not be maintained in its current configuration. The Code limits driveway gradients to an average of ten percent within the first twenty feet from the right-of-way, fourteen percent for the next 130 feet, and twelve percent thereafter, unless specific exceptions apply. The proposed project corrects this nonconforming condition by redesigning the driveway to better align with current municipal standards, while responding to the inherent constraints of the site’s hillside topography.

Regarding the proposed alternative site plan, the City’s review authority is limited to the Project as submitted by the Applicant. While Design Review includes consideration of site planning, massing, and neighborhood compatibility pursuant to the City’s Design Review Criteria and adopted Design Guidelines, it does not obligate the decision-making body to redesign a project or require adoption of an alternative concept proposed by a third party. The approved Project was found to be consistent with applicable Design Review Criteria, including those related to scale, massing, and integration with the natural topography, as well as compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood context.

The Appellant’s alternative proposal also assumes the preservation of a fixed public view corridor across private property; however, neither the Zoning Code, Design Review Criteria, nor the City’s Design Guidelines require the dedication or maintenance of such a corridor in this context. As discussed in the staff analysis, applicable policies require that visual impacts be minimized to the extent feasible, not eliminated entirely.

The approved Project’s driveway design and overall site plan comply with applicable Zoning Code standards, satisfy Design Review Criteria, and provide safe and functional access. The Appellant has not demonstrated that the approved design is inconsistent with applicable regulations or that the proposed alternative is required to achieve compliance.

4. “Project is Not Compatible with Neighborhood”
In short, the Appellant contends that the project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to excessive building width, mass, and overall size, large deck areas and courtyard space, and allegedly exceeds the permitted building height thereby requiring a variance. The project is characterized as substantially larger than surrounding homes and inconsistent with established development patterns.

Staff’s Response
With respect to building width and massing, the subject site is atypical in that it consists of two legal lots under common ownership, resulting in an overall site width of approximately 104 feet. This condition 20 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026

distinguishes the Property from the prevailing lot pattern in the area, where parcels are typically 40 to 50 feet in width. It should also be noted that the site was previously developed with two single-family dwellings, and the proposed Project reduces overall density by merging two legal building sites into one.

The approved Project, while approximately 76.8 feet in width, is situated on a substantially wider site and conditioned by the Board to provide side yard setbacks of approximately 13 feet (south) and 14.5 feet (north). These setbacks exceed the minimum Code requirements of approximately 10.4 feet each side (20.86 feet combined), as well as the typical 4- to 5-foot side yard setbacks associated with standard 40- to 50- foot-wide lots.

The Design Review Criteria and the City’s Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development emphasize that compatibility is not determined solely by numerical comparisons of building size, but rather by the relationship of a structure to its site, its articulation, and its integration with surrounding development and topography. In this case, the Project incorporates stepped massing, varied roof forms, and articulated elevations that break up building bulk and reduce the perception of scale. In particular, the Project was designed to step with the topography and maintain a single-story building appearance from the highway.

Deck and courtyard areas are integrated into the overall design and are consistent with residential use in coastal settings, and their placement does not result in visual or spatial impacts that would render the project incompatible with the neighborhood. Furthermore, the surrounding development pattern along Coast Highway is characterized by a mix of residential structures with varying widths, heights, and architectural forms, rather than a uniform or consistent building envelope. The Board made the following finding regarding neighborhood compatibility23, “ The area is a coastal residential neighborhood situated on a bluff above the shoreline, immediately adjacent to a primary coastal roadway (Coast Highway) with local residential streets extending inland. Development reflects a long-established coastal village pattern, where homes are closely integrated with the natural bluff, beach access points, and ocean-oriented views.

The proposed home is generally compatible with the existing coastal neighborhood character, particularly in terms of height, architectural style, and response to topography. The design aligns with the prevailing pattern of contemporary, multi-level coastal residences along the bluff.” The Appellant submitted an exhibit as part of the appeal depicting the north elevation and highlighting an area alleged to require a variance (Attachment 2). The Appellant’s conclusion is based on a misinterpretation of the elevation drawing, which shows architectural articulation and varying wall planes rather than a uniform building face. While portions of the structure appear taller in the elevation view, compliance with height limits is determined by “the vertical distance from any point on the finished roof surface to the finished floor surface of the lowest floor measured directly below or to the natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive or lower24,” as verified in the building sections and not by isolated visual projections in an elevation. The complete plan set, including all sections, demonstrates that no portion of the structure exceeds the maximum allowable building height at any point. As such, the perceived need for a height variance is not supported by the actual code-compliant height measurements reflected in the approved plans.
23 DRB Resolution 2026-0024, Section 3; Finding 1, Criterion 9 (Page 6). 24 Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.08.016(a) Words beginning with “H,” “Height, building.” 21 of 1550
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 2026-0024, CDP 2026-0025, AND VAR 2026-0026 AT 31985 & 31987 COAST HIGHWAY
May 13, 2026