1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Letter in opposition to May 13 appeal of CDP 2025-0148, 238 Chiquita From: Catherine
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 6:50 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Garibaldi, Megan AO <[email protected]>; Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]> Subject: Letter in opposition to May 13 appeal of CDP 2025-0148, 238 Chiquita Re: Agenda Item B, City Council Appeal Hearing, May 13, 2026 238 Chiquita, Denial for Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 To the City Council and staff of the City of Laguna Beach:
As the owner of 245 Cajon Street, I am writing to urge the Laguna Beach City Council to reject the appeal of the Design Review Board’s (“DRB”) denial of Coastal Development Permit 26-0148 for a detached ADU in front of the historic property located at 238 Chiquita Street.
Our home of 26 years is located across the alley behind, and one lot uphill from, the applicant’s property. Therefore, I am familiar with the conditions currently present on the property, and the evolving and increased size of the historical structure at 238 Chiquita.
In the staff report for this matter, City staff has provided a comprehensive description of the complex interaction between the various state and local laws governing this particular application. Based on my own experience as a municipal law attorney, I believe staff has fairly addressed and refuted all the arguments made in the applicant’s appeal. I will not attempt to duplicate staff’s herculean efforts here.
Besides the concerns noted by staff and the findings made by the DRB in denying this application, I have three primary areas of concern with this proposed project.
1. The Proposed ADU Structure Will Effectively Eliminate the Only Remaining Public View of a Registered Historic House From the Public Right of Way.
The owner of 238 Chiquita is party to a contract with the City of Laguna Beach to preserve the historic character of the property, and that contract is enforceable independent of the state laws governing ADUs. The owner was under no obligation to place his property on the City of Laguna Beach’s Historic Register, or to enter a Mills Act contract. He proactively chose to do so after he purchased the property. He did this, presumably, because of the significant benefits that the Mills Act contract offers, including reduced property taxes. Essentially, the public subsidizes the owners of Mills Act properties in return for the public being able to see well-maintained historic structures in their city. Without a public benefit, the contract would lack a valid public purpose.
The ability for the public to see historic elements of this structure has already been reduced since the owner entered his Mills Act contract. Prior to 2013, our home looked across the alley at the original back of 238 Chiquita, with its vintage windows and structural features. After the initial application for the 2013 remodel of 238 Chiquita was denied by the DRB, the then-City Council, on appeal, remanded the project to the DRB for approval. The applicant then negotiated with his adjacent uphill neighbor and the DRB, leveraged the 2 historic designation of the house, and a new expansion at the rear of the house was approved and constructed.
The 2013 expansion extended construction along the property line between 238 and 248 Chiquita. There is now no open setback along that portion of the property line. It also created a new second-story addition at the rear of the property. The 2013 expansion removed the vintage rear windows and original rear façade. Now, other than still having a high, pitched roofline at the rear, no historic elements can be seen from the public right of way along the Chiquita/Cajon alley.
This means that the only remaining benefit the public receives in exchange for the reduced property tax and other advantages conferred on the owner by his Mills Act contract is an unimpaired view of the structure from the public right of way on Chiquita Street.
If the proposed ADU is approved at the front of the property, the public’s view of the historic home behind it will be eliminated, or so severely changed and eroded as to be functionally eliminated. The context elevations submitted by the applicant illustrate the front elevation straight on, from a mid-building height. This does not reflect what a pedestrian would see from the street level. (Story poles would have allowed us to asses what the remaining front view from street level would be, but the applicant refused to install them.) Being able to see some small portion of the peaked roofline peeking out from behind a twostory box is not comparable to the current unimpeded public view of the front of the historic home and its spatial location with the street. A small portion of peaked roofline is presumably not all the City was trying to preserve when it entered the Mills Act contract for this property.
The owner cannot have it both ways; either this is a historic property that contributes to the public views from Chiquita, or it is no longer a protected historic property because the public gains no benefit from it. If any ADU is approved that further erodes, reduces, or eliminates the remaining public view of the historic home, all benefits of the historic designation should be rescinded from the property, and the owner should be found to be in violation of his Mills Act contract with all the penalties that entails.
2. The Proposed ADU Structure Exceeds the Permitted Lot Coverage of the Site.
One reason the house at 238 Chiquita has such a large front yard is that the home is built right up to a portion of the rear lot line at the alley, and right up to a portion of the uphill lot line. The owner may continue to assert that the area at the front of the lot is “buildable,” but the area he wishes to build on is available in part because the current house already covers side and rear setback areas other homes in Laguna Beach must leave open. This rear massing already impacts neighboring properties. When the DRB approved the 2013 addition at the back of the house, it stated that the approved expansion represented the maximum amount of building program that could be allowed at this property while the current structure remains in place. Having leveraged the benefit of his historic structure and DRB approval in 2013 in a way that cannot be undone, the applicant now seeks to undermine the balanced deliberations of the 2013 DRB decision and cover even more of his lot with new construction.
3. Without Story Poles, Impacts on Public Views of Scenic Coastal Resources Cannot Be Assessed by the Public.
Independent of the impact the proposed ADU would have on the public’s view of a historic resource, the proposed ADU could also impact public views of coastal resources from the public rights of way. State law provides limited grounds for denying ADU permits in a non-historic setting, and obstructing views of coastal 3 resources from the public right of way in the Coastal Zone are among those grounds for denial. Staff has examined the applicant’s plans and the setting, and determined that public views of coastal resources would, in fact, be impeded by this project.
I would like to be able to say that I can independently confirm whether the proposed structure would impair views of the ocean, coastline, or undeveloped hills from Chiquita Street, the Pacific Coast Highway, or Hillcrest Drive. I cannot definitively do so, however, because the owner of 238 Chiquita refused to install story poles. Therefore, I must defer to Community Development staff’s greater expertise in this area and give deference to their determination.
Story poles would have allowed all of us to see the outline and location of the proposed ADU structure. I did not object last year to a different two-story ADU at the back of a property across the street from our property on Cajon Street. This was because the owner installed story poles and I could see that, while it impacted neighboring private views, that project’s location did not appear to impact any public view of coastal resources from a public right of way.
In the absence of story poles delineating this project, the Council should adopt staff’s analysis and deny the project based on impacts to public views of coastal resources.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Catherine Wolcott
245 Cajon Street