Historic Resources Group 1 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review MEMO
TO: CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
ATTN: CHRISTIAN DOMINGUEZ, SENIOR PLANNER
FROM: LAURA JANSSEN, SR. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
DATE: JULY 12, 2023
Introduction
At the request of the City of Laguna Beach, Historic Resources Group (HRG) was asked to peer review an impacts analysis and design review for a proposed project at 238 Chiquita Street in the City of Laguna Beach prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. in January 2023.1 The purpose of this peer review is to determine if the Memorandum for the Record (MFR) prepared by Sapphos adequately analyzes the proposed project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards). This peer review includes an examination of the Sapphos MFR, review of the proposed project drawings by Keary & Associates, observation of the site, and additional review of building permits and property files, Sanborn fire insurance maps, historic aerials, and other primary and secondary sources.2 The proposed project consists of adding an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to the property.
Although not explicitly explained in the Sapphos memo, the proposed ADU would be located at the east end of the parcel between the east (primary) facade of the subject property and the street. The Sapphos MFR found the project would comply with state and local ADU regulations and conform with the Standards.
HRG concurs the project would comply with state and local ADU regulations; however, the Sapphos MFR provided insufficient information for an adequate project review and HRG found 1 “Design Review for the Project Located at 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651,” prepared by Sapphos
Environmental, Inc., January 6, 2023.
2 HRG conducted a site visit on June 1, 2023.
Attachment 8
210
Historic Resources Group 2 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review the project would not comply with the Standards.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
The subject property is a two-story Craftsman style single-family residence located in McKnight’s Addition of the Hillcrest neighborhood north of the village of Laguna. It was constructed in 1925-26 by owner-builder Nils Anderson. Anderson and his wife Anna purchased the property in 1925 and the residence was completed by 1926. Anderson’s obituary in 1950 noted he was born in Sweden and was a retired contractor and rancher. He built some of the first houses in Arch Beach and built the house on Chiquita Street when he and his wife moved to Laguna Beach permanently after living in Alta Loma and Pasadena.3 The property was sold to husband and wife Richard and Mary Rogan in 1963, and in 2007 the property was sold to current owner Jonathan Lukoff.4
The property was identified and evaluated as part of earlier historic resource survey efforts conducted by the City. The residence at 238 Chiquita Street was included in the City’s 1980-81 historic resources survey and was identified as a potential heritage property. It was listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Resources Inventory, adopted in December 1982, with a “K” rating.5 At the time the property was surveyed and added to the Inventory it was considered eligible for listing in the City’s Historic Register. In 2008 the property was listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register, and in 2009 the property owner entered into a Mills Act historic property contract with the city, which is an economic incentive program for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic buildings by private property owners. Listing in the local historic register qualifies the property as a historical resource in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).6
Because the property is listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register and has a Mills Act contract it is a presumptive historical resource and the impacts from a proposed project must be reviewed for compliance with nationally recognized preservation standards. The Standards provide guidance for reviewing proposed projects that may affect historic resources.7
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project consists of adding a two-story detached ADU to the property. No work is planned for the existing historic residence. The existing residence on the property is located at the rear of the parcel and the ADU is proposed to be located at the front of the parcel between the residence and the street. The total volume of the ADU is 32 feet in width by 20 feet in depth and 16 feet in height and equaling 999 square feet. As noted in the Sapphos MFR the ADU complies with the building requirements set forth for a two-bedroom ADU by the State of California and the City of Laguna Beach. The ADU will be placed 3 feet from the front porch and will be approximately 10 feet total from the east (primary) façade of the existing residence.
The east (primary) facade of the residence is approximately 20 feet wide at the east end and the 3 “Nils Anderson, 82, Pioneer Builder Here, Dies Friday,” South Coast News, January 24, 1950.
4 Chain of Title for 238 Chiquita Street prepared by Orange County Archives.
5 “City of Laguna Beach Historic Resources Inventory”
(Resolution No. 82.111), adopted December 21, 1982.
6 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(2),
https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf
(accessed June 2023).
7 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services,
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/ stand.htm. Accessed June 2023.
211
Historic Resources Group 3 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review new ADU will be 32 feet wide, so this indicates the ADU will be 12 feet wider than the existing residence. The parcel is approximately 40 feet wide and considering setbacks, there does not appear to be another location on the parcel to place the ADU. There are no measurements provided on the drawings for the height of the existing residence, but it appears it may be approximately 25 feet in height and the ADU will measure 16 feet in height. The ADU will be set back 4 feet from the north property line, 6 feet from the south property line, and 20 feet from the east property line (Chiquita Street); these are required setbacks.
The ADU will have a flat roof, horizontal siding and cement plaster details. There will be single light casement style and horizontal sliding windows. A portion of the second story will overhang the first story leaving an open void under south end of the second story. The first story will measure approximately 18 feet x 22 feet in plan and the second story, which will measure 32 feet x 22 feet in plan will overhang the first story by 16 feet towards the south. It is not clear from the drawings whether this will be a true cantilever or if it will have a support system.
The project proposes to remove the existing driveway at the north side of the parcel and replace it with a 4 foot wide walkway, and the driveway will be relocated to the south side of the parcel. The privacy hedge along the east property line will be removed. The drawings do not indicate the material of the driveway or walkway.
Peer Review Findings
This peer review was conducted to ensure that the impacts analysis of the subject property as presented by Sapphos is complete and accurate in order to determine if the proposed project is compliant with the Standards. The Sapphos MFR is written in a narrative report style format, and while it generally follows the accepted standard format for impacts analysis and Standards compliance, the report has some obvious omissions. HRG’s findings are addressed below following the format of the memo.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/IDENTIFICATION OF CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES The memo begins with the Project Description and Identification of Character-Defining Features. The Project Description is perfunctory at best and does not describe the project except to say that it meets the regulatory requirements for an ADU at the state and city level. It does not describe the location, setting, size, or materials of the project. In fact, nowhere in the memo does it describe where the ADU will be located on the parcel. (Please see project description as provided by HRG above.)
Identification of Character-Defining Features would benefit from a proper development history and architectural description prior to identifying features. There is no architectural description in the memo and there is a brief development history later in the memo. The features noted are only those that can be seen from the street, and the list is incomplete. There is a privacy hedge at the property line that partially blocks the view of the residence from the street; however, a hedge (even a fence) is ephemeral and should not determine what is and what is not character defining. The whole residence must be evaluated on its own merit and not just what can be observed from the street. A complete list of character-defining features would include:
212
Historic Resources Group 4 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review Two story massing
Asymmetrical composition
Irregular rectangular plan
Deep front yard setback
Front gable roof with two shed dormers flanking gable ridge and two gable dormers on south slope of roof
Horizontal louver attic vent in front gable
Open eaves with exposed rafters and fascia boards
Wood brackets under eaves
Horizontal wood siding
Window openings with flat wood casing and protruding sills Main entry with flat wood casing
Raised concrete stoop at main entry
Wood pergola spanning primary facade
REGULATORY SETTING
The Sapphos MFR provides the text for the State of California and City of Laguna Beach regulations for ADUs as set forth by the California Department of Housing and Development and Chapter 25.17 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, respectively. Unfortunately, neither of these regulations provides design guidelines for ADUs on historic properties. Sapphos also provides the City’s “Procedures for Alterations of a Historic Resource” from Chapter 25.45.010 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code; however, they fail to include a copy of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which are referenced in the first paragraph of the chapter, “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.” This is an significant oversight because the memo uses language from the Standards in their design review, and it is standard preservation practice to include a copy of the Standards with a brief explanation to inform the reader what the Standards are and how they will be applied. A link to the Standards is provided in a footnote in the Design Review section, but seeing as the memo is primarily reviewing the project against the Standards, it would have been advantageous to include them in the regulatory section. They are included below.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards) are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources.
While compliance with the Standards does not necessarily determine whether a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource, projects that comply with the Standards are presumed to have a less than significant adverse impact on a historic resource.8
Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
8 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(b)(3),
https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf
(accessed January 2023).
213
Historic Resources Group 5 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review Generally, a project that follows The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings
9 (Treatment Guidelines) shall be considered as
mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.
This section references the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and guidelines for four distinct historic treatments, including: (1) preservation; (2) rehabilitation; (3) restoration; and (4) reconstruction. The specific Standards and guidelines associated with each of these possible treatments are provided on the National Park Service’s website regarding the treatment of historic resources.10
For analytical purposes, a threshold decision must be made regarding which treatment Standards should be used to analyze a project’s potential effect on historic resources. The Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards (the Rehabilitation Standards) provide a more conservative impact analysis and account for the fact that the property will undergo alterations for its continued residential mixed use.
Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are as follows:
Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard 3: 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.
Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the 9 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, by Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer (1995), revised by
Anne E. Grimmer (Washington, DC: 2017),
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines2017.pdf. 10 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, “The Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards” and “The Treatment of Historic
Properties,” https://www.nps.gov/Tps/standards.htm.
214
Historic Resources Group 6 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Standard 10: 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.
HISTORY OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA
The memo copies text from the Laguna Beach Historic Resources Element to provide a brief background on the growth of Laguna and an explanation of its eclectic building stock, which is not necessary in a Standards compliance memo. The residence is already a historic resource, and the development history of the property is far more important, in this case.
The memo does provide some development history, but it is also incomplete. The residence was constructed in 1925 and there is no original building permit on file with the city, that is correct; however, it was reported in the South Coast News in 1950 that local contractor Nils Anderson was the owner-builder of the residence and the residence was constructed in 1925.11 In 1930, the paper reported he was issued a permit for an addition to the property valued at $2,000.12 This is likely the one-story addition at the rear of the house that is also shown on the 1948 Sanborn map. Historic aerial photographs from 1931 and 1947 also show the addition and show the massing and rooflines of the front portion of the house which looks much the same as it does today. Prior to the Anderson family selling the house in 1963, there was a permit issued for minor remodeling in 1961. The permit indicated the front door was replaced, the concrete stoop and porch were added, and the pergola was added over the porch.13 This indicates these items are not original to the residence; however, they were added to the residence over 60 years ago and have acquired significance in their own right.
In 1963, the new owner added a fence to the property,14 but there was no other permitted work until 2008. The current owner mentioned many of the windows had already been replaced when he purchased the property, so they were likely replaced sometime between 1963 and 11 “Nils Anderson, 82, Pioneer Builder Here, Dies Friday,” South Coast News, January 24, 1950.
12 “Permits in May Total $43,150,” South Coast News, June 27, 1930.
13 City of Laguna Beach Building Permit No. 17313 issued May 9, 1961.
14 City of Laguna Beach Building Permit No. 63-322 issued November 14, 1963.
215
Historic Resources Group 7 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review 2008 and without a permit clearance. However, it appears they were replaced in original window openings. In 2008, permits were issued to upgrade the electrical and for interior remodeling, no work was done to the exterior of the residence.15 The 2018 project which enlarged the garage and added the second story to the rear of the residence is adequately explained in the Sapphos MFR. The statement that “the subject property has been substantially altered outside the period of significance,” is not entirely accurate. The residence has been altered; however, a majority of the work was done to the interior or rear of the property, the street facing primary facade has not been substantially altered.
DESIGN REVIEW
While the Design Review section appears to be using the Rehabilitation Standards and Treatment Guidelines to determine whether the proposed project will be considered “mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource” it is not clearly organized and does not reference which Standards are being applied.
There are ten Rehabilitation Standards (as noted previously), most of them apply to work on historic properties, and two refer to additions to historic properties; however, that is not explained in the Sapphos MFR. In addition, the Treatment Guidelines are intended to provide general guidance for work on historic properties and assist in applying the Standards. The Guidelines provide methods and procedures that are consistent with the Standards. One supports the other and are not mutually exclusive. As the Sapphos MFR is written it goes back and forth between referencing the Standards and the Guidelines without explanation.
HRG concurs with portions of the design review including the view that the proposed ADU will be a compatible design and differentiated from the existing residence, that it will not impact the setting of the neighborhood because it will retain the required setback, and that it will be a stand-alone structure and not physically impact the existing residence.
However, the crux of the Sapphos design review is that the proposed ADU will meet the Standards because it will not obscure the view of the existing residence (a designated historic resource) as viewed from the street. The justification is that the existing privacy hedge already obscures the residence and the new ADU will similarly obscure it. HRG does not concur with this finding. As noted in the project description, the privacy hedge will be removed to enable the driveway to be relocated, and even if the privacy hedge were to remain it would not minimize the impact of the new construction on the existing residence because the ADU is over one-third wider than the existing residence and there would be minimal view sheds from the street. Currently the residence may be seen in its entirety when viewing it from the street from the northeast. This view will be obstructed with the addition of the new ADU. Even though the front facing gable and two windows of the residence may still be visible, this is less than half of the primary façade that would remain visible which will negatively affect the historic character of the residence.
15 City of Laguna Beach Building Permit No. BP08-00111
issued January 23, 2008 and Permit No. BP08-00371 issued March 7, 2008.
216
Historic Resources Group 8 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review In order to clarify the design review, HRG will evaluate the project against the Rehabilitation Standards as follows:
Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
The existing residence at 238 Chiquita Street will continue to be used as a single-family residence. The property will remain residential. The project meets Standard 1.
Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
Because the detached ADU is proposed to be placed in front of the existing residence it will alter the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. The existing residence was constructed at the rear of the parcel and has approximately a 50-foot setback from the street. Placing the ADU within the setback will remove a space that has been historically open since the residence was constructed in 1925. In addition, because the ADU will be located 10 feet from the existing residence it will obscure a majority of the view of the residence from the street. In the Chapter “New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings and Related New Construction,” the Treatment Guidelines recommend, “Constructing a new addition on a secondary or non-character defining facade and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building,” and “Constructing a new addition that results in the least possible loss of historic materials so that characterdefining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed.”16 The height of the new ADU will be lower than that of the existing residence and because it is not attached to the residence it will not remove any physical character-defining features; however, the close proximity of the ADU to the existing residence will obscure several features, including the porch and pergola, the main entry door, the fixed picture window, and because the ADU is wider than the existing residence oblique views of the residence will also be blocked. The Treatment Guidelines do not recommend, “Placing new construction too close to the historic building so that it negatively impacts the building’s character, the site, or setting.”17 The project will not meet Standard 2.
Standard 3: 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.
No conjectural features will be added to the existing residence, and it will remain physically unchanged. The new siding and fenestration of the ADU will not match those on the existing residence, thus no proposed new construction will create a false sense of historical 16 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, by Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer (1995), revised by
Anne E. Grimmer (Washington, DC: 2017), 156-162.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines2017.pdf 17 Ibid.
217
Historic Resources Group 9 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review development. The project meets Standard 3.
Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
As mentioned previously, the main entry door was replaced, and the concrete stoop and porch, and pergola on the east (primary) façade were added to the property in 1961. They have acquired significance in their own right. No physical changes will be made to these features; however, they will be obscured from the public right-of-way by the new ADU.
The project will not meet Standard 4.
Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
The project does not intend to remove or alter distinctive features or materials that characterize the property. The project does not propose to alter the existing residence on the property, which will remain intact. The project meets Standard 5.
Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
There are no character-defining features that need repair or replacement within the scope of this project. This Standard is not applicable to this project.
Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
The project does not propose chemical or physical treatments that might cause damage to historic materials. This Standard is not applicable to this project.
Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
The proposed project may include some shallow excavation for the ADU. If unexpected archaeological resources are found, they will be identified, protected, preserved, and/or documented in consultation with a qualified archaeologist. If these recommendations are followed the project will meet Standard 8.
Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
As noted above under Standard 2, the ADU will alter the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. The property has a 50-foot setback and needs to maintain a 218
Historic Resources Group 10 238 Chiquita Street, Laguna Beach | Peer Review 20-foot setback. The ADU is 22 feet in depth which seemingly allows 10 feet between the ADU and the residence; however, the porch and pergola measure 7 feet in depth, which in reality only allows for 3 feet between the ADU and the existing residence. The ADU is too large for the allowable building space and will be too close to the residence and it will block important views as seen from the public right-of-way and negatively affect the historic character of the residence. The project does not meet Standard 10.
Standard 10: 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.
The project proposes to add an ADU to the property; no work is proposed at the existing residence. The ADU will be located approximately 10 feet from the existing residence, and it will not physically touch the residence. If removed in the future will not negatively impact the historic character of the existing residence or property. The project meets Standard 10.
Conclusion
The single-family residence at 238 Chiquita Street was constructed in 1925 and is listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register. It is therefore a presumptive historical resource as defined by CEQA. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. reviewed a proposed project on the property for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. HRG was asked to peer review the Sapphos memo, which found the ADU addition would comply with the Standards. The project consists of adding a detached two-story ADU to the property in the existing setback between the residence and the street. Sapphos found the proposed project would meet state and local ADU requirements and that the addition of the ADU would comply with the Standards because it would not obscure the view of the residence from the public right-of-way. This peer review found that the Sapphos memo provided insufficient information for an adequate project review of the proposed project for conformance with the Standards.
HRG reviewed the proposed project and found the project would comply with state and local ADU regulations; however, it does not comply with the Standards because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without blocking the view of the existing historic residence from the public right-of-way. 219