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:
2 We insert the proposed ADU footprint into its proper place on the Google Maps imagery:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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