Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Design Review Board Meeting, February 26, 2026
Coastal Development Permit for ADU located at 238 Chiquita Street Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
So with that, I'll closed the public hearing. We will start with the first item, which is 5.1, 238 Chiquita Street, Coast Development Permit 2026-0148. Can the applicant come to the front table? MJ Coveny:
And I went to the property and met with the applicant.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Go ahead. Just went ahead and rolled in.
Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):
I just did a site visit.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
And I did a site visit, and met with Mark and Melanie Lewis.
Louis Weil:
And I did a site visit.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Okay, ex parte is complete. Sammi, you are on. No, it's not your turn yet. I'll let you know.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
We start with the staff report.
Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
Thank you, Chair Gibbs. Item 5.1 is an application for a coastal development permit for a detached ADU at 238 Chiquita Street. The subject property is located a few houses north of North Coast Highway in the R2 zone. In 2009, the property owner entered into a Mills Act contract with the city, and the property is designated as a historic resource on the city's historic register. The proposed ADU is 799 square feet, and includes two stories and one bedroom. The ADU's location on site will cut off access to the existing one-car garage. However, it will include a new carport providing the required one covered parking space. While the ADU is not subject to design review, it does require Design Review Board approval due to the resulting building site coverage. The property has a maximum building site coverage of 42.88%. The proposed building site coverage, including the ADU, is 48%.
Attachment 6
172
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Regarding the property's designation as a historic resource, three SOIS assessments have been prepared for this ADU. In 2023, Sapphos Environmental Incorporated prepared a memorandum on a previous version of the ADU design. Sapphos found that the design complied with all the SOIS.
HRG, the same year, wrote a peer review memo on that Sapphos report, however, and they found the ADU did not comply with Secretary of the Interior's Standards 2, 4, and 9. Both these reports from 2023 were included in the agenda packet.
Earlier this year, HRG also provided an updated memo for the current ADU design before us tonight, and they came to the same conclusion that it "does not comply with the standards because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property." This is a video I took walking down the street. So, the proposed ADU does not comply with review Criteria 3 and 6 of the Coastal Development Permit findings. The ADU will adversely affect coastal scenic resources by impacting ocean views from the public right of way, and the ADU will also not be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
In addition, the excess building site coverage for the ADU does not aid in preserving views or maintaining neighborhood development patterns. This finding must be made to improve the excess building site coverage.
In conclusion, the project does not comply with the Coastal Development Permit findings, the building site coverage findings, or the SOIS. On Monday, February 23rd, Heritage Committee recommended denial of the project because it does not comply with SOIS 2 and 9, nor does it comply with Section 3B of the Mills Act contract. Staff is recommending that the Board adopt Resolution 2026-0148, denying Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, and finding said action not subject to CEQA. And I'm available for questions.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Patrick.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Mr. Chair, if I may, I wanted to add a little bit of narrative. As this is somewhat of a unique item before the DRB, specifically the issue of application completeness, as the staff report explains, the city's position that this application is not complete, the applicant was not willing to take the necessary steps to complete the application, yet still insisted upon a public hearing before this Board. As the DRB is aware, there are a plethora of state housing laws applicable to ADUs. One is an accelerated shot clock on the city's review and decision on ADUs. So while the city's position regarding completeness remains unchanged, and that it shields the city from that shot clock, staff felt that we had enough knowledge and understanding of the project to nevertheless bring this project to the Board for review on the merits. I insist on that, on the merits.
This would avoid any possible complications down the road involving arguments from either the applicant or maybe HCD that contemplates that shot clock. And so, thus it is my advice tonight for the Board to review the application on the merits based off of the findings in the staff report, and do not rely upon the idea of completeness or lack thereof to make any judgment on this project.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Thank you, Madison. Just to make it clear, we're going to evaluate this project as if the application was complete, but the city is not conceding it was complete. Is that a fair statement? 173
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
That's fair, Mr. Chair.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Okay. Very good. Any other questions to staff before we open the public hearing? Sammi Montalto (Associate Planner):
I also want to add, we should have a representative from HRG available with us tonight. Yes, if you have any questions for them.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Okay, appreciate it. I've read the reports.
Louis, any questions?
Louis Weil:
No, I'm good.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Okay, I'm opening the public hearing. Applicant, you have five minutes. Could you start with your name so we know who you are?
Thank you. You have five minutes.
Jonathan Lukoff (Applicant & Owner):
Jonathan Lukoff, the owner at 238 Chiquita Street for 19 years. First of all, some of the things I just heard from Patrick are untrue. As far as we know, we bent over backwards to complete everything and did everything asked of us, and keep getting denials. So, let me start with good evening. I believe that this body is actually not allowed to review an ADU. But HRG, under their first three numbers that you quoted, are all about the view of the house without any numbers, but they wanted it in the front setback. So if you'll approve it in the front setback, I think HRG would be very satisfied. Names like mass and view without percentages and numbers are meaningless, and we'll get into that.
But Sapphos was the first one I was told to hire my own by the city, my own historians. I hired Sapphos. They have completely approved the project. I think they rule. HRG is not necessary and does not need to be listened to at all, but I will address them. I purchased this 1926 home 19 years ago in very serious disrepair. It was not a cute cottage. It's a two-story home. It took me months of repairs before I could move in. The bathrooms weren't working. There was knob and two wiring with rats in the wall that could have burned the place down. I took great care to keep this home historic.
And in other remodels where the rear was a different era and didn't even have a foundation, I have reinforced the foundation. I've taken great care of this home.
I'm also a property owner with rights in a buildable lot. This is an R2 lot, and it is absolutely buildable. I am trying to go through the ADU process so that it is smaller, consistent with SOIS standards as Sapphos says it is, and doesn't go through anything but a ministerial process other than moving it forward as HRG requests, which will allow more view, but our original proposal allowed over 50% views. And Sapphos pointed out the whole lower story is not historic. It's from 174
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
the 1960s. It's the upper story and the beautiful peaked roofs that are fabulous. HRG also reviewed 239 Viejo Street. I don't know if you did that. They said it could be torn down because there were changes from 1930s. I don't recognize any changes in that home. But they allowed that to be torn down, said I need to have views of the 1960 changes. It's absurd.
I've been through a lot for the city as well. I've worked with six different planners, five of whom have left the city. Each one never gave me anything in writing, just kept demanding different things that I do. I did each and every one, including the most recent ones with Sammy and her team. We said, "We will do everything they ask to get it approved." We dropped from three and a half years at a thousand square feet with two bedrooms for my son and me, down to... My son will be in college by the time it's done. It won't matter. A one bedroom, 800 square feet, 799, to meet laws of not being required to have lot of coverage. We should have been allowed 20 feet back. They pushed us to 21, while HRG said to move it the other way. I'm being given catch-22s of give more view, but put it closer to the home to give less view. It's absurd. Absolutely absurd.
The most revealing moment is when I asked Matthew, the head of the department, put it in writing, asked HRG to say specifics. He said, "We don't work that way." Well, guess what? I've looked at the law. They have to work that way. They have to have laws in writing that I can follow to get this approved. This city is not an historic district city. This is an historic home, but not on the state lists.
So, it's a more minor home. I have an R2 lot. A mass and a home are expected in front of it. They're demanded in front of it. The whole rest of the street has that. Everybody's out to a 13 to 15 feet from the front. This is a buildable lot.
Tell me what I can build on it, please. Because I'm trying. I'm trying really hard. A 799 square foot, one bedroom, 16 foot high, 1 foot down on the ground is not at all imposing on the views. How much more time do I have? Two minutes?
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Twenty-three seconds.
Jonathan Lukoff (Applicant & Owner):
Oh. So, my request tonight is approve this and move it into the front setback so everybody... So that not everybody's happy. So that I meet state requirements and HRG's request, even though Sapphos, which should rule, says it was perfectly fine where it was and how it was.
Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Thank you very much. All right.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
All set.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
After members of the public speak, you'll have a three-minute reply, and then we'll be asking questions and then deliberating.
So members of the public, you can start. I assume there's going to be a few. You each have three minutes. Start by stating your name, if you could, please. 175
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Mark Lewis (Neighbor):
Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Mark Lewis, owner of property at 248 Chiquita Street, which is just one up from the subject property. So at first, I want to say thank you to the city for sending out the notice, because for two and a half years, apparently this project's been going on, and this is the first time we've gotten notice from anybody relative to the project other than hearsay stuff from neighbors. So, we appreciate that. Thank you.
My wife and I, our family, we bought our home 31 years ago. And when we bought it, we knew that there was a very large structure, the existing structure that's on the property, but there was adequate space in the front where we had views of light and air and things of that nature. When the project, the property added 10 years ago, 10-12 years ago, extended the garage right on the property line due to the Mills Act accommodation and added an additional two story. I think we went through, the project went through something like 6 Heritage committee meetings, 3 or 4 DRBs, a couple of council meetings. And at the end, the DRB approved. And we, like he, accepted the approved project. And that there were stipulations placed on that which said that the hedges had to be maintained at six feet high, and that the comment was made in that DRB hearing that the property had achieved its maximum program for the property.
So, the applicant pursued and willingly signed a Mills Act. And of the Mills Act, some of the sections say, "All changes shall comply with applicable city regulations and guidelines, United States Secretary of Interior, and guidelines for historic preservation, and shall be subject to approval of the community development director." As was referenced in the HRG reports, the one in 2023 said, "The close proximity of the ADU to existing residents will obscure several features because the ADU is wider than existing residents, and views of the residence will be blocked." That opinion was followed up with...
Oh, I'm sorry. Going back. So, there was that opinion. And also, "The ADU is too large for the allowable building space, and will be too close to the residence and will block important views as seen from the public right of way, and negatively affect the historic character of the residence." This was further followed up in the report just last month with a similar thing. However, it's size and massing does not comply with the standards because there's not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU. This seems to be very consistent with the comments that were made back 10, 12 years ago, that this property has achieved its maximum program. And the Heritage Committee, as was reported, vehemently... I think their words they actually used were vehemently opposed, five-nothing, commenting again on the mass and the scale and the neighborhood compatibility, and didn't see how anything really could fit well on this property.
Let's face it. It's a box that blocks views, light, and air, to many of the properties on Chiquita Street.
It also deprives the public of views of the historic structure, as well as ocean and sunset views from Chiquita for the public, and it's not neighborhood compatible. Thank you for your time.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Melanie Lewis (Neighbor):
Good evening, I'm Melanie Lewis. I'm Mark's wife. We own the property at 248 Chiquita, which is one above 238. We have lived in Laguna for 40 years, and for 30 of them, we've owned our house at 248 Chiquita Street. And one of the reasons we chose Laguna Beach is because of the unique character that we have here in Laguna Beach. We protect our historic sites, and not only homes but buildings throughout the city, and it's an important characteristic of our city. If somebody wants to 176
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
build to mass capacity of a footprint on a property, there are other beautiful beach cities that they can go to, and that would be possibly Corona Del Mar, which is what they are okay with. That's not what Laguna Beach is about.
View, light, and space is a huge characteristic protected entity here in Laguna Beach, just as the woman said before us. We hope, as a DRB, that you recognize not just the public view, but people that live right there every single day about that view. When we bought our property, we knew that the back of the property was going to be blocked by the current house, and we did work with them in regards to getting some of the things that he wanted. We actually gave up some of our view in the back so that he could have what he wanted. The...
Excuse me. In Laguna, we talk about view, light, and space all of the time. It is important. It is important to each and every one of us. And the fact that someone values it over somebody else without taking into consideration what they are doing to their neighbors, to that next person. In consideration to keeping to the character of the neighborhood is working with your neighbors and coming to something that you can work together on. And there's been no discussion at all about this, other than the fact that we did get the card, no story poles. I can tell you right now that that structure, and I know we talk about public view and how important that is, but I'm going to tell you as a property owner, it's important to me too. As a breast cancer survivor, view, light, and space, when I was recovering, was very important to me. Our family is going to own that property. Our grown children will be moving into it to raise their family. It's an important thing for us to be able to look out and see the ocean, the light, the space.
It's not just a structure from beginning of the property to the back. I don't care if it's 13 feet back or 21 feet back. It's 16 feet high in our windows, our only view corridor that we have on that property because of the existing structure that's in the back. We just want to maintain the character of this city just as the predecessors wanted us to do back then. And we hope that DRB will see that, and hopefully we can maintain the view. Not just for him, but us, because he will have a beautiful ocean view across this whole property. Not us. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Go ahead.
Ian Wolcott:
Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Ian Wolcott. I am the attorney representing the homeowners of 245 Cajon Street, across the alley. I'll keep my comments brief because the facts and law in this situation seem to be pretty clear-cut in favor of denial.
We're aware of the limited areas in which state law allows local governments to regulate the impacts of ADUs. However, even under the permissive structure of state law, the applicant has still managed to propose a project location and design that the city legally can and should deny. To start, we appreciate the staff's analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on the public view of coastal resources. When we received the public hearing notice and inquired about the project, we came to believe that there would be an impact, but it was difficult to assess that impact because the applicant declined to install the required story poles.
The staff report confirms that construction of the proposed ADU would block important views of the coast and of the undeveloped hills from Chiquita Street and the PCH. We believe views from the Hillcrest Drive, Chiquita intersection would also be blocked, but without story poles, we can't independently confirm that. Furthermore, as the staff report discusses, construction of the proposed project would substantially obscure the public's view of a home on the city's historic 177
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
register, which is subject to a Mills Act contract. The owner has received a benefit from the public in the form of publicly subsidized property taxes in return for protecting the historic resource he now proposes to obscure from public view. The owner cannot have it both ways. Either this is a historic property that contributes to the public street views or it is no longer a historic property.
Said street views are obscured, and the public no longer benefits from them. I was present at the Heritage Committee's hearing on this item on Monday night. They described their recommendation of denial as unanimous and vehement. We concur.
Finally, as mentioned by others and in the staff report, staff has determined that the applicant is asking for lot coverage in excess of what is allowed on this property. If the DRB can consider this and the severe impact the proposed ADU structure will have on the views of other homes on neighboring properties, I hope the Board will take the concerns of the residence of 248 Chiquita into account. We support the comments of Mr. and Mrs. Lewis on this matter. Thank you very much for your time.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Go ahead.
Cliff Legalt (Neighbor):
Good evening. My name is Cliff Legalt. I live at 241 Chiquita, and have lived there for 53 years. I'm now the oldest on the neighborhood, but I just want to reiterate that you guys are stewards of our future. Not just our impact, but my family's impact for generations to come, because this is a house that we're going to keep forever. It's not just for the vistas that are being obstructed, but the scale and the appearance of the streetscape is going to be changed. And right now, it has been the same for the entire time that I've lived there.
Yeah, we've upgraded this and that, but there hasn't been major changes like this proposing. And the public view from the street is going to be denied, beach and sunset views. And so, I vehemently request that this project be denied. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Thank you very much. One more speaker.
Adam Rochber (HRG Representative):
Good evening, Board members. My name is Adam Rochber, and I represent Historic Resources Group or HRG. You should have before you both of the memos we prepared, the original one in 2023 and the other one from January of this year. In summary, this property is listed in the Laguna Beach register and it's a Mills Act property. The bar is high for this property. Our firm has therefore reviewed the project against the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and I want to say that that was done neutrally. We just looked at the standards. We're not interested in the design quality, just the standards strictly. The project fails to meet the standards, which relate to new construction adjacent to historic buildings.
The proposed location of the ADU is incompatible with the property. The standards specifically advise against placing new structures in front of historic buildings. The proposed placement would obscure the home's primary elevation from the public right of way, and negatively impact the spatial relationships that characterize the property, including its existing relationship with the street and the neighborhood. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer questions if you have any. 178
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Thank you very much. Any other speakers? Seeing none, I return to the applicant. You have three minutes.
Jonathan Lukoff (Applicant & Owner):
Thank you. Change is hard, and everything built has mass and obstructs view at some level. So, the statements are true. And I do thank Mark and Melanie for helping me with a remodel of the rear that was falling down, but it was actually two stories. There was a huge attic with a window in it that was replaced by a bedroom and a bathroom, and totally reinforced the structural integrity of the home and made it better. Also, is now more fireproof because of the sprinklers. This is an historically our two lot. A home is expected historically. I am putting a home, 800 square feet is a third the size of the existing home. By any standard, even half is usually allowed. Sixteen feet high, a foot down is actually... A foot down from the front, a foot up from the street is, again, not massive relative to the hugely tall structure.
It also elevated another two feet from up the porch. So, we're really not obstructing the views of the entire upper story of the beautiful design of the roof. Several of you have been there and seen that's what's important, not the porch 1960s and its cover. They're absurd. Actually, the city has recurrently asked me to change it and make it more historic. I'd like to someday if they made it reasonable and doable. I'd love to change that back to something that fits the home, the door, the porch, the front window maybe. I'm trying to preserve views from the street. It would be better if it's in the front setback somewhat, and the front setback by law cannot be used to stop me from building. So if you're pushing me all the way to 21 feet and then say I'm obstructing, you're giving me a catch-22 you're not allowed to do by state law.
You must allow me to build. I must be allowed the 800 square feet. I must be allowed the 16 feet total height, and you got to tell me where. I've tried to cantilever it. I think that design both allows for me to have the parking. It allows four views somewhat under and completely over. It's an elegant design that we came up with to preserve views and to consider that. Mark and Melanie have told me recurrently they will never let me build. They told me it before I did anything to that property. They told me when I moved in. I can build. It's an R2 lot. I'm just trying to build something ministerially by state law. But please, you have the ability to allow me to move it in the front stepback. That's what I'd like. Thank you.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Thank you very much. Any questions?
Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):
I have a question for staff. For a heritage project like this, a property like this, is it a state law to not be able to build in front of the house?
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Why don't you address it back? This is Mills Act which is aJessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):
Part of the Mills Act.
179
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
It's a contract with the applicant.
Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):
Okay. Right. So, I read the contract. You have a contract. Well, I'll save my comments for later.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Yeah, let me go through it. There's no state law, and correct me if I'm wrong, that says if you have a Mills Act, you can't, but you might be in breach of the contract with the city. Am I shootingPatrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Correct, Mr. Chair. So, that's fair. It is a fair statement to say the city's position is not that nothing can be built on this lot. That is unequivocally not the case. It just must go through the process. And as the Chair said, there are certain contractual obligations, as well as, which is your guys' purview, the entitlement, i.e. a CDP, that is the focus of your guys' [inaudible 00:27:28].
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
And I'll be going through the Mills Act contract. All right, any other questions? Jonathan Lukoff (Applicant & Owner):
[inaudible 00:27:33]
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
No, you can't. Public hearing is closed, unless somebody has a question of you.
Louis, any questions?
Louis Weil:
No, I'm okay.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Okay. I'm closing the public hearing, and I'll start. First of all, I want to hit two things. One is the staff report was excellent. It laid out, I think, the issues, the standards correctly, and I'll get into the conclusions. The conclusions, notwithstanding the staff report, are mine, and each Board member will be able to state theirs. The second thing is, because of the conditional use permit criteria that we may have to make findings, one of them, Criteria 6, deals with visual compatibility. And in many cases, that requires story poles. And I think it's unfortunate you didn't put up story poles. But that being said, in my view, story poles are not necessary for my conclusions. If they were, I would state so and continue, or suggest continuing the hearing for story poles. But story poles are important when we're dealing with ADUs that are subject to coastal development permits. But in this case, I think that I can make the determination without the need for them based on the information we have.
First, I'll hit the coastal development permit. There's been statements by the applicant about what's the law, and I must respectfully disagree. I think the staff report lays it out pretty clearly, but I'll just summarize. There's a carve-out from the ADU law for, basically, matters within the Coastal 180
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Act of 1976. This city has a local coastal plan that was approved by the Coastal Commission, which is pursuant to the carve-out. The required actions and entitlement standards and criteria are not subject to the ADU law, but rather subject to the Coastal Act, and specifically our own local coastal plan. In that plan, we are required, in connection with ADU, to evaluate a coastal development permit, and the ADU requires a coastal development permit.
There's two criteria that are triggered here. But let me say the finding we have to make for a coastal development permit is, one, that it meets various criteria. I'll be talking about Criteria 6 and 3. It must comply with general land use plan elements, and I'll address a few of those. And it must comply with the zoning provision on building site coverage, and I'll be addressing that. Criteria 6 is the proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. I have looked at the proposal. I walked the streets. I don't think this comes close to being visually compatible. The houses in this vicinity on Chiquita are primarily cottage where there is two-story. The second story is set back much like the applicant's property is currently. Up the street, there are a few homes or a few, actually apartments, that go to the setback in very large mass, but that's at the top of the street.
I find the relevant visual compatibility in a neighborhood to be middle to lower Chiquita. And in that, this house would stick out like a sore thumb if this ADU is permitted. So, the ADU is not visually compatible from the homes in the vicinity of the project. Criteria 3 reads, "The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational, or visitor-serving facilities, or coastal scenic resources." I find that this project does not comply with Criteria 3 for three reasons. First, coastal resources include ocean views from public areas. It's called, in our code, coastal visual resources.
The Open Space and Conservation Element, which is part of our local coastal plan, defines visual resources as "coastal scenic resources as shoreline features or the natural appearance of the coast." Here, the placement of the ADU and its height block public views of the ocean, and therefore impact coastal resources.
Second, the historic house is a protected resource under our local coastal plan, further bolstering the need for protection of the view of the house and the ocean. Third, the historic house itself qualifies as a recreation or visitor-serving facility. It's much like seeing a piece of art in a plaza in a coastal area. And there are tours and people do seek out and look at our historic homes. And one of those prime lists of historic homes or Mills Act... I also should point out that this was put on the historic registry and a Mills contract sought by the applicant based on a claim, which I think is clearly substantiated that this is a Laguna Beach historic house and must be treated as such under the local coastal plan.
Okay. The next element after the criteria is Land Use Element 2.2, which encourages the preservation of historically significant residential structures, and protect the character-defining components of Laguna Beach's traditional neighborhoods. I think this project falls within the sweet spot of what should not be allowed under this Land Use Element. We heard from HRG. I read the reports. I think the HRG reports are spot on. It, among other things, concludes that under the standards applicable to historic homes, the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard 2 and 9 in particular, really states the rule effectively that you cannot block historic homes with structures. I agree 100% with its analysis and conclusions in that regard, and specifically its conclusion in the supplemental report that "The project does not comply with the standards because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource, and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterized the property."
181
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
I also point out that the Heritage Committee was vehement, and I go through this to make the applicant and the public understand that this is not a close case on historic preservation of historic resources. Not only does he carve-out from the ADU law, our local coastal plan, but numerous other things which I'll get into really require that we preserve jewels like the house the applicant owns, but the applicant taught to take advantage of that jewel by applying and receiving a Mills Act contract. So, I just don't think this project complies with the Land Use Element 2.2. It also doesn't apply with Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 12-C, which again, is to protect houses of historic significance. So for those reasons, I cannot make finding one required for the issuance of a coastal development permit.
Now with respect to the Mills Act, the Mills Act, what this applicant did to receive the benefits of the Mills Act in the form of reduced property taxes is agreed to a contract. And that contract, among other things under Section 3, requires that the owner preserve, maintain, and where necessary, restore or rehabilitate, and its character-defining features. Notably, the general architectural form, style, design, scale, proportions, and so forth of the exterior of the property. I think that that provision precludes, among other things, blocking the view of that historic home from the public. It would be effectively as if you were putting over a shroud over the historic house, and saying, "No one can see it, but I want to get all the benefits, and deprive the city of property tax revenues." That's not how it works.
Finally, building site coverage. It exceeds with the ADU building site coverage, which is another cause for denying a coastal development permit in this case. The last point I'll make, and I know I've gone a little long, but I think it's important for the applicant and the public to understand how this Board and how this city deals with historic resources: CEQA. Under the California Environment Equalities Act guideline Section 15303... I should point out initially that CEQA compliance is not required where we are going to deny a project. I want to hear what the other Board members, but if the decision is to deny, we don't have to comply with CEQA. But it's important to point out that if CEQA was to apply, the category exemption would not apply to this project. Categorical exemption means it's a way of not having to comply with CEQA. If you have a certain project that is not likely, and it's defined in the CEQA guidelines to impact the environment, you don't have to proceed with all the CEQA compliance requirements, including initial study, negative declaration, or even an EIR.
However, there are exemptions to the categorical exemption, one of which relates to historical resources. So where historical resources are in play, in other words, a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource, then CEQA must be complied with. If there were no problems with this project, and we would otherwise be in a position to approve it, which we're not even close to, it would not comply with CEQA, and there would have to be a full-blown CEQA compliance.
So, those are my comments. I would deny this project. Would you want us to go next, Jess? Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):
I just had three comments and then three little markings, and I heard you say each one. Yeah, I agree it doesn't compliment the existing structure, and it doesn't compliment the neighborhood.
The CDP public views are being taken. The objective standard findings are not met as proposed, and you have a contract with the Mills Act. So anyway, I'm not supportive of the project and would approve denying it.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
I'll just point for the record that the applicant just left the hall. 182
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Go ahead, MJ.
MJ Coveny:
In light of what just occurred, I concur with my Board member here. And I want to thank you, Chair Gibbs, for drilling down in that, and having tenacity and knowledge and ability to thread through all of that. And I really appreciate you have your lifting there. Yeah, I concur that this blocking this historic house and taking advantage of the Mills Act is not acceptable. I think the design was completely shoehorning something in that has no relevance and no compatibility with the neighborhood. And it does not meet Finding 6 and 3 of the Land Use, that I believe you called out specifically for the CDP. So, I would also deny this project tonight.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Louis?
Louis Weil:
I want to thank Chair Gibbs for his in-depth analysis. I think that really covered a lot of the basis, and I concur with his commentary, and concur with my other Board members as well. I think the staff report was well outlined for where the criteria of the project is not met. I think the HRG analysis, that Standards 2, 4, and 9 were significantly compromised. And their conclusion, there's just not enough room to accommodate the ADU design without blocking the existing historic residents from the public view right away. And I think those are significant components that the design and the layout of this application just doesn't work for the neighborhood compatibility.
Yeah. So, I'm supportive of denying theThomas Gibbs (Chair):
Okay, I'd like to make the motion. I move that the Board adopt Resolution 2026-0148, denying coastal development permit 2026-0148 for the property located at 238 Chiquita Street.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to be sure. Myself, Madam Associate Planner, and Mr. Planning Manager, we're all taking notes during your synopsis. And it's a little bit broader than the existing resolution, which is fine. We can incorporate that. I just want to make sure that the resolution... Excuse me, the motion, reflects that. That you are adopting the denial based off of the myriad of reasons that you listed, whichThomas Gibbs (Chair):
As I was stating, I was thinking about that. There are grounds that I included in my description that are not in the resolution.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Correct.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
183
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
It may be worthwhile because this may go to litigation and may go to the city council. For you to review my comments, revise the resolution, and bring it up at the next hearing on consent calendar.
Or can we do it now?
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Yeah. I think I'm comfortable, and I'll defer to Sammi or Bill. I think we're comfortable that we can take your... Obviously, taking notes. We will re-listen to it, and then simply update the resolution.
However, it is up to the Board whether or not you all are comfortable with that, or you would like it to come back on it.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
I think that that could be challenged, and I just don't want to challenge. So I'm happy to listen to it, but I would like to do it on consent calendar with the revisions.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
That's entirely the purview of the Board.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Yeah. My only concern is thatJessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):
Sir, we'd like to just deny it, and I have faith that staff can get it done.
Louis Weil:
Maybe we shouldThomas Gibbs (Chair):
I have aNo, hold on a second. I have 100% faith. It's not that question. It's just that if the resolution is changed materially on a substantive matter without our review, that could be a ground to challenge it in court. And that's why I would just feel more comfortable...
I think it's important to get into some of my comments, but I would feel more comfortable from the city's standpoint. It's not a question of trusting staff.
Louis Weil:
Can I provide this, maybe, suggestion?
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Go ahead.
Louis Weil:
Since the agenda's not that heavy, and maybe this would be subject to Patrick's weigh-in, we've had a discussion. We've kind of given our vote. What if we tabled this, or trailed this item and go on 184
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
to the next one? Giving staff the time to update that resolution, and then we conclude the vote at the end of the item.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Yeah.
Louis Weil:
Since the applicant left, we could close this item and then finish it off with the correct resolution, with adjustments from Patrick.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
I think ordinarily that would be a good idea, but I would prefer that they go through my comments, and there's a couple of things that really need to be well drafted. It won't take long to do it on consent calendar.
Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):
And there was too much that was said.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Yeah.
Louis Weil:
Okay.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
I'd rather do it right than do it quick. So, why don't we continue this, or how do you want us to do this?
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
Yeah. So I think the motion is to direct staff to come back with the resolution of denial, including all of the additional points made by Chair Gibbs at the next hearing on consent. Such that when we hear that item, it is not a rehearing of the item. It is rather just, did staff accurately jot down and incorporate the decision of the Board into the updated resolution? Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Okay. I'll move that the Board direct staff to revise the resolution of denial, to incorporate additional points made during the deliberations, and that it be presented on the consent calendar that the matter will not be subject to rehearing or questioning. It will be just to confirm that the resolution as revised conforms to what was discussed during deliberations.
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):
And that'll be on March 12th, Mr. Chair.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
185
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Thank you very much. Do I have a second?
MJ Coveny:
Second.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Please call the roll.
Paola Miller (Clerk):
Board Member Coveny?
MJ Coveny:
Yes.
Paola Miller (Clerk):
Board Member Wile?
Louis Weil:
Yes.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Louis, you got to say it again.
Louis Weil:
Yes. Sorry, the thing just glitched. Can you hear me?
Paola Miller (Clerk):
No worries.
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Yeah.
Paola Miller (Clerk):
Chair Gannon?
Jessica Gannon (Chair Pro Tem):
Yes.
Paola Miller (Clerk):
Chair Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs (Chair):
Yes.
186
Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, February 26, 2026 Hearing Transcript
Paola Miller (Clerk):
Motion has passed, 4 to 0.
187