Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Heritage Committee Meeting, February 23, 2026
Coastal Development Permit for ADU located at 238 Chiquita Street James Henry (Chair):
Yes. Okay, moving on to item 4.1 238 Chiquita. Does planning want to make a presentation? Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
I don't have a presentation. I'll just give you a quick summary of the project. We have a proposal to construct a 799 square foot, 2-story ADU in front of a historic resource on the city's historic register that has an active Mills Act contract. The ADE requires a coastal development permit, and it also requires design review board approval, because it's resulting in excess building site coverage. It's going to design review board this Thursday, the 26th to be heard there, and we're looking for your recommendation to the DRB.
James Henry (Chair):
Okay. Is the applicant here tonight?
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
I don't believe he could make it.
James Henry (Chair):
Okay. Okay, that’s great. Can I ask a couple questions of staff? Cathy Jurca:
I was going to say, "Who are you people?"
James Henry (Chair):
I know. Wait. Don't you realize how famous this committee is now? Come on.
Cathy Jurca:
Jim, who the hell are you?
James Henry (Chair):
So the questions, I read the staff report for design review, which was informative, but I think it might be worth going through, for those who haven't, a little bit of history on how we got here, why this is going to DR without our concerns really baked in, or our commentary baked into the staff report because it's happening, and why there's no stakes. The other question, I'll ask mine in a series, and you can answer them. Does the new driveway location trigger DR? Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
The driveway, the vehicle entry is not changing.
Cathy Jurca:
Attachment 2
119
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Yes, it is.
James Henry (Chair):
But it's going to the other side.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
It's going to the other side, but it's like an S-curve setup.
James Henry (Chair):
Anyway, okay. Does it meet the requirement?
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
I thought that makes sense, but that is...
Cathy Jurca:
Is that on the plans?
James Henry (Chair):
I don't know. I just saw the other thing. I'm like, "Okay." Was this processed under an earlier version of our ADU code? Because our current ADU code, under the urgency ordinance, talks about matching materials, matching roof pitches, and those kinds of things. This isn't doing that, and I'm wondering, was it approved before that came into being? Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
The application date was November 8th, 2024, so it is under the code that's on the website still. It's not under any of the urgency ordinances we've all come to know so well.
James Henry (Chair):
Okay.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
Yes.
James Henry (Chair):
Fair enough. Just a weird, quick question. What happens to the existing garage? Does it just stay in the existing garage?
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
Well, I think it's hard to call it a garage if the access is being cut off, but it would be storage.
James Henry (Chair):
And again, is it a detached ADU, is the way the city's looking at it, even though it's touching the trellis, sort of?
120
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
It is detached, yeah.
James Henry (Chair):
Okay. And I know building and planning have different semantics about the realities of what that means, so if you could go through a brief history of how we got here and what this is, I think it might be useful if you haven't read the staff report.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
Yes.
Cathy Jurca:
I had no idea. How did you know this was going to DRB?
James Henry (Chair):
Because I've looked at the agenda.
Cathy Jurca:
I would never have imagined that there would be a three-day gap.
James Henry (Chair):
And I think there's rationale once you understand, and that's why I was going to have her explain it before we got into all that.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
So, we'll go way back to the beginning. Back in 2022/2023 ish, the property owner came in and asked for, basically, staff's guidance on how to design an ADU that could get approved. So he had a plan set put together, and that plan set was never submitted for an application to do zoning plan check. He did, however, send it to a company called Sapphos to do their own historic assessment on its compatibility with the home and whether it would meet the Secretary of Interior Standards.
The Sapphos support came back in favor, and said that it would not deteriorate the historic resource at all. Then, the city, again, still no application at this point. The city had HRG, our historian, do a peer review of that assessment.
They, basically, came to the opposite conclusion, that it would be detrimental to the historic resource. Fast-forward a little bit, he submitted a second design. That one had an elevated deck. It didn't really get too far in the process. The design that you have the plans for is now the third design that we have. It made it through my zoning plan check, and it's meeting height, it's meeting setbacks, it's meeting the maximum square footage, all the ADU maxes, and all that stuff. It was sent to HRG for basically an update of the assessment that they did for that first design that I mentioned, so now we have two documents from HRG, and they came to the same conclusion, which is essentially it would block the resource, because it's too close to the house and it's too tall and too wide.
It is resulting in excess building site coverage, which requires design review board approval; however, it's not subject to design review, meaning it doesn't have to meet the 16 design review 121
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
criteria, but the design review board has to come to the conclusion that the excess building site coverage is to preserve views, and maintain neighborhood compatibility. I communicated that to the applicant, and we requested that it be staked. He refused. He refused to notice it, so the city has noticed it ourselves. The reason why we are taking it to the design review board, as opposed to just saying, "You're refusing to work with us," is now there are state ADU laws that say, if we don't make a decision on an ADU within sixty days, he can argue that it's approved.
Cathy Jurca:
Right, okay.
James Henry (Chair):
Gotcha. That was my question, how did we get here without all that? Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
I know that was a lot. Did I answer every question, or was there more? James Henry (Chair):
Yeah, no.
Cathy Jurca:
What's the recommendation?
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
We are recommending denial.
Cathy Jurca:
Okay.
James Henry (Chair):
Yeah, which is useful. I have to say your staff report was on point. Everything I read, I wrote all this stuff, and then I read the staff report. I'm like, "Oh. They did all the work." It's amazing.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
I had help. Thank you.
James Henry (Chair):
Well, but it gets to the core of it. So anyway, so those are my questions. What other questions do we have?
Cathy Jurca:
So, there's no architect or applicant here. Is that right? Because I had some art.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
122
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
That's correct. His most recent designer had quit, and the property owner, because this meeting was going to get moved, and I told him that, and then it got moved back, and he said he already had a prior engagement. I believe he'll be at the design review board meeting on Thursday, but he has made several demands that it should be approved ministerially.
Cathy Jurca:
Okay.
James Henry (Chair):
I see, so that explains the dynamic. If we don't have any other questions for staff, I think we should open up to the public communication, because there's no applicant to make a presentation, correct?
Cathy Jurca:
That's true.
James Henry (Chair):
So, why don't we let members of the public speak? And then we can go through or ask any other questions we may have that's generated from that, so who wants to go first? Mark Lewis:
I'll go.
James Henry (Chair):
Okay. State your name, so she can put it in the record and where you live.
Mark Lewis:
James Henry (Chair) and members of the committee, my name is Mark Lewis. I live at, we own the property at 248 Chiquita Street, which is just one up from the applicant's property. When we bought our house over 31 years ago, we knew that there was a large structure, the existing structure sitting right next to us, that would not afford us any views out that direction, so our primary views, our only views are out the front. When the applicant applied for the Mills Act and got the Mills Act shortly thereafter, applied for and ultimately got approved an expansion on the existing structure to the back, further cutting off more of our view. We were before this committee, I remember you, Ms. Morgenlander. I think this committee, we went through six rounds, three or four with the DRB, two with the city council, back to the DRB.
When we came back to the DRB where everybody, including the applicant, agreed that, "Okay.
Here's something that everybody can agree to," he expanded property and his footprint right on our property line, because the Mills Act afforded that, as well as some additional structure on top. At that time, when the DRB approved it, they said, "Mr. Lukoff, you have now maximized the program on your property. No more." That is very consistent with some of the commentary in the Mills Act language, also in some of the conclusions from the city's consultant about mass and scale. In addition to the impact to us personally, there are the impacts to a number of residents on Chiquita by this because of how forward it is and how large it is. In addition to that, there's also impact to the public of a view of a historic resource because, and I'm sure you've seen this, I'm not a historian 123
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
and I'm not an architect, I'm an engineer, but that is not very compatible to a historic structure.
From the public view, the proposed ADU does not provide the public a view of an historic structure.
It does not provide the public a view where they're on Chicquita Street, either parking there, walking there, sitting there, whatever they're doing, just the general public, because the public parks there for the beach. They can't see the ocean now, because this thing is in the way. It's, once again, an overreach, a gross overreach of trying to maximize, and I know you have this. This is what the applicant would see, all these wonderful windows with all the view to the ocean, and guess what we get to see? A wall. A wall that is either on our property line or three feet away, up like this, no light, no air, no breeze, no view, no nothing, without remedy. I appreciate that the DRB report from staff is recommending denial, but I'm here to not only speak to things that I know are kind of in that crossover venue, but also, from a historic standpoint, what are we doing here? This isn't historic at all. This is a box, and frankly, in front of a nice historic structure. Anyway, thank you for listening to my comments, and appreciate it.
James Henry (Chair):
Anyone else?
Melanie Lewis:
Yes. My name is Melanie Lewis, and I'm Mark's wife, owner of 248 Chiquita Street. I'm not an engineer, but I am a, along with Mark, a more than 40-year member of this community. For 30 years, we've owned our property on Chiquita where we raised, started with our first child and are now almost 32, and we wanted a home that they could have space, grass, and a place to run around on, where we were at a condo before in Laguna. The reason we chose Laguna Beach is because of the character of Laguna Beach. It's so unique, and the many properties that we see as we walk through the streets and enjoy this community, it's a very unique community. If you go to other beach communities, for example, Corona Del Mar, to me, basically, they're maximizing the footprint there.
There's no view-light or space issue there. They don't mind being three feet from each other and looking into each other's windows, but that's not what this community is, and that's why we love this community, because it is such an important part. There's so many homes that have kept the integrity of what the original people that came here to build this beautiful, little, you look at these pictures, beach town. Our little property there, we have not changed the outside structure. We took into consideration views of our neighbors when we were considering doing something to try to get up and get another view. As Mark said, the only view we have is in the front of the house. This 16- foot structure takes all view, light, and space from our entire south side of our property.
View-line space is important for emotional, mental, and physical health every single day, to be able to see a peak of the ocean or some sunlight coming in. I'm a breast cancer survivor, and it was really important for me when I was recovering and going through the battle that I could have that sunlight come into the house that I couldn't leave. I think that it's very valuable to maintain that here in the city, and I'm so happy that we have this opportunity to really protect the properties that we have. I just think that somebody else's view shouldn't be overpowered by other people's views, that we should all have the view, light, and space. We have worked within our neighborhood to protect other people's views too. We protected this property's view before he owned it from the neighbor down below who wanted to build a big structure. 124
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Otherwise, he may have a bigger structure in front of him, and it wasn't as much to value us, but it was to value the character of the neighborhood, which is what we really value. There are people that have lived on that street, 2 doors up, 70 years. The neighbor across from us, who also wrote a letter, over 50 years. We have longevity on that street, and yes, things have changed over time, but we just really appreciate taking our view, light, and space into consideration, along with the public that gets to enjoy the views that we have here in Laguna, without building so much structure on a footprint and forgetting about those important factors. Thank you.
James Henry (Chair):
Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, so do we have any other questions, comments? Anybody want to start? I'm happy to, but...
Cathy Jurca:
Well, you can start if you want.
James Henry (Chair):
I mean, I'll just say that I'm sort of a proponent of ADUs in general. I've done ADUs, and I think they can be done on historic homes and they can be done well. I think this is not the property to do this project at all. I was thinking about the ramifications of an ADU in the front, and there are situations in this town where a lot of these older homes are set way back on the property. There's houses on Jasmine and different streets that have this condition. Does the ADU law afford that? I think I wouldn't say that I would make a blanket statement that it shouldn't be allowed, but I think there has to be special circumstance for it to exist.
You would also have to be doing it in such a way that it would create the opportunity to not compromise what is the predominantly important feature of that house, is the view from the street.
It's already been changed from the rear. Every angle that you would look at that, along that street, is compromised with this structure. I could not support this project in any way, shape, or form. The other thing I was going to say is I don't see doing design work, like I was looking at it like, is there a way, could you potentially on this property do something that wouldn't compromise it? And I just don't see it here? Maybe there's a way that I, in my mind, it's not going to happen.
Justin Dricker (Vice Chair):
I'm pretty much, I'm on the same page as you. I think the point that Mr. Lewis made, about how it obscures the public view of the Mills property in the first place, raises a lot of concerns for me, that being that it's such a pivotal part of having the Mills Act contract. I also think that the DRB sort of set a precedent by saying that on this project, that he's maxed out. I mean, I don't know how that technically works, but I mean, if that was what was said on record, I find that interesting and important as well. And speaking of the DRB, view equity is a really big thing right now, and I think that a loss of their view would be a big deal for the property, so I'm not really in favor.
Linda Morgenlander:
I'm kind of in the same place. I feel like just to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, there are ways to do this in terms of putting something perhaps in the front yard. It has to be done delicately.
I was thinking about the Aubrey St. Clair studio on, I don't know if you're sure if it's Jasmine? 125
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
James Henry (Chair):
Jasmine. Yeah, I worked on that one.
Linda Morgenlander:
Yeah, and it has this small little structure in the front of the cottage, and it doesn't get in anybody's way. It's only one story. I mean, as an architect, you look at solutions. You don't want to be too storage, you don't want to have a cantilever. I mean, there's so many things that are so long about the approach to this, that it kind of just makes me mad, but the most important thing is it's a Mills Act property. I remember when we looked at this thing, we thought, "Oh my God. This guy's asking for an awful lot, but how can you deny us keeping the front of the house and blah, blah, blah?" But with the Mills Act property and the view-shed from the public right of way, I mean, this totally violates that. I mean, is he willing to give up the Mills Act? I don't know.
James Henry (Chair):
Right.
Linda Morgenlander:
But it's just crazy to think he could compromise a historic resource to that extent, so I'm not sure of this at all.
Jon Stordahl:
I mean, obviously, I concur with everything said. It's very frustrating that this lobby doesn't have more of an ability to weigh in a more definitive and forceful way. Clearly, in fact, I read the initial HRG peer review on the first proposal in 2023, and in that one, they found that it did not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards on three separate points. I haven't seen the original design, but the description of it, it's basically the same thing. It's been submitted a second time, so now the HRG report is only calling out 0.9, standard 9, but it still looks like 2 and 4 also are not being met, so three of the 10 standards, that the property is not meeting that.
I don't even know if ADUs, because the law is changing so quickly, how much of a voice we're even able to have, even with a historic structure. But this clearly is a very unfortunate thing. There's a line I love from the book and the movie, A Man for All Season, about Thomas Moore and Henry VIII and everything. The line is that “there's a difference between what you could do and what you should do,” and in this case, I don't know Dr. Lukoff. I haven't met the gentleman, but I don't think this is what he should do, but state law might be such that it's something that he could do, and you appeal to the better angels. I would be absolutely shocked if design review were to approve it and not follow staff's guidance, but there's also so much in the design that we can't comment on, but anyone can look at it and see there are all kinds of questions here. So anyway, likewise, I oppose.
Cathy Jurca:
I hope staff will communicate to the DRB our unanimous and vehement opposition to this project. I agree that you can build ADUs on historic properties and you can possibly even do them in the front, but the constraints of this small lot and in a house that's tucked back, I just don't see how it works here. This project is not trying to work. I have to tell you that I just so understand your plea for view and light and all of those things. The state of California does not care about that at all, and that 126
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
is so unfortunate, and so many people in Laguna are grappling with neighbors who can build, if it's attached to the residence, it can be 25 feet tall and no design review.
But because this is a historic resource, and I would say, in my opinion, independent of the Mills Act, the property owner signed a contract that says all changes shall comply with applicable city regulations and guidelines and the United States Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation. This does not comply. I read the Sapphos report very carefully, and it is important because the projects are so similar, and I find the plans misleading. I mean, it gives an image of the footprint, but that's what touches the ground. It ignores the full second story, because HRG was describing how big it was, and I'm like, "No, that shouldn't be right, because I can see it." Then, when you look and you figure out that the second story, there's parking under that, and there's this whole second story that goes almost to the property line, it just feels in slightly bad faith to me, or just they may be just inadvertently, badly done. But the Sapphos report, I thought HRG's initial peer review just nailed it.
It is very poorly done. One of the most basic elements of a standards analysis is you say, "Here are the 10 standards," and you go through them one by one. I've noticed that too, that they found that in the initial report it violated standards two, four, and nine. Four, I don't agree with, but two and nine, absolutely. I mean, and HRG points out, Sapphos didn't really identify the character-defining features, so you need to do that in order to know what the impacts are, and one of the characterdefining features is that large, front setback. And so, it doesn't meet standard two, it doesn't meet standard nine. It needs to meet all 10 to comply with the standards. The Sapphos report doesn't even look at standard nine. I mean, it's just egregiously bad.
I just thought HRG's initial peer review and then the follow-up, I think they're exactly right, except that they, for some reason, dropped standard two, but it does not belong on a historic property.
Certainly, with the Mills Act contract where you are getting a public benefit of taxpayer-funded, property tax break to preserve, and part of that is having the public be able to see it and just to cover it up like that. I mean, I appreciate you speaking on behalf of the public as well as your interest, because I went by to see it today and I thought, "I wonder if those people know." I was looking at your house because I would want to know, and apparently you did. In most instances, our hands are tied, but for a historic resource that was identified, what is it? Almost 50 years ago and then placed on the register, I just think this is an easy decision.
James Henry (Chair):
Can I take a quick sidebar before we leave this? Can staff speak to, because you touched on something that I wish I had discussed a little bit in my comments, the state law streamlines a lot of this stuff. The problems with this project, that are reviewable by design review, are not your view, right? Unfortunately. Can you explain? Because your staff report does a great job of talking about views of the structure, also public views from the street of the ocean, and kind of go through some of those points, because it's important to understand that DR is not going to be able to stop or deny this project based on to view claim, right? It's a totally different set of parameters. Can you lay that out so that, if they're going to go speak at DR, what does that mean? What are the ramifications of what we're looking at here?
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
So, the findings for the Coastal Development Permit talk explicitly about public views, views from the public right of way, from public parks, and things like that. The sort of add-on here which, like I said, is the reason why we're going to Design Review Board is the building site coverage, and that 127
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
piece of code that says the design review board can only modify a site's building site coverage if it's to preserve views and maintain neighborhood compatibility. It doesn't say preserve public views or neighbor views, so I think, to me, the line is a little bit blurred there.
James Henry (Chair):
But they're also processing the CDP. If say this was going and you weren't recommending denial, they could be processing the CDP and the DR, or would it be its own CDP? Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
It's just a CDP with a need for their approval because it's exceeding building site coverage.
James Henry (Chair):
Gotcha.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
It doesn't go through all the design review.
James Henry (Chair):
Understood, but is that CDP approval up on Thursday?
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
Yes.
James Henry (Chair):
So, my point being, the argument for the CDP or the issues with the CDP for this property is the view from the public of the ocean on the street, which you identify, and the view of the public resource of the historic resource of the house, right? Those are the things that are going to give design review the ability not to approve this, because otherwise, if those things didn't exist, this CDP, if it didn't need DR approval for the lot coverage, the CDP is getting approved, and it didn't have a historic resource on it.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
It could be a waiver of a public hearing like for most of the other ADUs.
James Henry (Chair):
Right, so it's important to know you have a unique spot here, and it's super important to be able to protect this historic resource in this spot, but if it wasn't historic and it didn't have a public, you couldn't see the ocean from the street, hillside, or something from the street, all of a sudden there's no vehicle to fight this the way the state law is set up. Is that correct? Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
Yes.
James Henry (Chair):
128
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Okay. All right, so do we need to make a motion?
Cathy Jurca:
Actually, I'm not sure why it's coming to us.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
We said with the Mills Act contract, it needs your recommendation to whatever the decision maker is. In this case, it would be designer review board, but even if it was getting approved, like I just mentioned the waiver of public hearing. That would be the community development director, is the decision maker. You would still need to make a recommendation to him.
Cathy Jurca:
Okay, so it would be a discretionary hearing because it's a historic resource, even if there weren't the lot coverage issue?
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
No. Well...
Cathy Jurca:
Because that's what worries me, is theJames Henry (Chair):
Right. That's a good, nuanced idea.
Cathy Jurca:
Is it the idea that if they hadn't done the addition and wanted to put up this ADU, and DRB hadn't said, "This is it. Your program-"
James Henry (Chair):
Or met all the lot coverage requirements.
Cathy Jurca:
Or met all the lot coverage requirements, the idea that this would get approved without coming here, I think that wouldn't happen, correct?
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
I was told it would still come to you guys for a recommendation.
Cathy Jurca:
Okay, good. Okay.
James Henry (Chair):
But then it's a recommendation to the director, rather than to DRB. 129
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Cathy Jurca:
Got it.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
Which I believe, wouldn't we call that ministerial friends? Cathy Jurca:
No, no. Because it's a discretionary decision.
James Henry (Chair):
But you still have a public hearing.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
Well, we waive the public hearing, unless someone asks for one.
James Henry (Chair):
Right, but there's still a public process to have that opportunity.
Cathy Jurca:
Yeah. If you waive a public hearing, if you can have or not have a public hearing, that isSammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
It's still discretionary.
Cathy Jurca:
Yeah.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
Gotcha. Thank you.
James Henry (Chair):
Sure, okay.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
It's confusing.
Cathy Jurca:
Okay. So yeah, it is confusing. I'm done.
James Henry (Chair):
Sorry. We're getting in the weeds on this stuff, but it's important. 130
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Linda Morgenlander:
I'll move to deny item 4.1 at 238 Chiquita Street. Do we have to say based on...
James Henry (Chair):
I would list based on theLinda Morgenlander:
With the view shed from the public right of way due to the Mills Act status? Jon Stordahl:
Should we use the Secretary of the Interior Standards?
Linda Morgenlander:
Yes. The two, four, and nine?
Jon Stordahl:
Two and nine.
James Henry (Chair):
Two and nine.
Linda Morgenlander:
And also based on SOIS 2 and 9.
Jon Stordahl:
I was just going to ask, can we also add the Mills Act contract that the property owner signed? He signed both the register and the Mills Act contract. It's not like he inherited and didn't know what he was getting. He chose to do all this, but section three, standards and condition point D of the Mills Act contract and add that also into why we're denying.
Linda Morgenlander:
Sure.
James Henry (Chair):
But the only thing, step out for just a secondJon Stordahl:
Sure.
James Henry (Chair):
Cathy brought up a point. I mean, the Mills Act is another layer, but if this property didn't have a Mills Act, we would still not be wanting to approve. I don't think the Mills Act should be yes or no. 131
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
It's not to lever. Anything that's historic should have that. I think it's an important piece of it, but you see what I'm saying?
Jon Stordahl:
I think it is important though, because he's received multiple benefits by virtue of the Mills Act.
James Henry (Chair):
Sure.
Jon Stordahl:
Not just the tax abatements, but he's received multiple discretionary approvals based on the fact that it was a historic property. It's a Mills Act property, that you're treated a little bit more with some kid gloves, and yeah, we're going to be supportive of you, and calling that out, you're violating that.
You're biting the hand that fed you.
James Henry (Chair):
The only thing, I just worry that if this weren't a Mills Act property that have we said, are we setting a precedent that we might get different? I agree with you completely. I just worry about, if this were to come forward without a Mills Act contract, are we setting up a condition where it doesn't have a Mills Act contract, so we're not going to get it at the same level.
Jon Stordahl:
[inaudible 00:33:27]. We'll mention the Mills Act contract.
James Henry (Chair):
I'm okay with putting it in.
Cathy Jurca:
I don't ant to take the reason that we are. I meanJames Henry (Chair):
Right. It's almost like an addendum.
Linda Morgenlander:
And also because it's mentioned at the end that it's also because it's being a Mills Act and the public's right to...
Cathy Jurca:
I would say, and because it violates the conditions of the Mills Act agreement, because then it's about what the owner agreed to do and not just the fact of the Mills Act contract. The language, it really is clear.
James Henry (Chair):
132
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
It's explicit.
Cathy Jurca:
Yeah. It has to meet the standards.
James Henry (Chair):
I'm fine with that. You good with that?
Jon Stordahl:
Yeah.
James Henry (Chair):
Okay. Can you read back our motion?
Shaveta Sharma (Senior Planner – HC staff liaison):
Motion to deny based on incompatibility with Secretary of Standards 209 and a conflict with Mills Act section 3D.
Cathy Jurca:
And in violation of the Mills Act contract signed, the terms of the Mills Act contract, which I think are section 3B. Is that the one you have lined here?
Jon Stordahl:
That's the one I had.
Cathy Jurca:
Yeah, okay. Section 3B.
Jon Stordahl:
As in boy.
Cathy Jurca:
As in boy.
Jon Stordahl:
Okay.
James Henry (Chair):
All right, okay. We're good with that motion? Great, okay. Roll call.
Justin Drucker (Vice Chair):
Second.
133
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 23, 2026 Hearing Transcript
James Henry (Chair):
Thank you. You get an A.
Shaveta Sharma (Senior Planner – HC staff liaison):
Committee Member Jurca?
Cathy Jurca:
Yes.
Shaveta Sharma (Senior Planner – HC staff liaison):
Stordahl?
Jon Stordahl:
Yes.
Shaveta Sharma (Senior Planner – HC staff liaison):
Morgenlander?
Linda Morgenlander:
Yes.
Shaveta Sharma (Senior Planner – HC staff liaison):
Vice Chair Drucker?
Justin Drucker (Vice Chair):
Yes.
Shaveta Sharma (Senior Planner – HC staff liaison):
Chair Henry?
James Henry (Chair):
Yes.
134