DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
February 26, 2026
Agenda Item No. 5.1
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 two-story 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.
CEQA:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects which the lead agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.
Coastal Development Permit:
The project’s scope does not qualify as exempt development nor is the project site located in a categorical exclusion area. The subject property is, however, located in a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone and requires the issuance of a coastal development permit for the project to proceed.
Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
Attachment 3
135
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The property, located at 238 Chiquita Street (a few houses north of Coast Highway), is improved with a 2,499 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with an attached one-car garage. In 2009, at the property owner’s request, the single-family residence was placed on the City’s Historic Register and the property owner entered into a Mills Act contract1 with the City (Attachment 2). On November 8, 2024, the property owner, Jonathan Lukoff, submitted an application for a new detached 799 square foot accessory dwelling unit with carport2(the “Project”). While the application has remained incomplete, City staff is bringing the application to a public hearing for consideration by the Design Review Board (“Board”), based upon demand of the property owner, to consider whether the findings for a coastal development permit can be made in light of potential noncompliance with applicable provisions of the City’s certified local coastal program, including potential impacts to historicity (CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 6 [“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”]) and public views of the ocean (CDP Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 3 [“The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources”]). City staff recommends that the Board adopt the draft resolution denying the coastal development permit.
1 A Mills Act contract requires a property owner to preserve, maintain, and where necessary retore the property and its character-defining features. Further, it requires any and all changes to comply with applicable City regulations and the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The Mills Act contract is automatically renewed on an annual basis on March
24. If the Mills Act contract is canceled due to the owner’s failure to comply with the term of the contract, the owner shall pay a fee to the County Auditor a cancelation fee of 12.5% of the current fair market value of the property. 2 The accessory dwelling unit is exempt from the parking requirement due to proximity to transit but the proposed Project design blocks access to the one-car garage and therefore the carport is being provided to replace such parking.
136
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
SITE PHOTOS
137
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Medium Density (1-22 DU/AC) Zoning Designation R-2 Residential Medium Density
ZONING REVIEW
The proposed Project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below:
Development Standard Required Existing
(House) Proposed Conforms
Site Coverage 42.88% approx.
36%
48% No (1)
Height (Lowest floor to top of roof) 16 feet (ADU) 25 feet 16 feet (ADU) Yes Setbacks
Front
Side (North)
Side (South)
Rear
(ADU)
20 feet
4 feet
4 feet
4 feet
(House)
45 feet
0 feet
3’ 8”
0 feet
(ADU)
20 feet
4 feet
4 feet
NA
Yes
Yes
No change
No change
Parking 2 covered for
House
1 covered 1 covered No change (2)
(1) Building site coverage may be modified by the Design Review Board when it is necessary to preserve views, preserve privacy, reduce heights or maintain neighborhood development patterns. See discussion below.
(2) The proposed Project would render the existing one-car garage unusable. A carport is proposed in its place.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
A. The State ADU Law
Under the “State ADU Law” (codified at Government Code § 66310, et seq.), an “ADU is defined to mean “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66313(a).) An ADU must contain “permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” (Id.) A city is authorized to “provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use” by way of ordinance. (Gov. Code Section 66314.) Any ordinance governing the creation of an ADU must provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and must not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those ADUs, except as otherwise allowed by the State ADU Law. (Gov. Code Section 66316.) A permit application for an ADU or JADU must be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or hearing. (Gov. Code Section 66317.)
138
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
Notwithstanding the above provisions, the State ADU Law does not supersede or alter the application of the Coastal Act, except that a city is not required to hold a public hearing on coastal development permit applications for ADUs:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units. (Gov. Code Section 66329 [emph. added].) Under this provision, and as discussed further below, the City imposes the provisions of its certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) as it relates to ADUs.
B. The City’s ADU Ordinance
In recent years, the Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, numerous bills that amended the State ADU Law to impose new limits on local authority to regulate accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Notwithstanding this legislation, as stated above, State ADU Law provides that it “shall not be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act of 1976. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66329.) The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) ADU Handbook advises that State ADU Law applies in the coastal zone, but “do[es] not necessarily alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies.” Accordingly, HCD opines, a local government could, for example, impose stricter setback or parking standards in the coastal zone “if required by a local [c]oastal [p]rogram.” (HCD’s July 2022 ADU Handbook, at pgs. 15-16, 27-28.)3
The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained accessory dwelling units as subject to the coastal development permit application process. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.
In 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amended State ADU Law and came into effect on January 1, 2025. Below is an overview of the City Council’s most recent actions relating to its requirements for ADUs and JADUs, in part, in response to AB 2533 and SB 1211:
• On December 10, 2024, the City Council found that there was a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1707. 3 HCD’s ADU Handbook is authorized by Gov. Code § 66327, which provides that HCD may “review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section.” The ADU Handbook is available at the following location:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf 139
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
• On January 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1709 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1707 and implementing certain modifications to Chapter 25.17 and directed staff to consider additional modifications.
• On March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1713, implementing additional minor modifications to Chapter 25.17.
• On March 25, 2025, the City adopted non-urgency Ordinance No. 1715 to mirror the ADU and JADU requirements reflected in Urgency Ordinance No. 1713. The City also submitted Ordinance No. 1715 to the Coastal Commission for certification.
Based on the number of pending ADU applications (approximately 24 as of December 10, 2024) within the City, the City implemented a policy that applications filed before 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under LCP Amendment No. 21-8239 and applications filed after December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under the City’s existing urgency ordinance4.
Accordingly, LCP Amendment No. 21-8329 applies to this Project.
C. The City’s Coastal Development Permits Ordinance
In order to approve a CDP, the reviewing body must find that the project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)) and thereafter make the requisite findings (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G)). Amongst other things, this requires findings that the “proposed development will not adversely affect . . . coastal scenic resources and that the proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.” (LBMC Section
25.07.012(F) (3) and (6), CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3.) In the case where a project requires only a CDP, such permit may be approved or denied by the Director. (LBMC Section 25.07.012(D)(1).) Here, the Director has deferred the application to the Board for its consideration because the application also seeks to exceed the building site coverage, which can be approved by the Board under certain conditions and with certain findings.
D. Project Site History
The property is Lot 20 of Block R of the subdivision map titled McKnight’s Addition, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County on September 5, 1912. The existing two-story Craftsman style single family residence and one-car garage were built in 1925. The single-family residence is approximately 25 feet in height and 20 feet wide. The single-family residence is accessed from Chiquita Street and a fifteen-foot-wide alley abuts the property to the rear.
On October 20, 2008, the Heritage Committee considered a request of the property owner to place the singlefamily residence at 238 Chiquita Street on the City’s Historic Register. Heritage Committee voted to place the single-family residence on the City’s Historic Register. A few months later, on March 24, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09.021, which approved the historic property preservation agreement, also known as the Mills Act contract, for 238 Chiquita Street. 4 On April 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25.020, ratifying this policy. 140
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
In 2010 and 2011, the property owner submitted an application for an addition to the rear of the singlefamily residence. The application, which faced strong neighbor opposition, was heard at Heritage Committee meetings five times before being sent to the Board. On June 13, 2013, the Design Review Board denied the application. The Board denial was appealed to the City Council, which remanded the project back to the Board with direction on the bulk of the design. On April 10, 2014, the Board approved the application with conditions, including that bulk of the addition be decreased.
The property owner applied for a building permit to construct the addition on February 4, 2016 and the permit was finaled on October 11, 2018.
E. Incomplete Application for the Project
In 2022, prior to submitting an application for an ADU, the property owner retained Sapphos Environmental Inc. (“Sapphos”) to provide a memo analyzing the impact of constructing a two-story ADU in front of the existing, historic, single-family residence. Sapphos prepared a report dated January 6, 2023 (the “Sapphos Report”) which concluded that the ADU complies with the SOIS and would not result in a substantial adverse change to the historic resource.
In 2022/2023, the property owner requested guidance from City staff regarding constructing an accessory dwelling unit at 238 Chiquita Street. The property owner sent the City the Sapphos Report without filing an application for the ADU. Nevertheless, in an effort to assist the applicant, the City retained the Historic Resources Group (“HRG”), at the cost of the property owner, to peer review the Sapphos Report and evaluate whether the project complied with the Secretary of Interior Standards. On July 12, 2023, HRG provided a peer review of the Sapphos Report and determined that the Sapphos Report provided insufficient information for an adequate project review (the “HRG Report”). And, after HRG’s review of the project, HRG concluded it would not meet standards 2, 4, and 9, which are as follows:
• 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 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
• 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.
In conclusion, HRG found “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.” During that time both of these reports were prepared for the Original Design, no application had been submitted and therefore had not been reviewed by Planning.
On November 8, 2024, the property owner submitted an application for an ADU but with a different design (“Second Design”). This Second Design was not used and the architect was replaced. This design was 141
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
reviewed in zoning plan check and the City issued comments on December 6, 2024. These comments included a request for a staking plan and revisions to the ADU’s siting as the Second Design placed its footprint within the required 20-foot front yard setback.
On July 2, 2025, the current Project design was submitted to the City. The current Project design is largely the same as the Original Design. While the City received the outstanding fees for the coastal development permit on January 22, 2026, this application is still incomplete for the following reasons:
• Staking plan and certified staking plan
• Deposit fees for peer review of historic analysis
While the City requires a deposit for peer review of technical reports prepared by applicants, the property owner refused to deposit a peer review fee with the City for the historic analysis of the current Project design. Nevertheless, the City, at its own cost, paid for a review of the Project design.
On January 29, 2026, HRG provided an updated compliance analysis (the “HRG Supplemental Report”) of the current Project design and came to the same conclusion that the two-story ADU “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.”
Due to the ADU’s height, its location on site, and its relation to a historic resource, City staff determined a need for staking of the Project design to evaluate the coastal development permit findings. During the review process for this Project, staff requested that a staking plan be provided with the application. The applicant refused to provide a staking plan and install story poles and demanded the Project be approved ministerially, despite the requirement for a coastal development permit under the Coastal Act and the City’s certified LCP. While staking has not been implemented at the site and the application remains incomplete, City staff is proceeding with the analysis.
F. The Project Design
The Applicant seeks approval of a coastal development permit to construct a detached, two-story (16 feet in height and 31 feet wide), 799 square-foot, ADU and carport5. The lower level consists of the living area, kitchen, and one bathroom. The upper level includes one bedroom, one bathroom, and one walk-in closet.
The upper floor would overhang the lower level on the south end of the structure which creates an area for a one-car carport. The ADU is designed with light-blue siding and a flat, standing seam metal roof.
The proposed ADU would be located toward the front of the parcel between the historic structure and the street. Specifically, the ADU would be placed 3 feet from the front porch of the existing single-family residence and 9’-8” from the front façade of the existing residence. The proposed ADU (31 feet wide) is proposed to obstruct the entire width of the single-family residence (20 feet wide)—thereby minimizing the 5 The ADU is exempt from providing an additional parking space as it is 0.1 mile from the Coast-Beverly bus stop. (See LBMC Section 25.17.040(E)(6)(C)(v). However, the ADU is proposed in a location that will block access to the existing garage. The proposed carport would replace the parking space currently provided by single-car garage. (LBMC Section 25.17.040(E)(6)(a).) 142
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
public’s view of the historic resource. Although the front facing gable and two windows of the primary residence would be visible, this is less than half of the primary façade—which will negatively affect the historic character of the residence.
The proposed ADU also appears to have negative impacts on coastal resources:
143
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
On February 23, 2026, the Heritage Committee (HC) will review the proposed Project. At the time this report is published, staff does not have a summary of Heritage Committee’s analysis and recommendation.
Staff will include a summary of this discussion during the presentation at the February 26th Design Review Board meeting.
ENTITLEMENTS: Included within this staff report is an analysis of the following entitlements: coastal development permit with excess building site coverage.
Coastal Development Permit
The proposed detached ADU requires the approval of a coastal development permit. (See LBMC Section
25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07.
A Coastal Development Permit is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:
Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following Review Criteria (A), General Land Use Plan Elements(B), and Zoning Code provision on building site coverage (C):
A. Coastal Development Permit Review Criteria (25.07.012(F)):
1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.
The Project does not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public because the Project is located on private property and no public accessway exists on the property.
The Project is also not encroaching upon any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan as no public accessway is planned for the Project site.
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
There are no known marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources on the Project site and therefore the Project will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
There are no recreational or visitor-serving facilities within 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Project site is in a developed residential area of the City. Therefore, the Project will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities.
144
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
The proposed development will, however, adversely affect coastal scenic resources. The City’s Land Use Plan has policies for visual and scenic resources. The City identifies that the principal focus concerns property situated adjacent to the major transportation systems in the City (i.e., Laguna Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway) since it is along those roadways that a majority of residents and non-residents view the community and have visual access to scenic corridors.6 The Open Space and Conservation Element, which is part of the City’s certified LCP, defines visual resources, including coastal visual resources or “coastal scenic resources” as shoreline features or the natural appearance of the coast, and hillside visual resources as undeveloped hillside lands:
Coastal Visual Resources: With few exceptions, such as Main Beach Park, the City's 4.2 miles of shoreline is characterized by prominent headlands, pocket beaches or coves, wave-cut cliffs, and associated sea arches, caves and blow-holes. These shoreline features are largely a product of erosional forces that have shaped and formed their particular characteristics over centuries of time. Some of these features are more susceptible to erosion than others by virtue of their geologic formation and exposure to erosional elements, which contribute to and enhance the natural appearance of the coast.
Hillside Visual Resources: Nearly 30% of the City consists of undeveloped hillside lands. These lands support a great diversity of visual resources, with prominent exposure from both public and private property. Generally, these features include: (1) unique topographic forms - vertically exposed rock faces, bluffs, headlands and noticeably steep slopes; (2) unique vegetative forms, including stands of oak, sycamore and eucalyptus trees, and riparian or canyon land plant communities; (3) natural watercourses and associated canyon bottoms; (4) special land features such as prominent ridgelines, escarpments and rock outcroppings; and (S) visual edges or boundaries consisting of contrasting features where rock outcroppings may meet with surrounding vegetation or man-made features such as roads and buildings.
(OSCE, p. 33.) The OSCE further states that “an important aspect of hillside and coastal land features is their visibility from public roadways”—supporting that the OSCE does apply to the Project. (OSCE, p. 35.) Further, the City implements the following policy in its OSCE: 7-A Preserve to the maximum extent feasible the quality of public views from hillsides and along the city’s shorelines. (OSCE, p. 35.)
Here, the proposed ADU will be 16 feet in height, the maximum allowed height for detached ADUs per Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.17. Due to the ADU’s proposed location and height, some ocean views from the public right-of-way are affected by the structure. While story poles have not been installed on site due to refusal of the Applicant, photos show that there will be negative impacts to the ocean and coastline from Chiquita.
6 Public Resources Code Section 30251, which is cited above, allows for greater protection of highly scenic areas. 145
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.
The closest environmentally sensitive area is mapped 0.8 mile east. The closest parks and recreation areas to the Project site are Crescent Bay beach, located 0.3 mile southwest and Laguna Coast Wilderness park, located 0.5 mile northeast. While coastal scenic resource views will be impacted as discussed in criteria 3, there is sufficient buffer area to protect resources contained in the identified adjacent parks and recreation areas.
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
The Project site does not contain any significant natural landforms. The Project will require 18 cubic yards of grading outside the building envelope and, as such, the grading is exempt from design review. The Project is also subject to all requirements of the Laguna Beach Building and Fire Codes and meets such requirements. Additionally, the site is not located in a designated flood or high fire hazard zone, and the Project will not result in undue risk from geological, erosional, flood, or fire hazards.
6. 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.
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 single-story from the street. A two-story ADU in front of a two-story home would not maintain this neighborhood development pattern.
Ocean View from
Chiquita Street
146
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
Due to the historic home’s placement on the City’s Historic Register, the home itself is also considered a coastal resource. The City’s historic consultant has determined in the HRG Report and Supplemental HRG Report that the size of the ADU and its placement on the site would cause it to block views of the historic home. The Project does not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence. HRG reviewed the Project and determined it did not comply with the Secretary of Interior 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.”
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
232 Chiquita
238 Chiquita
248 Chiquita
252 Chiquita
Subject Property and
Adjacent Neighbors
232 Chiquita
239 Chiquita
241 Chiquita
Properties across Chiquita
147
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources in the Project area. Therefore, the development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.
The Project involves the construction of a detached two-story ADU. The Project site is currently served by existing utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities. Given the scope of the proposed development (a 799 square foot ADU), it is anticipated that the existing infrastructure can accommodate the ADU without significant impact. No major deficiencies in utility or service capacity are currently known.
9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.
Other public services, such as solid waste collection and public roadway capacity, have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development. Since the Project site is already served by these utilities and infrastructure, the addition of a 799-square-foot ADU will not overburden existing public services.
B. Applicable Provisions of Certified LCP
The project does not conform with all the following applicable documents of the certified LCP, specifically the Land Use Element, Historic Resources Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, and LBMC Section 25.45.010 (Procedures for alteration of an historic resource):
General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2 - Encourage the preservation of historically significant residential structures and protect the character-defining components of Laguna Beach’s traditional neighborhoods.
Here, the Project does not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence. The property owner has received a significant incentive in the form of a reduced property tax rate as a result of their participation in the Mills Act program. A condition of this incentive is compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. HRG reviewed the Project and determined it did not comply with the SOIS “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.”
General Plan Historic Resources Element - Goal #1: Preserve and enhance buildings and structures of historic significance in Laguna Beach. Assure that neighborhoods which have a preponderance of older homes and which greatly contribute to the village atmosphere be maintained as cohesive neighborhood units through consistency of size, scale and character.
Here, the Project does not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence. The property owner has received a significant incentive in the form of a reduced property tax rate as a 148
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
result of their participation in the Mills Act program. A condition of this incentive is compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. HRG reviewed the Project and determined it did not comply with the SOIS “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.”
Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 12-C: Development adjacent to a place, structure or feature found to be of historical significance shall be designed so that the uses permitted and the architectural design will protect the visual setting of the historical site.
Here, the proposed ADU would not protect the visual setting of the historical site in that it would be placed in front of the existing residence, altering 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.
LBMC Chapter 25.45.010 Procedures for alteration of a historic resource: “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.” Here, HRG evaluated the Project and determined in the HRG Report and Supplemental HRG Report the proposed Project did not comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards.
C. Laguna Beach Municipal Code 25.12.008(C)(9) (Building Site Coverage):
Single-Family Residence. Lots improved with one single-family dwelling, shall have maximum building site coverage as specified in Section 25.10.008(E)(1)(c) of this title. Building site coverage includes habitable enclosed building space and covered off-street parking. The building site coverage may be modified by the design review board when it is necessary to preserve views or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.
Here, the existing building site coverage is 36%. The maximum building site coverage for the site is
42.88%. The Project, which consists of an ADU, will cause the building site coverage to be 48%, which exceeds the maximum building site coverage. The added building site coverage is not the result of preserving views or maintaining neighborhood development patterns and therefore the findings to modify the maximum building site coverage cannot be made.
Finding No. 2: Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
The Project site is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea and therefore this finding is inapplicable.
149
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
Finding No. 3: The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.
While the construction of an accessory dwelling unit often falls within an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act, such as new construction or conversion of small structures under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, the City must also consider whether an exception to an exemption applies thereby taking the Project outside of the exemption. One such exemption relates to historical resources which prohibits the City from using an exemption for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(f)).
Here, the Project would create a significant adverse impact on the environment since it would block a majority of the historic resource from a public street. As concluded by HRG, the proposed ADU would cause a substantial adverse change to the existing structure since it would alter the spatial relationship that characterizes the property and it would obscure a majority of the view of the residence from the street. Projects that comply with the SOIS are considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource. HRG has concluded the Project does not comply with the SOIS.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This Project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved) and Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5), as the project is being recommended for denial.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 2026-0148 denying Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 for the property located at 238 Chiquita Street.
NOTIFICATION:
Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice has been mailed on February 4, 2026, which is at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the February 26, 2026 hearing date in accordance with Title
25. In addition, a public hearing notice has been posted on the Project site on February 12, 2026, which is at least 10 days in advance of the February 26, 2026 hearing date.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
At the time the agenda was published for the February 26, 2026 Design Review Board meeting, staff received public comments from five different neighbors in opposition to the Project. The concerns listed have included parking, ocean view impacts, and negative effects on the neighborhood aesthetic.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2026-0148
150
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
Attachment 2 – Mills Act Contract
Attachment 3 – Plans
Attachment 4 – Sapphos Memorandum for the Record (January 6, 2023) Attachment 5 – HRG Peer Review Memo (July 12, 2023)
Attachment 6 – HRG Updated Memo (January 26, 2026)
Attachment 7 – Correspondence
151
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
February 26, 2026
Agenda Item No. 5.1
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 two-story 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]
HERITAGE COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY:
The staff report issued for this project noted that the Heritage Committee was scheduled to consider making a recommendation on this project at their February 23, 2026 meeting. This supplemental staff report summarizes the Heritage Committee‘s meeting and recommendation for the Design Review Board‘s consideration:
On February 23, 2026, the Heritage Committee (HC) reviewed the proposed Project. The Applicant and property owner were not in attendance. Staff gave a summary of the Project’s scope and a history of the application and the SOIS analyses that have been conducted by Sapphos and HRG. Staff confirmed that story poles have not been installed on site and the Project will be heard at the Design Review Board meeting on Thursday February 26, 2026.
Two neighbors (Mark and Melanie Lewis) from 248 Chiquita Street spoke briefly regarding the Project, stating that proposed ADU design would block ocean views from their home and public views from the street, as well as views of the historic resource.
152
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148
2/26/2026
The Committee members stated that the Project does not preserve the view of the historic home. They agreed with HRG’s findings that the ADU does not comply with SOIS 2 and 9.
Committee Member Morgenlander moved to deny the Project based on incompatibility with SOIS 2 and 9 and Section 3B of the Mills Act Contract. Committee Member Drucker seconded the motion and the Committee voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the request to the Design Review Board. 153