P.O. Box 655
Sierra Madre, CA 91025
www.sapphosenvironmental.com
430 North Halstead Street
January 6, 2023
Project No. 2751-001
Design Review for the Project Located at
238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
2.6 2751-001.M01
TO: Mr. Jonathon Lukoff
FROM: Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
(Mr. Scott Torres and Ms. Carrie Chasteen)
SUBJECT: Design Review for the Project Located at 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
ATTACHMENT: A. Key Personnel Resumes
Attachment 7
188
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Memorandum for the Record (MFR) has been completed in support of the property owner’s desire to construct an accessary dwelling unit (ADU) on the lot located at 238 Chiquita Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number 05312418) in the City of Laguna Beach (City), Orange County, California.
The owner seeks to add to the subject property in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOIS). In 2008, the subject property was listed in the City Historic Register as a “K”-rated property. Thus, for the purpose of this MFR, the subject property is a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (Mr. Scott Torres and Ms. Carrie Chasteen) was retained by the property owner to evaluate and inform the proposed ADU project to comply with the Standards. After careful research and evaluation of the proposed project, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. concluded that the proposed ADU project would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines. 189
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 3
INTRODUCTION
This Memorandum for the Record (MFR) recounts the design review for the proposed project located at 238 Chiquita Street, City of Laguna Beach (City), Orange County, California, 92651 (Figure 1, Sketch Map, 238 Chiquita Street). The subject property was listed as a “K”-rated property on the City Historic Register; thus, is a historical resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (Mr. Scott Torres and Ms. Carrie Chasteen; Attachment A, Key Personnel Resumes) was retained by the client to complete a design review of the proposed exterior renovations to the subject property.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) project complies with the regulations set forth by the State of California and the City. The proposed project shall not exceed a height requirement of 16 feet. The proposed project shall not exceed 850 square feet for a single-bedroom unit and 1,000 square feet for a dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom. The proposed project will construct a cantilevered 2-bedroom, 999-square-foot ADU.
IDENTIFICATION OF CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES
The subject property is a Craftsman-style residence that was constructed in 1925. The subject property is set back from the public right-of-way (ROW) approximately 50 feet. The primary façade is partially obscured by a hedge from the public ROW. Character-defining features from the immediate public ROW include a steep-pitched cross-gable roof, triangular attic vent, fixed-glass picture window, second-story windows with valance grids, and a wood trellis. As is, the subject property is a modest Craftsman-style cottage. Based on views from the north and south, the subject property’s cross-gabled roof and second-story windows are the most significant features visible from the public ROW.
190
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 4 Figure 1. Sketch Map, 238 Chiquita Street
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2022
191
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 5
REGULATORY SETTING
State of California
65852.2. 1
(a) (B)(1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multi-family dwelling residential use. The ordinance shall do all of the following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where ADUs may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of ADUs on traffic flow and public safety. A local agency that does not provide water or sewer services shall consult with the local water or sewer service provider regarding the adequacy of water and sewer services before designating an area where ADUs may be permitted.
(B) (i) Impose standards on ADUs that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.
(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any ADU located within its jurisdiction. (C) Provide that ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the ADU is located, and that ADUs are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. (D) Require the ADUs to comply with all of the following:
(i) Except as provided in Section 65852.26, the ADU may be rented separate from the primary residence, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence.
(ii) The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multi-family dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing dwelling. (iii) The ADU is either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling.
1 California Department of Housing and Development. December 2020. “Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook.” 192
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 6 (iv) If there is an existing primary dwelling, the total floor area of an attached ADU shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling.
(v) The total floor area for a detached ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
(vi) No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an ADU.
(vii) No setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an ADU or to a portion of an ADU, and a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an ADU that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(viii) Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate.
(ix) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required.
(x) (I) Parking requirements for ADUs shall not exceed one parking space per ADU or per bedroom, whichever is less. These
spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway. (II) Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions.
(III) This clause shall not apply to an ADU that is described in subdivision (d).
(xi) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, the local agency shall not require that those offstreet parking spaces be replaced.
(xii) ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
193
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 7 (3) A permit application for an ADU or a junior ADU shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an ADU or a junior ADU within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multi-family dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an ADU or a junior ADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or the junior ADU until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or junior ADU shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs incurred to implement this paragraph, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of an ADU.
(4) An existing ordinance governing the creation of an ADU by a local agency or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. If a local agency has an existing ADU ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of ADUs, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.
(5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. (6) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed ADU on a lot that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be used or imposed, including any owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. (7) A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an ADU if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. (8) An ADU that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The ADU shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(b) When a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing ADUs in accordance with subdivision (a) receives an application for a permit to create an ADU pursuant to this 194
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 8 subdivision, the local agency shall approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to subdivision (a). The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an ADU or a junior ADU within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multi-family dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an ADU or a junior ADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or the junior ADU until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or junior ADU shall still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. (c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached ADUs.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency shall not establish by ordinance any of the following:
(A) A minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached ADU that prohibits an efficiency unit.
(B) A maximum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached ADU that is less than either of the following:
(i) 850 square feet.
(ii) 1,000 square feet for an ADU that provides more than one bedroom. (C) Any other minimum or maximum size for an ADU, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot ADU that is at least 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.
(d) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing ADUs in accordance with subdivision (a), shall not impose parking standards for an ADU in any of the following instances:
(1) The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. (2) The ADU located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (3) The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure.
(4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU.
195
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 9 (5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU. (e) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
(A) One ADU and one junior ADU per lot with a proposed or existing singlefamily dwelling if all of the following apply:
(i) The ADU or junior ADU is within the proposed space of a singlefamily dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress.
(ii) The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing singlefamily dwelling. (iii) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. (iv) The junior ADU complies with the requirements of Section 65852.22. (B) One detached, new construction, ADU that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The ADUf may be combined with a junior ADU described in subparagraph (A). A local agency may impose the following conditions on the ADU:
(i) A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet. (ii) A height limitation of 16 feet.
City of Laguna Beach
25.45.010 Procedures for Alteration of a Historic Resource2 (A) Review. 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. Interior changes shall not be reviewed unless the changes will alter a character-defining feature(s) of the historic resource or if the interior area is publicly accessible.
(B) If the project is found to be consistent with the SOIS or the City’s Local Design Guidelines, but otherwise requires design review pursuant to Section 25.05.040(B), the Heritage Committee shall make a recommendation to the approval authority prior to 2 City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code. 25.45.010
196
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 10 design review. Repair or replacement of existing materials with in-kind or historically appropriate materials, in the same location, does not require design review approval.
Minor alterations may be subject to Section 25.05.040 (B)(3). (C) If staff believes the project is not consistent with the SOIS and/or the City’s Local Design Guidelines, then after the appropriate environmental documentation has been prepared pursuant to CEQA, design review shall be required. The Heritage Committee shall make a recommendation to the approval authority prior to design review. (D) Historic Resource Assessment Report. If an historic resource assessment has not been prepared for the property, the Heritage Committee or the design review authority may require that an historic resource assessment, paid for by the City, be prepared prior to the review of the project to evaluate the project impacts to the property. (E) Environmental Determination. During its review, the design review authority will adopt the appropriate environmental determination pursuant to CEQA. An historic resource assessment may be required to evaluate a project’s potential environmental impact.
Projects that comply with the SOIS and the local design guidelines may be eligible for a categorical exemption.
(F) Pre-construction Meeting. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a preconstruction meeting shall occur and shall consist of the property owner, contractor, inspector assigned to inspect the structure, a City staff member, the project architect/designer and historic monitor (if required). This meeting will be used to convey the obligations and responsibilities of the property owner and his or her contractors and architects in protecting and avoiding destruction of the identified historic fabric that is to be retained. (Ord. 1670 § 1, 2022).
City of Laguna Beach
Second Residential Units 25.17
This Chapter 25.17 of the Laguna Beach municipal code was affected by Ordinance NO.16663 (A) The lot on which the second residential unit is proposed shall be zoned for single-family use only within either the R-1 or the R/HP zones.
(B) A second residential unit may be attached to or detached from the existing dwelling on the building site, with the exception of certain historic structures as described in subsection (O). Attached and detached second residential units shall be allowed on lots having a minimum site area of six thousand square feet and may range in size from two hundred seventy-five square feet to a maximum of six hundred forty square feet, as follows: The maximum second residential unit size shall be determined by multiplying the square footage of the building site by seven percent. (For example, a maximum second residential unit size of four hundred twenty square feet shall be allowable on a 3 An ordinance of the City of Laguna Beach, California repealing and replacing Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.17 (second residential units) and amending sections 25.10.004 (R-1 Residential low density zone- uses permitted), 25.15.006 (R/HP residential/hillside protection zone uses permitted), and 5.07.030 (Building Construction Tax-Imposition-Rates-Due Date) relating to the regulation of accessory dwelling units, and making a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. 197
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 11 building site of six thousand square feet, and a maximum second residential unit size of six hundred forty square feet shall be allowable on a building site of nine thousand one hundred forty-two square feet or more.)
(C) A second residential unit shall only be constructed concurrently with or after the construction of a single-family residence on the same building site. An application to establish a second residential unit on a vacant lot shall not be accepted as complete for processing prior to the acceptance of a completed application for the main residence; and a determination on an application to establish a second residential unit shall not be made prior to the approval of an application for the main residence. An application to establish a second residential unit, whether attached or detached, shall require zoning plan check for compliance with applicable zoning standards and criteria; however, the application shall not be subject to the design review board public hearing and approval process, with the following exceptions: (1) whenever a second residential unit is proposed in conjunction with the construction of a main residence, or in conjunction with construction modifications to an existing main residence that is subject to design review; or (2) whenever subsequent additions and/or exterior modifications to an existing second residential unit are proposed, a design review board public hearing and determination shall be required for the entire project; however, design review shall be limited to issues related to the main residence and subsequent additions/modifications to an existing second residential unit shall not result in the removal of or reduction in the size of the existing second residential unit.
(D) The design of a second residential unit, including building form, materials, exterior finishes, color scheme and landscaping, shall be compatible with the main residence. A second residential unit shall be clearly subordinate to the main residence on the site with reference to height and building envelope, location and appearance, and the floor area of the second residential unit shall comprise no more than fifty percent of the main residence floor area, up to the maximum set forth in subsection (B). (E) The second residential unit application shall include a written summary explaining how the proposed second residential unit has been designed to comply with the City’s residential design guidelines.
(F) The creation of a second residential unit through conversion of part of the existing floor area of the main residence shall be allowed provided that it complies with the standards outlined in this chapter and that the floor area of the second residential unit shall be no more than fifty percent of the main residence floor area, up to the maximum set forth in subsection (B).
(G) An attached or detached second residential unit shall be limited to a single story and shall be no more than twelve feet above any point of the existing adjacent grade elevation, including chimneys, skylights and other rooftop equipment, and shall not exceed the highest elevation of the main residence. This height limitation shall not apply to the establishment of a second residential unit within an existing structure, provided that no exterior building additions, including new exterior above-grade stairs, are proposed. The addition of windows and doors shall be allowed in existing walls. (H) The second residential unit shall meet all applicable building and construction requirements set forth in Titles 14 and 17, the zoning requirements of Title 25, and any 198
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 12 quantifiable, objective conditions and/or constraints related to design review pursuant to development entitlements previously approved for the subject property. (I) No more than one second residential unit shall be permitted on a single lot. At no time shall a lot contain a second residential unit and a guest house or guest room concurrently. (J) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided on-site for a second residential unit, with the exception of low- or moderate-income second residential units as set forth in subsections (R) and (S). The required parking space may be uncovered and located anywhere on the building site, provided that it shall not be located closer than five feet to a side property line or within a required on-site turnaround area. (K) The main residence shall comply with the parking regulations set forth in Chapter 25.52, or other such applicable regulations, and shall have no less than two covered parking spaces at the time a second residential unit is developed/established. (L) A lot on which a second residential unit is proposed shall abut and have the right to the use of a street improved to the standards of design set forth in Chapter 21.12. A paved turnaround area or a device that enables motor vehicles to head into the street shall be provided in compliance with Section 25.53.004(C) whenever a second residential unit is proposed on any lot fronting on an arterial or a primary residential collector street. (M) A second residential unit shall utilize the same vehicular access that serves the main residence. If the lot abuts an alley or is a “through lot” or a “corner lot” as defined in Section 25.08.022, access for both the main residence and the second residential unit shall be limited to one point or side of the lot for both dwelling units. The driveway approach or access ramp serving both residences shall be no more than twenty feet wide (excluding the driveway apron, if required) unless it is wider than twenty feet prior to the establishment of a second residential unit, in which case it shall not be widened further. (N) The building site coverage limitation shall include all structures, including the main residence, the second residential unit, garages, etc. The totality of the structure(s) on the lot shall not exceed the allowable building site coverage specified in the zone in which the second residential unit is proposed.
(O) New second residential units shall not be attached to any historic structure listed on the Historic Register, unless provided by state law.
(P) The addresses of both the main residence and second residential unit shall be clearly visible from the street.
(Q) A second residential unit shall not be rented for less than thirty days, and shall not be converted at any time to short-term lodging pursuant to Chapter 25.23, as otherwise allowed in the R-1 zone.
(R) All city building, planning, and zoning fees shall be refunded at the time of building permit finalization for the development of any second residential unit that the property owner limits by deed restriction, covenant and/or other instrument satisfactory to the City, to occupancy by low-income households for a minimum of fifty-five years, based on the income limits and applicable rental rates established annually by the state of California. 199
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 13 As an additional incentive, no parking shall be required for low-income second residential units, provided that the main residence complies with subsection (J). The City may impose conditions and penalties for noncompliance with the affordability restrictions, and such conditions may include monitoring and reporting requirements.
The deed restriction, covenant and/or other instrument shall be approved by the city attorney prior to recordation, and such restrictions shall not be amended or removed without the prior approval of the city council.
(S) Fifty percent of all City building, planning, and zoning fees shall be refunded at the time of building permit finalization for the development of any second residential unit that the property owner limits by deed restriction, covenant and/or other instrument satisfactory to the City, to occupancy by moderate-income households for a minimum of fifty-five years, based on the income limits and applicable rental rates established annually by the state of California. As an additional incentive, no parking shall be required for second residential units, provided that the main residence complies with subsection (J). The city may impose conditions and penalties for noncompliance with the affordability restrictions, and such conditions may include monitoring and reporting requirements.
The deed restriction, covenant and/or other instrument shall be approved in form and content by the City attorney prior to recordation, and such restrictions shall not be amended or removed without the prior approval of the City Council. (Ord. 1670 § 3, 2022; Ord. 1590 § 1, 2014; Ord. 1570 § 1, 2012; Ord. 1427 § 1, 2003). 200
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 14
HISTORY OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
The brief historic context of the area was adapted from the existing Laguna Beach Historic Resources Element4:
“Elmer Jahraus came to Laguna from Santa Ana in 1903 to open a cigar factory and curio shop in the lower floor of the Yoch Hotel. In 1912, his son, Joe Jahraus, started a lumberyard on upper Ocean Avenue, which enabled the community to grow at unprecedented rates.
Prior to the lumberyard, construction materials were hauled by mule down Laguna Canyon, or were floated in on the tide from boats - usually the schooner Emma. The third school was built on Park Avenue in 1908 on the site of an old cemetery. This two-room school was still in use in 1926, when it was moved down the hill to its present location on Legion Street, where it is used as Legion Hall.
By 1920 Laguna Beach had gained distinction as an art colony and popular vacation spot.
The building boom that took place in Southern California in the 1920s hit Laguna as well.
Laguna also became a destination point for the movie industry. This created a demand for hotel lodging for film crews and actors, and some of the stars even bought homes for themselves in Laguna Beach. With the increase in summer visitors, the demand for permanent residents to provide services for vacationers also increased. More and more beach cottages began to be built, and those who had previously been seasonal residents began to make Laguna Beach their permanent home. All manner and style of housing began to be erected in what was almost an “anything goes” atmosphere with very lax building requirements. During this period, the Craftsman style, was very popular around the region and was utilized in all sizes of construction. The Craftsman style was a derivative of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which spread across Europe and the United States. It was a back-tonature life-style movement resulting from a reversion from the Machine Age and the Industrial Revolution. The Craftsman style of architecture was an organic design intended to visually anchor homes to the ground and to create a design that was harmonious with the natural setting, much like a mushroom popping out of the ground. The vast majority remaining are in the mid-sized bungalow category, which are humble interpretations of the Craftsman bungalow style set forth by the architects Charles and Henry Greene of Pasadena.
The Bungalow style was derived from housing constructed for British residents in India, designed to maximize comfort in a hot climate. Almost every house built in Laguna Beach prior to 1927 had its roots in the Craftsman tradition. Greene and Greene designed large Craftsman style houses for the very wealthy, but the designs for a wide variety of smaller, more affordable Craftsman homes were readily available in catalogs throughout the country.
Those, however, which were built economically and had the least resemblance to a prevailing architectural trend, were simply beach cottages. So many of these structures still exist today that they make up an architectural category in and of themselves”.
The subject property is Craftsman style cottage that was constructed in 1925. An original building permit was not available. Therefore, the architect, if any, and builder remain unknown, and it appears the residence is not the work of a master architect and builder. The subject property has been altered outside the period of significance for Craftsman-style building. In 2018, the subject property underwent a major renovation. The project included the addition of a 202-square-foot garage, a 293- square-foot upper-level addition, a 273-square-foot lower-level addition that converted the extant garage space into living space, grading for crawl space access, skylights in the roof, air conditioning 4 City of Laguna Beach, “Historic Resources Element,” Originally Adopted July, 1981, amended August 11, 2020. 201
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 15 unit, fire sprinklers, and perimeter fencing. Based on a visual inspection, the subject property was also altered with the replacement of updated windows and doors that are visible from the public ROW. The second-floor windows appear to have been replaced with vinyl tilt-up windows that include glued-on wood inserts to give the appearance of window muntins. The primary entryway door and window also appear to be replacements. The picture window is a vinyl replacement. The window and door replacement appear to have been added over the course of time and are not associated with the 2018 renovation. Based on a review of the permit record and visual inspection, the subject property has been substantially altered outside the period of significance. However, in 2008, the subject property was listed in the City Historic Register as a “K”-rated property. Alterations to the primary façade including the porch, picture window, and entry door were completed prior to the inclusion of the subject property on the City Historic Register in 2008. Thus, for the purpose of this MFR, the subject property is a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Projects that meet the SOIS are considered to be mitigated to the level of less than significant (Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines) and may qualify for a Class 31 Categorical Exemption.
DESIGN REVIEW
The property owner wishes to construct a cantilevered ADU that measures 32 feet by 16 feet tall.
The cantilevered design will include a 2-bedroom unit that measures approximately 999 square feet.
The height and square footage of the proposed project meets the building requirements for ADUs in the City.
The SOIS5regarding new construction and additions to a historical resource recommends that the addition and construction of new additions result in in the least possible loss of historic materials so that the character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed. The cantilevered design of the proposed ADU will not obscure the character-defining features of the primary façade nor will it obscure the view of the building from the public ROW. Based on a visual inspection of the subject property, character-defining features located on the primary façade include the steep-pitched crossgabled roof, picture window, trellis, and primary entryway door (Figures 2A–B, Primary Façade).
Figure 2A. Primary Façade (view west)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2022
5 National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm 202
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 16 Figure 2B. Primary Façade (view southwest)
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2022
As is, the subject property is set back from the public ROW approximately 50 feet and is not clearly visible. A privacy hedge obscures character-defining features almost completely (Figures 3A–B). In 2018, the subject property was renovated. Based on a visual inspection, the primary entry door and vinyl picture window are replacements. Based on correspondence with the property owner, the picture window and door were extant upon purchase of the subject property in 2007. A review of the City building permit record did not reveal a date the door and window alteration was completed.
Figure 3A. View of the Subject Property Obscured by Privacy Hedge (view west) SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2022
203
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 17 Figure 3B. View of the Subject Property Obscured by Privacy Hedge and Set Back, (view west); red arrow points to subject property
SOURCE: Google Earth, 2022
The SOIS do not recommend “Duplicating the exact form, material, style, and detailing of the historic building in a new addition so that the new work appears to be historic.” 6 The proposed project does
not aim to replicate the subject property in form, material, and style. The cantilevered design will be differentiated from the subject property.
The SOIS recommend new construction projects “retain the historic relationship between buildings and landscape features in the setting.”
7 Additionally, the SOIS highlight preserving the relationship between adjacent buildings and landscape features. The proposed project will not substantially impact the setting of the neighborhood. The subject property is the only known resource located on Chiquita Street and is not clearly visible to pedestrians traveling north and south along Pacific Coast Highway. The distance from Pacific Coast Highway to the subject property is approximately 240 feet to the south. Additionally, the subject property is not clearly visible from Hillcrest Drive to the north.
The distance from Hillcrest Drive to the subject property is approximately 298 feet. Additionally, the subject property is set further back than the adjacent residences to the north and south. The average setback of residential properties located on Chiquita Street, from north to south is 20 feet. The addition of the proposed ADU will not protrude beyond adjacent residential buildings to the north and south of the subject property. The addition will not result in a visual impact to the linear massing of the block. Therefore, the proposed ADU will not result in a direct visual impact to the setting of the neighborhood and would not disrupt the spatial relationship between adjacent buildings and landscape features. The residences located on Chiquita Street do not represent a cohesive architectural style, therefore would not merit a potential designation as a historic district.
The SOIS also recommend that “Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.” The subject property is zoned R-2 and can accommodate an additional building. The proposed project will not encroach or be appended to in any way to the existing building located on the subject property. Therefore, the physical structure and design characteristics will not be altered. Therefore, the subject property will remain in its original location and remain utilized as single-family residence. Therefore, the subject property will remain a physical record if its time, place, and use. The addition of the ADU will be differentiated from the subject property and will not aim to create a false sense of historical 6 National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm 7 National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm 204
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 18 development. The proposed project will not add features or elements from the subject property or surrounding properties.
Finally, the SOIS state: “New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.”
8 The proposed ADU would not result in a permanent
fixture and if needed could be removed at any time at the property owner’s discretion.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project located at 238 Chiquita Street complies with the SOIS and will not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource. The proposed project meets the State and City requirements for ADUs in terms of size, scale, massing, and placement. All aspects of the proposed project comply with the SOIS and will not result in the loss of historic materials so that the characterdefining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed. The proposed project will not obscure the view of the building from the public ROW. The project will not replicate the subject property building in form, material, and style. The proposed project will not be appended to the subject property. Therefore, the physical structure and design characteristics will not be altered, and the subject property will remain in its original location and remain utilized as single-family residence.
The project will preserve the historic relationship between buildings and landscape features in the setting in addition. Therefore, the project will not result in a substantial negative impact to the setting of the neighborhood. The cantilevered design will be differentiated from the subject property.
Finally, the proposed ADU would not result in a permanent fixture and if needed could be removed at any time at the property owner’s discretion. The proposed project has been evaluated against the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67) and the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and is considered to be mitigated to below the level of significance as defined in Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Should there be any questions regarding the contents of this MFR, or should additional information be required, please contact Mr. Scott Torres at (626) 683-3547, extension 115. 8 National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm
205
Design Review for the Project located at 238 Chiquita Street Memorandum for the Record January 6, 2023 Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
W:\Projects\2751\2751-001\Memos\MFR1_ Design Review_238 Chiquita Street 20230106.docx Page 19
REFERENCES
California Department of Housing and Development. December 2020. “Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook.”
City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code. 25.45.010
City of Laguna Beach, “Historic Resources Element,” Originally Adopted July 1981, amended August 11, 2020.
National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm 206
ATTACHMENT A
KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES
207
Carrie E. Chasteen, MS
Cultural Resources Manager
Master of Science (Historic
Preservation), School of the
Art Institute of Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois, 2001
Bachelor of Arts (History and
Political Science), University
of South Florida, Tampa,
Florida, 1997
• Cultural resources
management and legal
compliance
• History of California
• Identification and
evaluation of the built
environment
• Archival documentation
• Historic preservation
consultation
Years of Experience: 20+
• Oregon Transportation
Investment Act (OTIA) III
CS3 Technical Lead
• Chair, Historic
Preservation Commission,
City of Pasadena
• Design Commission, City
of Pasadena
• Phi Alpha Theta
• Extensive experience
documenting and
evaluating parks and
recreational facilities
• Extensive experience in
the City of Riverside
Ms. Carrie Chasteen has more than 20 years of experience in the field of cultural resources and the built environment, including project management, agency coordination, archival research, managing large surveys, preparation of compliance reports, preparation of Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) sections, peer review, and regulatory compliance. She meets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the fields of History and Architectural History.
Ms. Chasteen has served as Principal Investigator / Principal Architectural Historian on projects in Kern, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Imperial, and San Diego Counties in Southern California. She has experience in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Illinois, Florida, West Virginia, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. She has extensive experience with the California Office of Historic Preservation, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, the City of Los Angeles, and various state, county, and local government agencies.
On behalf of the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), Ms. Chasteen managed the documentation and evaluation of 54 parks, golf courses, and arboreta. The historic evaluations assess County facilities that were identified as priorities due to the age of the facility, architect of record, or affiliation with event of importance to the history of development of Los Angeles County. The historic evaluations consider eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the County Register of Landmarks and Historic Districts, and standards provided in CEQA. The results were used by the County DPR to address future projects in the facilities, alter plans as needed, and to inform a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan (CRTP) and Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training. She also provided consultation services for the Arcadia County Park Pool and Bathhouse Replacement Project, which included documenting and evaluating the park as a historic district for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Because the park was found to be eligible for listing in both registers, Ms. Chasteen provided additional consultation services to ensure the replacement pools and bathhouse were in
compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in order to minimize potential impacts to the historic district.
Additional experience includes preparing Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS / HAER) documentation for the former Caltrans District 7 headquarters building, Roosevelt Annex at the California Veterans’ Home in Yountville, and the Space Flight Operations Facility, commonly referred to a Mission Control, a National Historic Monument, at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena.
208
Scott E. Torres, MA
Architectural Historian
Master of Arts, History,
California State University
Fullerton, Fullerton, CA,
2020
• History
• Architecture
• California History
• Historic Preservation
• Cultural Survey
Years of Experience: 3+
• Historic Resource
Documentation and
Evaluations for Sierra
Madre Ca, Hollywood,
San Marino, Ontario,
Fontana, Glendale, and
Los Angeles
• High Speed Rail
Construction Package 4
• Society of Architectural
Historians Member
Mr. Scott Torres has more than three years of experience in the field of historic research and writing, including primary and secondary source analysis, conducting oral history interviews, peer review, and editing.
Mr. Torres has served as a project architectural historian and conducted historic assessments in the Cities of Los Angeles, including Hollywood, San Marino, Los Angeles, Orange, and surrounding communities within Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Mr. Torres has conducted a historic resource evaluation of the Little Tokyo Towers as part of a historic resource assessment report in support of the Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources.
Additional resource assessments in Hollywood include early Craftsman residences and the Period Revival Bungalow Court Apartments associated with early development and the
entertainment industry. On behalf of the County of Los Angeles, Mr.
Torres provided research and documentation on unincorporated East LA’s Unique Theater, in support of its nomination for Historic Landmark designation. Mr. Torres has also provided historic documentation and literature review in support of the Los Angeles Music Center Electric Replacement Project; the project included an impact assessment regarding identified historic resources located within the music center campus. Additionally, Mr. Torres has conducted research in support of residential design reviews in the Cities of Glendale, San Marino, and Hollywood. Mr. Torres has also provided cultural resources support for the High-Speed Rail (HSR) Construction Package (CP) 4.
Mr. Torres has conducted Department of Parks and Recreation documentation and evaluations in support of site assessments in the Cities of Sierra Madre, Monrovia, Hollywood, Los Angeles, and Ontario. This work includes site photographs, database research, and map review.
Mr. Torres is a member of the Society of Architectural Historians. 209