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
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
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
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