Laguna Beach City Council
May 13, 2026

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

May 13, 2026
APPEAL
B
SUBJECT: 238 CHIQUITA STREET: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0148 FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE R-2, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ZONE AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET, AND FINDING THAT

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO

PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 and the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S DENIAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2026-0148 FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE R-2, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM

DENSITY ZONE, AND DETERMINING THAT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE DISAPPROVED ”, upholding the Design Review Board’s denial of Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148, and finding the denial of the Project exempt from CEQA.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Jonathan Lukoff (“Applicant”), property owner of 238 Chiquita Street (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2026-0148 for a detached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) with excess building site coverage (the “Project”).

On February 23, 2026, the Heritage Committee (“Committee”) held a public meeting to consider the Project and provide a recommendation to the Design Review Board (“Board”). The Committee evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on neighborhood compatibility, view impact concerns, the Property’s Mills Act contract1, and the Project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (“SOIS”). Following discussion, the Committee voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board deny the Project based on incompatibility with the SOIS and a conflict with Section 3b of the Applicant’s Mills Act contract with the City. (The February 23, 2026 Transcript is attached as Attachment 2.)
1 A Mills Act contract requires a property owner to preserve, maintain, and where necessary restore the property and its characterdefining features. Further, it requires any and all changes to comply with applicable City regulations and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Mills Act contract is automatically renewed on an annual basis on March 24th. If the Mills Act contract is canceled due to the owner’s failure to comply with the terms of the contract, the owner shall pay a fee to the County Auditor a cancelation fee of 12.5% of the current fair market value of the property.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

On February 26, 2026, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project. During the hearing, the Board evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on neighborhood compatibility, view impact concerns, the Property’s Mills Act contract, and the Project’s compliance with the SOIS. After considering all public testimony on the proposed Project and all documents and evidence submitted, the Board voted 4-0 (Bauta absent) to direct staff to revise the draft resolution presented with the staff report to reflect the additional reasons stated by the Board in support of the Project denial, and continued the public hearing to March 12, 2026. (The February 26, 2026 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 3 through 6, respectively.) Project revisions or possible modifications were not explored during this meeting as the Applicant vacated chambers midway through the Board’s deliberations.

On March 12, 2026, the Board considered the revised draft Resolution. The Board received public testimony from the Applicant’s attorney, contending that the denial of the application would be “legally problematic” and requesting that the Board remand the matter to the Community Development Director for ministerial processing. The Board also heard testimony from neighbors and their representatives encouraging the Board to adopt the resolution denying the Project. After considering all evidence and public testimony, the Board found that the draft resolution attached to the staff report accurately and completely incorporated the Board’s direction from the prior hearing and voted 3-0 (Bauta abstaining and Coveny absent) to adopt Resolution No. 2026-0148 to deny the Project (the “Board Denial”). (The March 12, 2026 Staff Report, Public Comments, Transcript, and Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0148 are attached as Attachments 11 through 14, respectively.)
On March 18, 2026, Edwin Keseil (the “Appellant”), the attorney representing the Applicant, filed a notice of appeal of the Board Denial (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 13). The Appellant contends that the Board’s denial is factually and legally unsupported, citing errors in the findings related to neighborhood compatibility and historic resource analysis. The Appeal further asserts that the project qualifies for ministerial approval under State ADU Law, that the City misapplied Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program standards, and that the application should be deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act. The Appellant also raises concerns regarding CEQA and alleges that the denial constitutes an unconstitutional taking. To facilitate the City Council’s consideration of this matter, this agenda report provides an overview of the City Council appeal procedures; the Board’s public hearings; and City staff’s responses to the Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal.

LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the May 13, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 16).

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all CDP decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.3 (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion.” (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”

1. Coastal Development Permit and CEQA
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit and CEQA. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board.

The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.

In its consideration of the Board’s denial of CDP 2026-0148 and the finding that CEQA does not apply to projects that are disapproved, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.

2. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Denial, and finding that CEQA does not apply to projects that are disapproved;

2. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Denial, with findings in support of overturning the Board Denial, approving the Project, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction), subject to conditions; and

3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding CDP 2026-0148 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board, which may include direction to staff to initiate the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA. 3 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has "not proceeded in the manner required by law"; (2) the City "decision is not supported by the findings"; or (3) the "findings are not supported by the evidence." (Civil Code § 1094.5.) APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

BACKGROUND
A. The State ADU Law
Under the “State ADU Law” (codified at Government Code § 66310, et seq.), an “ADU is defined to mean “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66313(a).) An ADU must contain “permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” (Id.) A city is authorized to “provide for the creation of ADUs in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use” by way of ordinance. (Gov. Code Section 66314.) Any ordinance governing the creation of an ADU must provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of ADUs and must not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those ADUs, except as otherwise allowed by the State ADU Law. (Gov. Code Section 66316.) A permit application for an ADU or JADU must be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or hearing. (Gov. Code Section 66317.) Notwithstanding the above provisions, the State ADU Law does not supersede or alter the application of the Coastal Act, except that a city is not required to hold a public hearing on coastal development permit applications for ADUs:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units. (Gov. Code Section 66329 [emph. added].) Under this provision, and as discussed further below, the City imposes the provisions of its certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) as it relates to ADUs.

B. The City’s ADU Ordinance
In recent years, the Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, numerous bills that amended the State ADU Law to impose new limits on local authority to regulate accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Notwithstanding this legislation, as stated above, State ADU Law provides that it “shall not be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act of 1976. . . .” (Gov. Code § 66329.) The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) ADU Handbook advises that State ADU Law applies in the coastal zone, but “do[es] not necessarily alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies.” Accordingly, HCD opines, a local government could, for example, impose stricter setback or parking standards in the coastal zone “if required by a local [c]oastal [p]rogram.” (HCD’s July 2022 ADU Handbook, at pgs. 15-16, 27-28.)5
5 HCD’s ADU Handbook is authorized by Gov. Code § 66327, which provides that HCD may “review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section.” The ADU Handbook is available at the following location:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

The City’s regulations governing the approval of ADUs and JADUs are provided in the City’s LCP, specifically Chapter 25.17 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. On November 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1665, which identified self-contained accessory dwelling units as subject to the coastal development permit application process. On September 7, 2023 LCP5-LGB-22-0003-3 Part B (Coastal Development Permits) was certified by the Coastal Commission. The City updated Chapter 25.17 to comply with State ADU Law via LCP Amendment No. 21-8239, which was certified by the Coastal Commission on September 7, 2023.

In 2024, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 2533 (“AB 2533”) and Senate Bill 1211 (“SB 1211”), which further amended State ADU Law and came into effect on January 1, 2025. Below is an overview of the City Council’s most recent actions relating to its requirements for ADUs and JADUs, in part, in response to AB 2533 and SB 1211:
• On December 10, 2024, the City Council found that there was a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1707. • On January 14, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1709 extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1707 and implementing certain modifications to Chapter 25.17 and directed staff to consider additional modifications.
• On March 11, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1713, implementing additional minor modifications to Chapter 25.17.
• On March 25, 2025, the City adopted non-urgency Ordinance No. 1715 to mirror the ADU and JADU requirements reflected in Urgency Ordinance No. 1713. The City also submitted Ordinance No. 1715 to the Coastal Commission for certification.

Based on the number of pending ADU applications (approximately 24 as of December 10, 2024) within the City, the City implemented a policy that applications filed before 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under LCP Amendment No. 21-8239 and applications filed after December 10, 2024 are subject to the objective design standards and Coastal Act implementing standards in effect under the City’s existing urgency ordinance.7 Accordingly, LCP Amendment No. 21-8329 applies to this Project as it was filed before 5:00 pm on December 10, 2024.

B. The City’s Coastal Development Permits Ordinance
In order to approve a CDP, the reviewing body must find that the project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program (LBMC Section 25.07.012(F)) and thereafter make the requisite findings (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G)). Amongst other things, this requires findings that the “proposed development will not adversely affect . . . coastal scenic resources and that the proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.” (LBMC Section

25.07.012(F) (3) and (6), CDP Finding 1, Criteria No. 3.) 7 On April 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25.020 ratifying this policy.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

While a CDP that is the sole required entitlement may be approved or denied by the Director (LBMC Section 25.07.012(D)(1)), the Project was appropriately reviewed by the Board due to the proposed building site coverage exceeding the maximum permitted. Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.12.008(C)(9), lots improved with one single-family dwelling are subject to maximum building site coverage standards, and “[t]he building site coverage may be modified by the design review board when it is necessary to preserve views or to maintain neighborhood development patterns.” Because the proposed ADU resulted in the building site coverage exceeding the maximum, Board consideration was required to evaluate whether such excess could be supported through the necessary findings related to view preservation and neighborhood compatibility.

Accordingly, the Board was the appropriate reviewing authority for the Project.

DISCUSSION
The Board held a public hearing on February 26, 2026 and directed staff to amend the draft resolution presented with the staff report to reflect the additional reasons stated by the Board in support of the Project denial. On March 12, 2026, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2026-0148 to deny the Project. A summary of the Public hearings is set forth below.9
A. February 23, 2026 Heritage Committee Hearing

1. Staff Presentation
Staff summarized the Project history and proposed construction of a 799-square-foot, two-story detached ADU located in front of a historic residence subject to an active Mills Act contract. Staff explained that while the Project complies with objective ADU development standards, including height, setbacks, and maximum size, it requires a CDP and Board consideration due to excess building site coverage.

Staff outlined the Project’s evolution through multiple design iterations and noted differing historic evaluations, explaining that the Applicant’s consultant (Sapphos) found the Project consistent with the SOIS. Staff further clarified that the City’s consultant (HRG) was initially retained to peer review the Sapphos analysis and later to evaluate the revised design, who concluded that the proposed ADU would adversely impact the historic resource by impairing its visibility and spatial relationship to the site. Staff stated that HRG reaffirmed this conclusion for the current design.

Staff further explained that although the project is not subject to full design review, the Board must make findings to allow increased building site coverage, specifically related to preservation of views and neighborhood compatibility. Staff noted that a staking plan was requested to evaluate visual impacts, but the Applicant declined to provide one. Staff indicated that the item was being brought forward for Heritage Committee recommendation and subsequent Board action.
9 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

2. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, two individuals provided public testimony. The Applicant was not present for this meeting. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 2]
Page Nos.

Mark Lewis He stated opposition to the proposed ADU, citing impacts to private views, light, and air from the adjacent property at 248 Chiquita Street.

He stated that prior approvals for expansions to the existing residence were understood to represent the maximum development potential of the site, and he argued that the current proposal constitutes an overintensification of the property. He raised concerns regarding the scale, massing, and forward placement of the ADU, asserting that it would obstruct both private and public views, including views of the ocean and the historic residence from the public right-of-way. He further contended that the proposed structure was incompatible with the historic character of the property and surrounding neighborhood.

Pg. 5-6 of 16
Melanie Lewis She stated opposition to the proposed ADU, emphasizing the importance of preserving the unique character of Laguna Beach, including view, light, and open space. She stated that the proposed structure would significantly impact the only available view corridor from her property, resulting in loss of light, air, and ocean views. She raised concerns regarding the scale and placement of the ADU, asserting that it would negatively affect both private and public views and diminish neighborhood character. She further emphasized the value of maintaining existing community patterns and respecting neighboring properties, noting the long-term residency and collective efforts within the neighborhood to preserve views and compatibility.

Pg. 6-7 of 16

3. Committee Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
[Attachment
2] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Project Processing
and Background
Staff explained that the Applicant initially sought guidance in 2022–2023 and obtained a historic assessment from Sapphos supporting the Project. The City subsequently retained Historic Resources Group (HRG), which reached the opposite
conclusion. The current proposal represents the third design iteration. The Project required Board consideration due to excess building site coverage and must be acted upon within statutory timeframes under State ADU law. Staff confirmed that staking was requested but the Applicant declined to provide it. The City pg. 3-5 of 16
[Henry, Jurca]
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

proceeded with noticing the Project in order to continue processing within required timelines.

Zoning and Code
Applicability
Staff clarified that the application was submitted on November 8, 2024, and was therefore subject to the ADU regulations in effect at that time, prior to the adoption of the urgency ordinances.
pg. 2 of 16
[Henry]
Parking
Reconfiguration
Staff indicated that while the parking configuration changes, the driveway access itself was not substantially altered in a way that independently triggers Design Review. Staff explained that the existing garage would no longer function as a garage due to changes in access and would instead be used for storage. pg. 1-2 of 16
[Henry]
ADU
Categorization
Staff confirmed that the ADU was considered a detached
structure.
pg. 2-3 of 16
[Henry]
Project Compliance Staff confirmed that the project met objective ADU standards for height, setbacks, and size. However, the project exceeded allowable building site coverage and raised concerns regarding impacts to the historic resource based on HRG’s analysis. Staff explained that Board approval was required solely due to the excess building site coverage. The Board would need to
determine whether such modification is appropriate to preserve views and maintain neighborhood compatibility.
pg. 9-10 of 16
[Henry]
CDP
Considerations
Staff clarified that CDP findings focus on impacts to public views from public rights-of-way and impacts to publicly visible historic resources, rather than private views. Staff explained that private view impacts are not a basis for denial. However, impacts to public views and the visibility of the historic resource are valid considerations. Staff indicated that if the building site coverage was not being exceeded, the project could potentially be processed through a simplified CDP process.
pg. 9-10 of 16
[Henry]
Jurisdiction and
Process
Staff stated that because the property was subject to a Mills Act contract and was a designated historic resource, the Heritage Committee would still provide a recommendation to the
decision-maker, even if the Board was not the approval
authority. Staff clarified that since this is an ADU within the Coastal Zone, this project involved discretionary review due to the Coastal Development Permit, historic resource
considerations, and the building site coverage exception.

Pg.11-12 of 16
[Jurca]
Staff
Recommendation
Staff clarified that it was recommending that the Board deny the project.

Pg. 4 of 16
[Jurca]
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

4. Committee Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
2] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Incompatibility
with Historic
Resource and
Site Constraints
The Committee stated that while ADUs may be appropriate on some historic properties, the subject site cannot accommodate an ADU without compromising the historic residence. They
emphasized that the proposed location, massing, and two-story design would obscure the primary elevation and disrupt the spatial relationship between the structure and the street, which were key character-defining features.

Pgs. 7-9 of 16
(Henry,
Morgenlander,
Jurca,
Drucker,
Stordahl)
Impacts to
Public Views
and Mills Act
Intent
Raised concerns that the project would obstruct public views of both the historic resource and coastal views, undermining the public benefit associated with the Mills Act contract. Noted that preservation of visibility from the public right-of-way was integral to maintaining the historic character of the property.

Pgs. 7-9 of 16
(Henry,
Morgenlander,
Jurca,
Drucker,
Stordahl)
NonCompliance
with Historic
Preservation
Standards
Concurred with the City’s historic consultant (HRG) that the project did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, particularly those related to preserving spatial relationships and avoiding obstruction of historic resources. Also expressed concern that the Applicant’s historic analysis was incomplete and did not adequately identify character-defining features.

Pgs. 7-9 of 16
(Henry,
Morgenlander,
Jurca,
Drucker,
Stordahl)
Neighborhood
Compatibility
and Prior
Development
Context
Noted that the project would negatively affect surrounding properties through impacts to views, light, and neighborhood character, and referenced prior approvals indicating that the property may have already reached its maximum development potential.

Pgs. 7-9 of 16
(Henry,
Morgenlander,
Jurca,
Drucker,
Stordahl)
Unanimous
Opposition
Expressed unanimous opposition to the proposed project, concluding that it was fundamentally incompatible with the site, the historic resource, and applicable preservation standards.

Pgs. 7-9 of 16
(Henry,
Morgenlander,
Jurca,
Drucker,
Stordahl)

5. Committee Recommendation
Following the close of the public hearing, the Heritage Committee recommended denial of the Project to the Board based on incompatibility with Secretary of the Interior Standards 2 and 9 and a conflict with Mills Act Section 3b with a unanimous vote (5-0).

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

B. February 26, 2026 Board Hearing

6. Staff Report
The subject property is developed with a 2,499-square-foot, two-story single-family residence constructed in 1925 and designated on the City’s Historic Register and is subject to a Mills Act contract. The approximately 4,500-square-foot lot is located in the R-2 (Medium Density Residential) zone within the Coastal Zone and is characterized by a deep front setback of approximately 50 feet from Chiquita Street.

The Applicant proposes to construct a new 799-square-foot, two-story detached ADU with an integrated carport located between the historic residence and the public right-of-way, resulting in total building site coverage of approximately 48 percent, exceeding the maximum allowable 42.88 percent.

Figure 1: Aerial View of Project Site
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Figure 2: Site Photo
Figure 3: Context Elevation, with the proposed ADU shaded blue and the historic residence in the background
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

7. Staff Presentation
Staff summarized the project history and proposed development of a new 799-square-foot, two-story detached ADU located on a property developed with a designated historic residence subject to a Mills Act contract. Staff identified key issues for the Board’s consideration, including the project’s inconsistency with required CDP findings, exceedance of allowable building site coverage, and potential impacts to coastal scenic resources, neighborhood compatibility, and the integrity and visual setting of the historic resource.

Staff discussed the historic analysis prepared for the project, noting conflicting conclusions between the Applicant’s consultant and the City’s peer review consultant (HRG), and highlighted the HRG determination that the proposed ADU does not comply with the SOIS due to its siting and resulting view obstruction of the historic residence from the public right-of-way. Staff further noted that the proposed development would result in building site coverage exceeding the maximum allowed and that the required findings to permit such modification could not be made.

Staff acknowledged public comments received prior to the hearing, which raised concerns related to view impacts, neighborhood compatibility, and historic resource preservation. Staff also noted that the Heritage Committee recommended denial of the project. Based on the foregoing, staff recommended that the Board adopt a resolution denying Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148.

8. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.

MJ Coveny Met with the applicant and visited the subject property. p. 1 of 16 Jessica
Gannon
Visited the site. p. 1 of 16
Thomas
Gibbs
Visited the site and met with Mark and Melanie Lewis p. 1 of 16 Louis Weil Visited the site. p. 1 of 16
Imer Bauta Absent

9. Applicant Presentation
Jonathan Lukoff, property owner and Applicant, provided an overview of the project and responded to issues raised in the staff report. The Applicant stated that the Project had been revised over several years in response to City feedback and asserted that he had made substantial efforts to comply with applicable requirements. The Applicant emphasized that the proposed ADU is modest in size at 799 square feet and is consistent with State ADU law, which he believes requires ministerial approval of the Project.

The Applicant discussed the historic analyses prepared for the project, noting that his retained consultant, Sapphos Environmental, concluded that the proposed ADU complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Applicant expressed disagreement with the peer review conclusions in the HRG report, stating that the analysis relies on qualitative assessments of views and massing rather than objective standards. The Applicant asserted that the proposed design preserves a majority of views of the historic APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

residence and that portions of the existing structure, particularly the lower level, are not original to the historic resource.

The Applicant further stated that the property is located in the R-2 zone and is a buildable lot, and that construction of a secondary structure in the front portion of the Property is consistent with development patterns along the street. The Applicant indicated that the Project had been reduced in size from earlier iterations and described the current proposal as a one-bedroom, two-story structure designed to minimize impacts while maintaining development rights. The Applicant also expressed concerns regarding the review process, including differing direction provided by staff and consultants, and characterized the siting constraints as conflicting.

In conclusion, the Applicant requested that the Board approve the Project or allow modifications to the siting of the ADU, including potential placement within the front setback area, in order to comply with State law while addressing concerns related to views and historic resource impacts. (Attachment 6 [Transcript], pgs. 3-4 of 16).

10. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, five individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 6]
Page Nos.

Mark Lewis Expressed concerns that the proposed project is incompatible with the scale, character, and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, citing impacts to light, air, and views from adjacent properties. He stated that the property has previously undergone extensive review and development, resulting in an approved expansion that was understood to represent the maximum allowable development for the site, and asserted that the proposed ADU exceeds that capacity. He raised concerns regarding consistency with the property’s Mills Act contract and historic preservation requirements, noting that the proposed ADU would obscure key features of the historic residence and conflict with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, as identified in the historic consultant’s analysis. He referenced findings from prior and current historic reports indicating that the size, massing, and proximity of the ADU would block views of the residence from the public right-of-way and negatively affect its historic character. He further asserted that the proposed structure would obstruct public views, including views of the historic residence and coastal views along Chiquita Street, and would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood context due to its massing and placement. He concluded that the project represents overdevelopment of the site and urged denial of the application.
p. 5 of 16
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Melanie Lewis Expressed concerns that the proposed project is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the City’s emphasis on preservation of historic resources, views, light, and open space.

She stated that these elements are defining features of the community and should be considered in evaluating the project’s impacts. She raised concerns regarding the project’s massing, height, and placement within the front portion of the lot, asserting that the proposed ADU would obstruct primary view corridors from adjacent properties, including ocean views, and reduce access to light and air.

She noted that the existing residence already limits views from neighboring properties, and that the proposed structure would further constrain those limited view corridors. She also expressed concerns regarding lack of coordination and communication with neighboring property owners during the project’s development, including the absence of story poles to accurately depict the project’s visual impacts. Finally, she emphasized the importance of maintaining neighborhood compatibility and minimizing impacts to adjacent properties, and urged that the project be denied or redesigned to better preserve views and neighborhood character.
p. 5-6 of 16
Ian Wolcott
(attorney
representing
owners of 245
Cajon St.)
Expressed support for denial of the project, stating that the proposal may be lawfully denied notwithstanding State ADU law due to applicable Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program requirements. He supported staff’s analysis regarding impacts to coastal scenic resources and asserted that the proposed ADU would obstruct public views of the coastline and surrounding hillsides from Chiquita Street and nearby vantage points, while noting that the absence of story poles limited the ability to fully assess visual impacts. He raised concerns that the project would substantially obscure public views of a designated historic residence subject to a Mills Act contract, asserting that the property owner has an obligation to preserve the historic resource in exchange for associated benefits. He referenced the Heritage Committee’s unanimous recommendation for denial and concurred with its findings regarding incompatibility with historic preservation standards. He also noted that the project exceeds allowable building site coverage and expressed concerns regarding resulting impacts to neighboring properties, including view obstruction and neighborhood compatibility. He urged the Board to uphold staff’s recommendation and consider the cumulative impacts identified in the record.
p. 6-7 of 16
Cliff Legalt Expressed concerns that the proposed project would be incompatible with the existing streetscape and neighborhood character, noting that the scale and appearance of development along Chiquita Street have remained largely consistent over time. He stated that the proposed ADU would introduce a level of massing and visual change that is p. 7 of 16
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

inconsistent with the established pattern of development. He raised concerns regarding impacts to public views, asserting that the project would obstruct views of the ocean, including beach and sunset views, from the public right-of-way. He emphasized the importance of preserving the existing character and visual quality of the neighborhood and urged denial of the project.

Adam
Rochber
(HRG
representative)
Provided a summary of the historic analysis prepared by Historic Resources Group and stated that the subject property is a designated historic resource subject to a Mills Act contract, requiring a high level of compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. He indicated that the project was evaluated strictly against the applicable standards for new construction adjacent to historic resources. He stated that the proposed ADU does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, citing its location in front of the historic residence and resulting incompatibility with the property. He explained that the proposed siting would obscure the primary elevation of the historic structure from the public right-ofway and would adversely affect the spatial relationships that characterize the property, including its relationship to the street and surrounding neighborhood.
p. 7 of 16

11. Applicant Rebuttal
The Applicant acknowledged concerns regarding potential view impacts, stating that all development inherently affects views to some degree and asserting that the proposed ADU has been designed to minimize those impacts. He emphasized that the proposed structure is modest in scale relative to the existing residence, noting that the ADU is limited to 799 square feet and 16 feet in height, and stated that the design incorporates elevation changes and cantilevering to allow partial preservation of views from the public right-of-way.

He reiterated that the Property is located in the R-2 zone and is a buildable lot, asserting that State ADU law entitles him to construct an ADU of the proposed size and height. He expressed concerns regarding siting constraints imposed during the review process, stating that the required setbacks and differing direction from staff and consultants created conflicting requirements that limited feasible placement options for the structure. The Applicant did not address the Coastal Act savings clause noted above nor explain why he was somehow exempt from the requirements of the City’s LCP.

He further indicated that the Project design was intended to maintain required parking while minimizing impacts to the existing residence and surrounding properties. He stated that alternative siting, including placement within the front setback area, could better address view concerns and comply with State requirements. In conclusion, the Applicant requested approval of the project or direction regarding a feasible location on the site that would allow development consistent with applicable laws. (Attachment 6 [Transcript], pg. 8 of 16).

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

12. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
[Attachment
6] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Historic
Restriction
Chair Pro Tem Gannon asked if for a heritage project like this, if it is a state law to not be able to build in front of the house.

Assistant City Attorney Patrick Donegan responded by saying the City does not hold the position that nothing can be built on the lot, but any application will have to go through the required process and will be held to contractual obligations laid out in the Mills Act contract.
pg. 8-9 of 16
[Gannon,
Donegan]

13. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
6] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Coastal Act and
Local Coastal
Program
The Board determined that, notwithstanding State ADU law, the project is subject to the requirements of the California Coastal Act and the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), which require approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The Board found that the applicable standards and findings under the LCP govern the review of the project, including consistency with coastal resource protection policies, land use elements, and zoning provisions. pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Visual
Compatibility
The Board found that the proposed ADU is not visually compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The Board noted that development along the relevant portion of Chiquita Street is characterized by smaller-scale structures, with second-story elements generally set back from the street. The Board determined that the proposed two-story ADU, located in front of the existing residence, would introduce a level of massing and prominence that is inconsistent with the established development pattern and would be visually intrusive within the streetscape.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Coastal Scenic
Resources
The Board found that the project would adversely affect coastal scenic resources. Specifically, the Board determined that the location and height of the proposed ADU would obstruct public views of the ocean from the public right-of-way, which are protected as coastal visual resources under the LCP. The Board further determined that the obstruction of these views constitutes an adverse impact under the applicable Coastal Development Permit criteria.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Historic
Resources and
SOIS
Compliance
The Board found that the project would adversely impact a designated historic resource and did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Board relied on the analysis prepared by the City’s historic consultant, which concluded that the proposed ADU would obscure the primary elevation of the historic residence from the public right-of-way and disrupt the spatial relationships that characterize the property. The Board determined that the placement of a new structure in front of the historic residence was incompatible with the applicable standards and would impair the integrity of the resource. pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Consistency
with General
Plan and LCP
Policies
The Board found that the project was inconsistent with applicable General Plan and LCP policies, including Land Use Element Policy

2.2 and Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 12-C, which require preservation of historically significant structures and protection of their visual setting. The Board determined that the proposed ADU would not preserve the character-defining features of the historic residence and would alter the established relationship between the structure and the street.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Mills Act
Contract
The Board noted that the property is subject to a Mills Act contract, which provides financial incentives in exchange for preservation of the historic resource. The Board determined that the proposed ADU, by obscuring the historic residence from the public right-of-way, would be inconsistent with the preservation obligations associated with the contract.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Building Site
Coverage
The Board found that the proposed project exceeds the maximum allowable building site coverage and that the required findings to permit such modification could not be made. Specifically, the Board determined that the additional coverage does not serve to preserve views or maintain neighborhood development patterns, as required by the Municipal Code.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
CEQA The Board noted that denial of the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Board further noted that, even if the project were otherwise considered for approval, potential impacts to a historic resource would preclude reliance on a categorical exemption and would require further environmental review.
pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Design Review Board concluded that the project does not comply with the applicable provisions of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program and that the required findings for approval of a Coastal Development Permit cannot be made. The Board therefore directed denial of the project. pg. 9-12
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Gannon]
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

14. Board Action
Following the close of the public hearing, the Board deliberated on the proposed Project and expressed consensus that the required CDP findings could not be made. Board members cited concerns related to visual compatibility, impacts to coastal scenic resources, inconsistency with applicable General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies, noncompliance with the SOIS, and exceedance of allowable building site coverage.

The Board discussed the applicable legal framework, including the relationship between State ADU law and the requirements of the Coastal Act and the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”), and determined that the project is subject to discretionary CDP review. Board members also considered the historic designation of the property and associated Mills Act contract in evaluating the Project’s impacts.

Rather than taking final action on the resolution at the hearing, the Board voted 4-0 to direct staff to prepare a revised resolution of denial incorporating the findings and analysis discussed during deliberations. The Board continued the item to the March 12, 2026 meeting for consideration of the revised resolution on the consent calendar, without reopening the public hearing. (Attachment 6 [Transcript], pgs. 14-16 of 16.) C. March 12, 2026 Board Adoption of the Denial Resolution

1. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, three individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 13]
Page Nos.

Edwin Kisiel Asserted that the draft resolution should be disapproved and the matter remanded for ministerial processing consistent with State ADU law, arguing that review by the Design Review Board was improper. He contended that the proposed ADU would result in only minor and non-significant public view impacts that do not meet the threshold for adverse effects under the Coastal Act, and that treating slight view obstruction as grounds for denial would unduly restrict development citywide. He further argued that the Board improperly classified the historic residence as a coastal scenic resource, stating that such resources are limited to ocean and hillside views under the Local Coastal Program. He also maintained that the application of the Mills Act in the Board’s analysis was legally flawed and does not constitute consent to a regulatory taking.

Pg. 1-2
Ian Wolcott
(attorney
representing
homeowners
Asserted that the Design Review Board had already conducted a thorough review of the project on February 26 and adopted detailed findings supporting denial, and that no new facts had been presented to warrant reconsideration. He stated that the applicant’s retention of legal counsel did not justify revisiting the p. 2
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

of 245 Cajon
Street)
decision and that doing so would be inconsistent with the City’s procedural requirements. He emphasized that the appropriate remedy was to pursue a formal appeal rather than re-litigate the matter before the Board, and urged the Board to maintain the denial and proceed to the appeal process.

Melanie
Lewis
Expressed support for the Design Review Board’s prior decision to deny the proposed project, referencing previously submitted written and verbal testimony. She commended the Board’s thorough review and direction to staff in preparing the resolution, and supported adoption of the resolution memorializing the denial.

Pg. 2-3

2. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
13] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Updated
Resolution No.
2026-0148
Stated that the purpose of the hearing was to confirm that the draft resolution accurately reflected the Board’s prior direction, finding that the resolution was well written, well reasoned, and consistent with the Board’s previous findings. They noted that recent comments and legal arguments largely reiterated issues already considered and were not persuasive. They concluded that the record, including the staff report and prior deliberations, sufficiently supported the Board’s decision, and expressed support for approving the resolution as presented.

Pgs. 3-4
[Gibbs,
Gannon, Weil]

3. Board Action
Following deliberation, the Board voted 3-0 (Bauta abstaining and Coveny absent) to adopt Resolution No. 2026-0148 denying CDP 2026-0148 and finding said action not subject to CEQA. Board Member Imer Bauta abstained due to his absence from the February 26, 2026 hearing.

RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Appellant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 15). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a CDP and CEQA, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s denial of CDP 2026-0148, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.

Below are the grounds for Appeal and City staff’s response:

1. “Neighborhood Compatibility Finding: The factual findings of the resolution regarding the neighborhood compatibility finding are flawed because they are woefully incomplete. The APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

compatibility finding states, “Here, many of the homes along Chiquita are single-story structures (including 248 Chiquita St. directly to the north and 239 Chiquita St., directly across the street) or appear as a single-story from the street. A two-story ADU in front of a two-story home would not maintain this neighborhood development pattern.” This conclusory analysis fails to note that there are two-story homes and two-story ADUs within the Hillcrest neighborhood. Additionally, from review of GIS map, which was shown by City staff during the hearing, there appear to be many other R-2 zoned lots in the vicinity developed with multiple units. This property is near 1673 Louise Street, where the City approved a second-story ADU. For the 1673 Louise Street approval, which is in the same Hillcrest neighborhood, the City made that a finding for a second-story ADU was met because the surrounding areas “consist of both one-story and two-story homes” (CDP 25-0036).

Additionally, as was presented to the Design Review Board, there is a mix of one- and two-story homes in the Hillcrest neighborhood of North Laguna, including apartment buildings with up to four units, which is evident during any site visit. Finally, the City’s consultant report provided by HRG concluded 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” (emphasis added). The DRB chose to ignore the findings of the City’s own consultant that did not suit the City’s findings, demonstrating an unreasonable decision and abuse of discretion.

Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Board’s neighborhood compatibility finding is incomplete because the broader Hillcrest neighborhood includes a mix of one- and two-story homes, some multi-unit development, and at least one recently approved second-story ADU. The Appellant further contends that the Board disregarded a statement in the HRG analysis indicating that the proposed ADU would be a compatible design that would not impact the setting of the neighborhood. However, these recommendations and overall topic were addressed head on and discussed in substance by the Board during its deliberations.

The Board found that the Project did not comply with CDP Review Criteria No. 6 (LBMC Section

25.07.012(F)(6)), which requires that development “will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas,” as follows (from Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0148):
“Here, many of the homes along Chiquita are single-story structures (including 248 Chiquita St. directly to the north and 239 Chiquita St., directly across the street) or appear as a single-story from the street. A two-story ADU in front of a two-story home would not maintain this neighborhood development pattern.

Due to the historic home’s placement on the City’s Historic Register, the home itself is also considered a coastal resource. The City’s historic consultant has determined in the HRG Report and Supplemental HRG Report that the size of the ADU and its placement on the site would cause it to block views of the historic home. The Project does not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence. HRG reviewed the Project and determined it did not comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards ‘because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property.’” The record does not support the conclusion that the Board’s neighborhood compatibility finding is erroneous or unsupported. The issue before the Board was not whether two-story structures exist somewhere within the broader Hillcrest neighborhood, nor whether other R-2 properties in North Laguna contain multiple units. Rather, the required inquiry under Coastal Development Permit Criterion 6 was whether the proposed development, as designed and sited on this specific property, would be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area. That is a site-specific determination that turns on the relationship of the proposed ADU to the existing historic residence, the street frontage, and the immediately surrounding development pattern.

Here, the Board reasonably focused on the relevant portion of Chiquita Street and the immediate context of the subject Property. The record reflects that the existing historic residence is set well back from the street and that the front portion of the lot has historically remained open, without structures. The proposed Project would place a new, two-story structure between the street and the historic residence, approximately 3 feet from the front porch and approximately 9 feet 8 inches from the front façade of the existing home.

As analyzed in the staff report and discussed during the public hearing, the proposed ADU would span approximately 31 feet in width, exceeding the width of the primary façade of the historic residence, and would obscure a substantial portion of the residence when viewed from the public right-of-way. In that respect, the Board’s finding was not based simply on the fact that the ADU is two stories tall; it was based on the combined effect of the ADU’s height, width, massing, and sitting in front of a designated historic residence on a lot with an established open front setback pattern.

The Appellant’s reference to other two-story homes, apartment buildings, and second-story ADUs in the Hillcrest neighborhood does not establish that the Board’s finding was incomplete. A neighborhood may contain a range of development types while still supporting a finding that a particular Project is visually incompatible in its specific context. The presence of other two-story development in the broader area does not compel a conclusion that any new two-story structure is compatible regardless of siting, relationship to the street, or effect on a historic resource. The Board was entitled to distinguish between development located elsewhere in the neighborhood and the proposed placement of a new detached two-story ADU in front of the subject property’s historic residence and its relation to the surrounding areas. Addressing this finding is not a matter of simply searching neighborhood-wide for other properties that may have secondstory ADUs; instead, a site-specific analysis based on the whole of the record is more appropriate Similarly, the Appellant’s reliance on the City’s approval of another ADU at 1673 Louise Street is unpersuasive. That approval involved a different property, different lot conditions, different surrounding context, and a different project design. Land use determinations are inherently parcel-specific. The fact that the City was able to make compatibility findings for a second-story ADU on another site does not establish that the same finding must be made here. The Board was required to evaluate this Project based on the actual conditions at 238 Chiquita Street, including its Mills Act status, the location of the historic residence, the historic open front yard condition, and the visual relationship of the proposed ADU to the surrounding portion of Chiquita Street.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

The Appellant’s argument also overstates the significance of one statement in the HRG analysis. HRG’s review was directed primarily to compliance with the SOIS and the effect of the proposed ADU on the historic resource. Even if one sentence in the report suggests that the ADU would be differentiated from the existing residence or would not physically attach to it, the report as a whole does not support the Appellant’s position. To the contrary, HRG’s ultimate conclusion was that the Project does not comply with the applicable 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 affecting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. The Board was entitled to read the consultant’s analysis as a whole and rely on its ultimate conclusions rather than isolate a single statement divorced from the report’s overall findings.

More fundamentally, neighborhood compatibility under CDP Review Criterion 6 (LBMC Section

25.07.012(F)) is not delegated to HRG. HRG’s role was to evaluate the Project’s effect on the historic resource. The ultimate determination regarding visual compatibility with the surrounding area was for the Board to make based on the full administrative record, including the staff report, plans, photographs, public testimony, site visits, and its own observations of the neighborhood context. The Board expressly did so.

Chair Gibbs stated that he walked the area and found the relevant visual context to be middle and lower Chiquita, where the proposed ADU would be visually prominent and inconsistent with the established streetscape. Other Board members concurred with that conclusion. That determination falls squarely within the Board’s discretion.

The record also supports the Board’s determination that the Project would not maintain neighborhood development patterns. As set forth in both the staff report and Resolution No. 2026-0148, the proposed Project would exceed maximum allowable building site coverage, and the Municipal Code allows modification of that standard only where necessary to preserve views or maintain neighborhood development patterns. The Board found that the Project does neither. Thus, the neighborhood compatibility issue was not only relevant to CDP Review Criterion 6, but also directly related to the separate finding required to justify excess building site coverage. The Board’s conclusions on these points are internally consistent and supported by the same body of evidence. Additionally, while the Applicant refused to stake the Project, the Board’s findings are clearly supported by the Project plans, which depict a detached ADU at the front yard setback with a vertical, two-story appearance and a general lack of modulation of the building mass, with both the first and second floors stacked near the setback line along Chiquita Street.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Figure 4: Proposed South Elevation
Finally, the Appellant characterizes the Board’s finding as “woefully incomplete,” but the record demonstrates the opposite. The issue of neighborhood compatibility was the subject of staff analysis, public testimony, expert input, and Board deliberation. Nearby property owners raised concerns regarding the Project’s scale, massing, and effect on the streetscape. The HRG representative testified that the proposed placement would negatively affect the relationship of the property to the street and surrounding neighborhood. The Heritage Committee recommended denial, in part based on mass, scale, and neighborhood compatibility. The Board then discussed the visual character of the area and concluded that the proposed ADU would not be compatible with the surrounding development pattern. That is precisely the type of evidence-based, discretionary determination the Board is charged with making.

Accordingly, staff finds that the Design Review Board did not ignore relevant evidence, misstate the neighborhood context, or abuse its discretion in making the neighborhood compatibility finding. Rather, the Board evaluated the Project in its actual physical and historic setting and reasonably concluded, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the proposed ADU would not be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area and would not maintain neighborhood development patterns.

2. “Misplaced Reliance on Erroneous City-Procured Consultant Report: It is clear that the DRB based its findings on errors contained in the City-procured HRG consultant reports. The earlier 2023 Sapphos report found that a two-story ADU project was consistent with Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic preservation. That report analyzed a larger structure than what was considered by the DRB. A core factual inconsistency between the reports, leading to the divergent conclusions, is that the Sapphos report states that the significant characteristics of the home are the upper story windows and cross-gabled roof… Mr. Lukoff’s belief is that the historically significant features of the property as he understood it were the upper story windows and cross-gable roof.

This is consistent with Sapphos’ opinion. Mr. Lukoff’s position is also grounded in a 2013 historical report for the property, contained in City records, that the City of Laguna Beach relied on for a prior addition to Mr. Lukoff’s property. The GPA report found that on the front façade of the property, the pergola, first floor window, porch, and main entry door “are non-character defining.” On the other hand, the City’s consultant incorrectly asserts that Mr. Lukoff’s entire front façade is historical, including the 1960s or later modifications made to the front entry. As Mr. Lukoff stated APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

at the DRB hearing, during prior discussions of Mills Act rehabilitation projects, the City had asked Mr. Lukoff to modify front entry door, first-floor picture window, porch, and pergola to make them more historically compatible. This provides further evidence of the City’s understanding that these are not historically significant features. Starting from a faulty understanding of the historically significant characteristics of the property leads to faulty analysis and conclusions regarding potential compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards. The through line for the historic reports is that the significant features of the property are the upper story windows and cross-gable roof.

Mr. Lukoff’s design preserves way more than 50% of the views of these significant features, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Also, in terms of discussing Mills Act requirements, it is important to consider the contract terms as they were at the time the contract was commenced and not 17 years later. See, e.g., King v. Dep’t of Navy, 130 F.3d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir, 1997). This includes Mr. Lukoff’s obligations regarding preservation of the significant features of the historic residence. Extrinsic evidence is available to aid in contract interpretation when contract terms may be ambiguous. See, e.g., Beta Sys. v. U.S., 838 F.2d 1179, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In that vein, the 2013 GPA report, finding that the “[t]he extant pergola, front first floor window, porch, and main entry door are non-character defining” is more contemporaneous to the Mills Act transaction than the City-procured 2023 HRG report, and the 2013 GPA report is thus more reliable for interpretation of the Mills Act contract. From a factual standpoint, the DRB’s decision rests on erroneous analysis from HRG and ignores precedent from the 2013 report available in City records and dismissing the Sapphos report, which found that a (larger) two-story ADU project was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic preservation.” Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Board improperly relied on the HRG reports, which allegedly contain factual errors and are inconsistent with prior historic analyses, including the 2013 GPA report and the 2023 Sapphos report. The Appellant further contends that HRG incorrectly identified the historically significant features of the residence and that this alleged error undermines the Board’s findings regarding compliance with the SOIS and the Mills Act contract.

The Board found that the Project did not comply with the following applicable provisions of the Certified LCP and the Historic Resources Element.

General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2 - Encourage the preservation of historically significant residential structures and protect the character-defining components of Laguna Beach’s traditional neighborhoods.

Here, the Project does not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence. The property owner has received a significant incentive in the form of a reduced property tax rate as a result of their participation in the Mills Act program. A condition of this incentive is compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. HRG reviewed the Project and determined it did not comply with the SOIS “because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property.”
APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

General Plan Historic Resources Element - Goal #1: Preserve and enhance buildings and structures of historic significance in Laguna Beach. Assure that neighborhoods which have a preponderance of older homes and which greatly contribute to the village atmosphere be maintained as cohesive neighborhood units through consistency of size, scale and character.

Here, the Project does not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence. The property owner has received a significant incentive in the form of a reduced property tax rate as a result of their participation in the Mills Act program. A condition of this incentive is compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. HRG reviewed the Project and determined it did not comply with the SOIS “because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property.”
Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 12-C: Development adjacent to a place, structure or feature found to be of historical significance shall be designed so that the uses permitted and the architectural design will protect the visual setting of the historical site.

Here, the proposed ADU would not protect the visual setting of the historical site in that it would be placed in front of the existing residence, altering the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. The existing residence was constructed at the rear of the parcel and has approximately a 50-foot setback from the street. Placing the ADU within the setback will remove a space that has been historically open since the residence was constructed in 1925. In addition, because the ADU will be located 10 feet from the existing residence it will obscure a majority of the view of the residence from the street.

LBMC Chapter 25.45.010 Procedures for alteration of a historic resource: “Prior to the issuance of a building permit to remodel or alter any historic resource, City staff shall review the proposed changes to determine if the proposal is consistent with the design review criteria, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) or the City’s Local Design Guidelines.” Here, HRG evaluated the Project and determined in the HRG Report and Supplemental HRG Report the proposed Project did not comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards.” The record does not support the conclusion that the Board’s reliance on the HRG reports was misplaced or erroneous. To the contrary, the Board considered multiple historic evaluations, including the Sapphos report, the HRG peer review, and HRG’s updated memorandum, and exercised its discretion in weighing those materials alongside the applicable regulatory framework.

First, the existence of differing professional opinions between qualified historic consultants does not render one report “erroneous” or invalidate the Board’s reliance on one analysis over another. It is not uncommon in historic preservation matters for consultants to reach different conclusions regarding the application of the SOIS, particularly where the analysis involves qualitative considerations such as spatial relationships, setting, and visibility of a historic resource. The Board, as the decision-making body, is charged with evaluating conflicting evidence and determining which analysis is more persuasive based on the entirety of APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

the record – not disregarding one report in favor of the other. Here, this is exactly what the Board did. After careful deliberations it reasonably found HRG’s analysis to be more consistent with the applicable standards and the specific conditions of the site.

Second, the Appellant’s argument improperly narrows the scope of historic analysis to a limited set of individual architectural features, such as upper-story windows and the cross-gabled roof, while minimizing the importance of broader contextual and spatial characteristics that are expressly protected under the SOIS.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards do not limit preservation to isolated architectural elements; rather, they require that new construction be compatible with the historic property’s setting, massing, scale, and spatial relationships. Standard 2 requires that the historic character of a property be retained and preserved, including the property’s distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Standard 9 further requires that new additions and adjacent construction not destroy historic materials or alter spatial relationships that characterize the property.

HRG’s analysis addressed these broader considerations, concluding that the proposed ADU’s location in front of the historic residence, in close proximity to the primary façade, would impair the spatial relationship between the residence and the street and obscure the historic resource from the public right-of-way. These conclusions are independent of whether certain individual elements of the front façade may have been modified in the mid-20th century. Even assuming, as the Appellant argues, that certain features such as the porch or entry elements are not character-defining, the overall spatial configuration of the residence—set back from the street with an open front yard—is itself a defining characteristic of the property. The Board was entitled to rely on HRG’s conclusion that this spatial relationship would be materially altered by the proposed ADU.

Third, the Appellant’s reliance on the 2013 GPA report is misplaced. That report was prepared in connection with a prior project involving alterations to the existing residence and addressed a different scope of work.

While it may have identified certain elements of the front façade as non-character-defining for purposes of that project, it does not follow that the entire front yard area or the visual relationship between the residence and the street is non-historic or may be disregarded in evaluating new construction. Historic resource analysis is context-specific, and the question before the Board was not whether individual façade elements are historic, but whether the placement of a new structure would adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource as a whole.

Similarly, the Sapphos report evaluated an earlier iteration of the project and reached a different conclusion regarding SOIS compliance. However, as noted in the staff report and confirmed by HRG’s peer review and updated memorandum, the proposed design before the Board differs in siting and configuration, and HRG concluded that the current proposal does not comply with Standards 2, 4, and 9. The Board was not required to adopt the conclusions of the Sapphos report, particularly where another qualified consultant provided a reasoned analysis reaching the opposite conclusion. The Board’s role is to weigh the evidence, not to defer to a single consultant selected by the Applicant.

Fourth, the Appellant’s argument that the Project preserves “more than 50%” of views of certain features does not establish compliance with the SOIS. The SOIS do not establish a quantitative threshold for visibility, nor do they permit partial obstruction of a historic resource based on a percentage calculation.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

The relevant inquiry is whether the proposed new construction would impair the ability to perceive and understand the historic resource and its relationship to its setting. Substantial evidence in the record, including the HRG reports, staff analysis, and Board observations, supports the conclusion that the proposed ADU would obscure a majority of the primary elevation of the residence and materially alter its spatial relationship to the street. The Board did not find that maintaining a view of the residence’s roofline and a portion of its second floor met the applicable criteria under SOIS. The Board found that the Project substantially impaired the view of the primary façade of the historic resource.

Fifth, with respect to the Mills Act, the Appellant asserts that the contract should be interpreted based on the understanding of significant features at the time of execution in 2009. However, the Mills Act contract requires the continued preservation and maintenance of the historic resource in accordance with applicable standards, including the SOIS, which are applied at the time of review of proposed alterations. The contract does not freeze the scope of review to a prior consultant’s interpretation, nor does it limit the City’s ability to evaluate new construction adjacent to the resource under current preservation standards or a Projectspecific review by a qualified architectural historian. The Board appropriately considered the Mills Act obligations in conjunction with the SOIS and the City’s historic preservation policies and standards.

Finally, the administrative record demonstrates that the Board did not ignore the Sapphos report or other prior analyses. Rather, those materials were included in the agenda packet, acknowledged by staff, and considered as part of the overall evidentiary record. The Board ultimately found HRG’s conclusions more persuasive, particularly with respect to the impact of the proposed ADU on the spatial relationship and visibility of the historic residence. This constitutes a permissible exercise of discretion and does not amount to an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, staff finds that the Board’s reliance on the HRG reports was appropriate and supported by substantial evidence. The presence of differing consultant opinions does not invalidate the Board’s findings, and the record supports the conclusion that the proposed Project does not comply with the SOIS or the requirements applicable to a designated historic resource under the Mills Act and the City’s Local Coastal Program.

3. “Application Deemed Complete by Operation of Law: We recognize that when the DRB made its decision, it stated that it was treating the application as if it was complete under the Permit Streamlining Act. However, to the extent that the DRB made its decision based on an allegedly “incomplete” application as stated in the staff report, Mr. Lukoff disputes the City Staff’s assertion that the application is “incomplete” and asserts that his application is deemed complete by operation of law under the Permit Streamlining Act. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65943, for a government agency to deem a development application incomplete, the list of incomplete items “shall be limited to those items actually required on the lead agency’s submittal requirement checklist.” When Mr. Lukoff’s architect submitted the application on November 8, 2024, it is Mr.

Lukoff’s position that the City did not request a certified staking plan in its checklist for the application, which is why Mr. Lukoff has not provided staking for the project. In the November 2024 timeframe, staking plans were not a City-mandated ADU application requirement but is instead a more recent demand. Previously, the approach was that only projects requiring Design Review needed a certified staking plan. Additionally, the City was holding Mr. Lukoff’s application as APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

“incomplete” to extort peer review fees for consultant reports that had been obtained prior to the submission of the application to conduct a regulatory taking. In order to more fully develop this argument, we are awaiting the results of Public Records Act requests 2026-0149 and 2026-0150.

Indeed, with regards to Mr. Lukoff’s ADU application, there was constant turnover of staff assigned to the project, each of whom made different demands, to which Mr. Lukoff responded by submitting revised plans for a smaller structure. City Staff consistently moved the goalposts and made demands that are not permitted under Gov. Code § 65943, which applies to ministerially handled projects.

The City’s processing of Mr. Lukoff’s ADU application for a hearing of the Design Review Board also shows an indication that the City indeed treated Mr. Lukoff’s application as complete; otherwise, the City would have simply refused to process it. Based on these factual errors in the Resolution and underlying analysis for the DRB’s decision, the DRB resolution to deny Mr. Lukoff’s project application is unreasonable, invalid, and constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the application was deemed complete by operation of law under the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”) and that the City improperly characterized the application as incomplete by requesting materials not included in the submittal checklist. The Appellant further contends that the City “moved the goalposts,” improperly required additional materials such as staking plans, and used the incompleteness determination to delay processing and impose additional consultant review.

The record does not support these assertions, and, more importantly, the issue of application completeness was not the basis for the Board’s denial of the Project.

As a threshold matter, the Board expressly clarified on the record that it was evaluating the Project on the merits and not relying on application completeness as a basis for its decision. As stated during the February 26, 2026 hearing, the City maintained its position regarding completeness (or rather, the application’s incompleteness); however, in light of the Applicant’s insistence that the City approve his application without any further changes, staff elected to bring the Project forward for a public hearing to ensure that the application was reviewed substantively. The Board confirmed that it would “evaluate this project as if the application was complete,” and the denial was based entirely on the Project’s failure to meet required findings under the CDP criteria, the LCP, building site coverage provisions, and the SOIS. Accordingly, even if there were a dispute regarding completeness under the PSA, it would not affect the validity of the Board’s decision, which rests on independent substantive grounds.

With respect to the Permit Streamlining Act, Government Code Section 65943 requires that a local agency identify incomplete items based on its submittal requirements. The City maintains established application requirements for Coastal Development Permits and projects involving historic resources, which may include technical materials necessary to evaluate visual impacts, site conditions, and compliance with applicable standards. The Appellant’s assertion that certain materials were not historically required or were newly requested does not establish a violation of the PSA, particularly where the Project involves a combination of factors—coastal permitting, historic resource considerations, and site-specific visual impacts—that necessitate adequate documentation for proper review.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Additionally, the Appellant’s characterization of the City’s request for additional information as improper or coercive is not supported by the record. The City’s use of peer review consultants, including HRG, is a standard and widely accepted practice for projects involving historic resources, and is also the City’s standard practice. Such review ensures that the City has sufficient technical expertise to evaluate compliance with preservation standards and does not constitute an improper or unlawful requirement.

Indeed, the City does not have a qualified architectural historian on staff.11 The Appellant voluntarily proceeded with the application knowing that the Project would be subject to review under the LCP and the City’s historic preservation regulations.

The Appellant also suggests that staff turnover and evolving feedback resulted in inconsistent or shifting requirements. While staff assignments may change over the course of a multi-year application, the underlying regulatory framework did not change. The Project remained subject to the same applicable standards, including CDP findings, building site coverage limitations, and the requirements associated with a Mills Act-designated historic resource. The submission of revised plans in response to staff feedback is a typical part of the development review process and does not indicate that the City imposed unlawful or inconsistent requirements.

The ADU design that was submitted November 8, 2024 was reviewed by a previous planner, who issued comments on December 6, 2024. A staking plan was also requested during this review, in that case due to the design’s inclusion of an elevated deck. Decks elevated more than three feet above the adjacent grade require design review, whether they are associated with primary dwellings or ADUs.

The Applicant has dealt with the same planner and same set of applicable zoning regulations since the last major design change proposed by the Applicant on July 2, 2025.12 The current planner deemed this design’s application incomplete and indicated that a staking plan was required on August 1, 2025. When the Applicant resubmitted, a staking plan was not provided, and as such, the City was unable to deem the application complete. In this case, a staking plan was requested due to the proposed excess building site coverage and the potential for public coastal view impacts.

Finally, the Appellant’s argument that the City’s decision to process the application through a Board hearing demonstrates that the application must have been complete is incorrect. The City explicitly stated that it was proceeding with a merits-based review to avoid potential procedural complications related to statutory timelines, not because it had conceded completeness. Processing an application for public hearing under these circumstances does not waive the City’s position regarding completeness nor does it establish a violation of the PSA.
11 The City does not have staff that meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as defined in 36 CFR, Part 61. As such, the City regularly retains qualified architectural historians to perform historic assessments. In those cases where an applicant commissions the preparation of a historic assessment, it is not solely City staff that reviews and verifies the information. For the same reason as above, the City will retain a qualified architectural historian to peer review the information and make a professional recommendation to City staff and ultimately, to the decision-making authority. This process is no different than for other technical disciplines, including but not limited to biology, hydrology, traffic engineering, and geotechnical.
12 On July 2, 2025, new plans were submitted by the Applicant’s new designer for the Project, Bill Dickey. This iteration of the project was a significant departure from the prior design, with changes including the removal of the elevated deck from the scope and the addition of a replacement carport.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

In sum, the Board did not deny the Project on the basis of an incomplete application. The Board considered the Project as if complete and denied it based on its failure to satisfy required findings under applicable law.

Because the Applicant was unwilling to address the outstanding staff corrections or abandon the Project, it was appropriate for City staff to schedule the Project for a public hearing to evaluate the Application and reach a decision on the entitlements required by the Project. Therefore, any dispute regarding application completeness under the Permit Streamlining Act does not undermine the validity of the Board’s decision and does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

4. “Failure to Apply Significance Standard for Potential Public View Impacts: There is no adverse impact to coastal resources by Mr. Lukoff’s proposed project. First, the level of impact to find a significant adverse effect is not met. Second, the DRB’s analysis and Resolution 2026-0148 erroneously conflates a historic property with coastal resources. Regarding the standard of adverse effect, both case law and recent Coastal Commission appeals, applied a significance standard. For adverse impact to apply, there must be significant impact to coastal resources. Pub. Res. Code § 30250(a); LT-WR v. California Coastal Commission (2007), 152 Cal.App.4th 770, 797-99 (evaluating adverse impacts according to a significance standard). See, e.g., Appeal No. A-6-PEN23-0053 (not significant adverse impact when project blocked “fleeting” views from public roadway); Appeal No. A-6-DMR-22-0034 (found that an obstructed view from a certain point does not constitute substantial view impact because the view is unobstructed once the individual moves along); City of Laguna Beach Coastal Development Permit 2025-0036 (finding lack of significant adverse effect when one can walk five yards away and see the protected ridgeline). In the case of the proposed action, while there would be minor view blockage of a peripheral view if a person is standing in a particular spot on Chiquita Street, there would be no view blockage a few steps further up the street. Also, Chiquita Street is a residential street and not an arterial road or one of the protected main view corridors of Coast Highway or Laguna Canyon Road under the City’s Open Space and Conservation Element of the LCP. There is no stoplight at the intersection of Chiquita Street on Coast Highway. Members of the public are not likely to be using Chiquita Street except for visiting the homes on this street. Also, the primary view from the public street is down Chiquita Street, which opens onto Crescent Bay, and not across Mr. Lukoff’s property. Taking the DRB’s decision, that Mr. Lukoff’s proposed ADU creates an adverse effect because of slight public view curtailment, would preclude most development in Laguna Beach, making it impossible for the City to meet its housing obligations under the Housing Accountability Act and Housing Element. If Mr.

Lukoff’s project were ineligible for a CDP based on public view impacts, it would be difficult in many ways to allow development in this City at all. Thus, the DRB’s action is legally insufficient because it failed to apply the required analysis under the Coastal Act, which would have resulted in a different conclusion.”
Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Board failed to apply a legally required “significance” threshold in evaluating impacts to coastal scenic resources and that any potential view obstruction associated with the Project is minor, localized, and therefore insufficient to support denial of a CDP application. The Appellant further argues that applying the Board’s reasoning regarding “minor” coastal view blockage broadly would preclude most development within the City.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

The Board found that the Project did not comply with CDP Review Criteria No. 3 (LBMC Section

25.07.012(F)(3)), which requires that development “will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources,” as follows (from Board-adopted Resolution No. 2026-0148):
“There are no recreational or visitor-serving facilities within 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Project site is in a developed residential area of the City. Therefore, the Project will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities.

The proposed development will, however, adversely affect coastal scenic resources. The City’s Land Use Plan has policies for visual and scenic resources. The City identifies that the principal focus concerns property situated adjacent to the major transportation systems in the City (i.e., Laguna Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway) since it is along those roadways that a majority of residents and non-residents view the community and have visual access to scenic corridors.15 The Open Space and Conservation Element, which is part of the City’s certified LCP, defines visual resources, including coastal visual resources or “coastal scenic resources” as shoreline features or the natural appearance of the coast, and hillside visual resources as undeveloped hillside lands:

Coastal Visual Resources: With few exceptions, such as Main Beach Park, the City's 4.2 miles of shoreline is characterized by prominent headlands, pocket beaches or coves, wavecut cliffs, and associated sea arches, caves and blow-holes. These shoreline features are largely a product of erosional forces that have shaped and formed their particular characteristics over centuries of time. Some of these features are more susceptible to erosion than others by virtue of their geologic formation and exposure to erosional elements, which contribute to and enhance the natural appearance of the coast.

Hillside Visual Resources: Nearly 30% of the City consists of undeveloped hillside lands.

These lands support a great diversity of visual resources, with prominent exposure from both public and private property. Generally, these features include: (1) unique topographic forms - vertically exposed rock faces, bluffs, headlands and noticeably steep slopes; (2) unique vegetative forms, including stands of oak, sycamore and eucalyptus trees, and riparian or canyon land plant communities; (3) natural watercourses and associated canyon bottoms; (4) special land features such as prominent ridgelines, escarpments and rock outcroppings; and (S) visual edges or boundaries consisting of contrasting features where rock outcroppings may meet with surrounding vegetation or man-made features such as roads and buildings.
(OSCE, p. 33.) The OSCE further states that “an important aspect of hillside and coastal land features is their visibility from public roadways”—supporting that the OSCE does apply to the Project. (OSCE, p. 35.) Further, the City implements the following policy in its OSCE: 7-A Preserve to the maximum extent feasible the quality of public views from hillsides and along the city’s shorelines. (OSCE, p. 35.)
15 Public Resources Code Section 30251, which is cited above, allows for greater protection of highly scenic areas.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Here, the proposed ADU will be 16 feet in height, the maximum allowed height for detached ADUs per Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.17. Due to the ADU’s proposed location and height, some ocean views from the public right-of-way are affected by the structure. While story poles have not been installed on site due to refusal of the Applicant, photos show that there will be negative impacts to the ocean and coastline from Chiquita.”
The record does not support the Appellant’s assertions. The Board properly applied the applicable CDP criteria under the City’s certified LCP, and its findings regarding adverse impacts to coastal scenic resources are supported by substantial evidence.

First, the applicable standard for CDP review is set forth in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section

25.07.012(F)(3), which requires a finding that “[t]he proposed development will not adversely affect… coastal scenic resources.” The LCP does not require a separate or explicit “significance threshold” analysis as framed by the Appellant, nor does it limit the City’s discretion to only deny projects that result in severe or complete obstruction of views. Rather, the City is required to evaluate whether a proposed development adversely affects coastal visual resources, including public views of the ocean and coastline, and to preserve those views to the maximum extent feasible pursuant to the Open Space and Conservation Element (“OSCE”).

The OSCE expressly identifies coastal visual resources as a key component of the City’s coastal environment and emphasizes the importance of visibility from public roadways. Policy 7-A directs the City to “[p]reserve to the maximum extent feasible the quality of public views from hillsides and along the city’s shorelines.” This policy does not establish a minimum threshold of “significant” impairment before protection applies; rather, it reflects a proactive obligation to protect public views where feasible. The Board’s analysis is consistent with this directive.

The Land Use Element (“LUE”) requires the City to “Encourage preservation of historically significant residential structures and protect the character-defining components of Laguna Beach’s traditional neighborhoods.” (LUE Policy 2.2.) This necessarily includes maintaining the visual setting and public visibility of such resources. Here, as reflected in Finding No. 1, HRG determined that the proposed ADU would impair views of the historic residence and negatively impact the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. These impacts directly implicate the visual character policies of the LCP.

Accordingly, the Board properly considered the visibility of the historic residence from the public right-ofway in conjunction with impacts to public ocean views. In essence, the Board highlighted the combination of the historic resource with ocean views as the coastal scenic resource. Comparing it to a piece of art in a pedestrian plaza with an ocean view backdrop, the Board discussed in depth this resource. This analysis does not expand the definition of coastal resources, but reflects a reasonable application of the LCP’s requirement to evaluate visual impacts to both natural and built elements that contribute to the coastal setting. The LUE is a component of the City’s certified LCP, and pursuant to CDP Finding No. 1, the City must find that a proposed project is in conformity with all applicable provisions of the LCP in order to approve a CDP.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Second, the Board’s determination was not based on a finding of negligible or “fleeting” view obstruction.

Substantial evidence in the record—including site photographs, staff analysis, and Board member observations following site visits—demonstrates that the proposed ADU, due to its height, width, and placement within the front portion of the lot, would obstruct portions of ocean views from the public rightof-way along Chiquita Street. The Board reasonably concluded that this impact constitutes an adverse effect on coastal scenic resources under the City’s LCP.

The Appellant’s argument that the impact is mitigated because views may be available from other nearby locations does not negate the Board’s finding. The preservation of public views under the Coastal Act and the LCP is not limited to protecting only the “best” or “primary” vantage points, nor does the availability of alternative views render the loss of an existing view segment inconsequential. The City is entitled to protect incremental public views along public streets, particularly in a coastal community where such views contribute cumulatively to the visual character and public experience of the shoreline.

Third, the Appellant’s characterization of Chiquita Street as an insignificant or purely residential roadway is not determinative. The OSCE makes clear that visibility from public roadways generally—not only major arterials such as Pacific Coast Highway or Laguna Canyon Road—is relevant in evaluating coastal visual resources , as it recognizes that an important aspect of coastal visual resources is their visibility from the City’s roadways.17 While those corridors may be of particular importance, the LCP does not exclude residential streets from consideration. Members of the public, including residents, visitors, and pedestrians, utilize local streets and are entitled to the benefit of coastal views available from those locations. The Board appropriately considered views from the public right-of-way along Chiquita Street as part of its analysis.

Fourth, the Appellant’s reliance on selected Coastal Commission appeal decisions and case law does not compel a different conclusion. Those decisions are fact-specific and do not establish a uniform rule that only “significant” or total obstruction of views may be considered an adverse impact. Moreover, the City’s certified LCP governs the review of CDPs within its jurisdiction, and the Board is required to apply the policies and standards of those regulations. The Board’s interpretation and application of its LCP is entitled to deference so long as it is reasonable and supported by the record, which it is here.

Finally, the Appellant’s policy argument that upholding the Board’s decision would preclude development throughout the City is not supported by the record. The Board did not adopt a categorical rule prohibiting all development that affects views. Rather, it evaluated a specific proposal on a specific site and determined that the combination of the ADU’s size, placement, and relationship to the public right-of-way and historic residence resulted in an adverse impact on coastal scenic resources that could not be mitigated or avoided.

Many projects can and do proceed within the City while maintaining compliance with CDP findings by being appropriately sited and designed to minimize public view impacts.

In sum, the Board applied the correct legal standard under the City’s LCP and reasonably concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed ADU would adversely affect coastal scenic resources. The 17 OSCE, Topic 7 (Visual Resources) (“An important aspect of hillside and coastal land features is their visibility from public roadways.”).

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Appellant has not demonstrated that the Board failed to apply the proper analysis or that its findings lack evidentiary support.

5. “Misunderstanding of Coastal Resources: While Gov. Code § 66329 holds that the provisions of the Coastal Act (and processing for CDPs) applies to ADUs, the State ADU law applies on noncoastal matters such as historic resources, building setbacks, and lot coverage that are not protected by the Coastal Act. The DRB erroneously claimed “coastal resources” of items clearly outside the purview of the Coastal Act or City’s LCP in reaching its decision to deny Mr. Lukoff’s project.

Resolution 2026-0148 erroneously holds that the project be denied because Mr. Lukoff’s historic home is a “coastal scenic resource.” To the contrary, under the Coastal Act and Laguna Beach’s LCP, a historic home is not a coastal scenic resource. There is no express definition provided within the LCP or Coastal Act of “coastal resource,” aside from temporary use CDPs, where coastal resources are defined within LBMC 25.07.006, as “public access opportunities, visitor and recreational facilities, water-oriented activities, marine resources, biological resources, environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural lands, and archaeological or paleontological resources.” Furthermore, the 1984 Laguna Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix discusses scenic or visual resources as “views from public areas such as highways, beaches, parks and vista points,” with a main focus being “property situated adjacent to the major transportation systems in the city, i.e., Laguna Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway, since it is along these roadways that a majority of residents and non-residents view the community and have visual access to scenic corridors.” Furthermore, neither the CDP review criteria under LBMC § 25.07.012(F) nor the CDP findings at (G) expressly mention historic properties. It is obvious that the City’s Historic Resources Plan is not part of the City of Laguna Beach’s Local Coastal Plan. The DRB’s analysis in deliberation and Resolution 2026-0148 is legally erroneous because historic properties are not contemplated within the concept of a coastal scenic resource. Furthermore, based on the DRB deliberations, the Board based its decision on the fact that Mr. Lukoff’s property is allegedly a “recreational or visitor-serving facility.” Definitions of recreational or visitor-serving facilities as well as examples are provided in the Coastal Land Use Plan Technical document, incorporated into the City’s LCP. Definitions and examples are provided below: Mr. Lukoff’s property is a private single-family home, not a recreational facility or visitor-serving facility. His private home is not used by tourist population and does not provide accommodations to the public. Mr. Lukoff has been retired for several years and does not operate a business from his home. Moreover, the public is not permitted to enter Mr. Lukoff’s property for recreational or visitor-serving purposes. For the DRB to characterize Mr. Lukoff’s property as otherwise constitutes a physical invasion of Mr. Lukoff’s property by the City, as such a designated by the City in a public hearing actively encourages the public to enter Mr. Lukoff’s property. Interestingly, this finding made by Chair Gibbs was not included in the adopted Resolution 2026-0148 of March 12, 2026. This calls into question the consistency of the resolution with the Board’s decision and understanding of the project. The DRB’s failure to correctly understand what is or is not a coastal scenic resource is further indication that the decision of the DRB was unreasonable, invalid, and an abuse of discretion.” Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Board misapplied the Coastal Act and the City’s LCP by improperly characterizing the subject historic residence as a “coastal scenic resource” and, further, by referencing the APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

property as a “recreational or visitor-serving facility” during deliberations. The Appellant contends that these interpretations are legally erroneous and outside the scope of coastal resource protection. The record does not support that contention.

As an initial matter and with respect to references made during deliberations regarding “recreational or visitor-serving facilities,” the adopted Resolution does not rely on such a characterization as a basis for denial. As noted by the Appellant, that discussion was not incorporated into Resolution No. 2026-0148.

The Board’s formal action is reflected in the Resolution, which sets forth the operative findings and legal basis for the decision. Any statements made during deliberation that were not included in the adopted findings do not form part of the legal basis for the denial and therefore do not affect its validity. On March 12, 2026, the Board found that the draft resolution attached to the staff report accurately and completely incorporated the Board’s direction from the prior hearing and voted 3-1 (Bauta abstaining) to adopt the Resolution as presented. The Board’s discussion of public appreciation of historic resources does not equate to a formal designation of the property as a visitor-serving facility, nor does it create any right of public access to private property. The Appellant’s suggestion that such comments constitute an encouragement of trespass or a “physical invasion” is not supported by the record and mischaracterizes the nature of the Board’s remarks.

As it relates to the Board’s determinations regarding the Project’s impacts to an irrefutable historic resource,19 the Project was appropriately reviewed for consistency with the City’s certified LCP, which requires consideration of such impacts. The City is located within the coastal zone, and development within the coastal zone must comply with the Coastal Act and the City’s certified LCP. Government Code section 66329 expressly provides that nothing in the State ADU law supersedes or lessens the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. (See Gov. Code Section 66329 [“Nothing in [the state ADU law] shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976. . . .”].) As a result, ADU projects in the coastal zone remain subject to coastal permitting requirements. In Laguna Beach, unless a proposed ADU consists solely of the conversion of habitable area within the walls of an existing single-family dwelling, the project requires a CDP. (LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(a).) Here, the Project proposes a new detached ADU and therefore requires a CDP.

Under LBMC Section 25.07.012(G), a CDP may be approved only if the reviewing authority finds that the project conforms with all applicable provisions of the certified LCP. The City’s certified LCP is implemented through, among other things, the Zoning Code and the General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space and Conservation Element. Those LCP components include multiple policies addressing historic preservation, neighborhood character, and protection of the visual setting of historic resources. The Board properly relied on those provisions.

Specifically, the Board found that the Project did not comply with the following applicable provisions of the Certified LCP:
19 In 2009, at the Applicant’s request, the existing single-family residence on the subject Property was placed on the City’s Historic Register and the Applicant entered into a Mills Act contract with the City.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2 - Encourage the preservation of historically significant residential structures and protect the character-defining components of Laguna Beach’s traditional neighborhoods.

Here, the Project does not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence. The property owner has received a significant incentive in the form of a reduced property tax rate as a result of their participation in the Mills Act program. A condition of this incentive is compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. HRG reviewed the Project and determined it did not comply with the SOIS “because there is not enough room on the property to accommodate the ADU as designed without impairing the view of the historic resource and negatively impacting the spatial relationship that characterizes the property.”
Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 12-C: Development adjacent to a place, structure or feature found to be of historical significance shall be designed so that the uses permitted and the architectural design will protect the visual setting of the historical site.

Here, the proposed ADU would not protect the visual setting of the historical site in that it would be placed in front of the existing residence, altering the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. The existing residence was constructed at the rear of the parcel and has approximately a 50-foot setback from the street. Placing the ADU within the setback will remove a space that has been historically open since the residence was constructed in 1925. In addition, because the ADU will be located 10 feet from the existing residence it will obscure a majority of the view of the residence from the street.

LBMC Chapter 25.45.010 Procedures for alteration of a historic resource: “Prior to the issuance of a building permit to remodel or alter any historic resource, City staff shall review the proposed changes to determine if the proposal is consistent with the design review criteria, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) or the City’s Local Design Guidelines.” Here, HRG evaluated the Project and determined in the HRG Report and Supplemental HRG Report the proposed Project did not comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards.

As indicated above, in order to approve or conditionally approve a CDP, certain findings must be made. (LBMC Section 25.07.012(G).) One of the findings requires that the approving authority find that “[t]he project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program.” The Board appropriately considered the Project’s inconsistency with applicable LCP policies in its denial of the Project.

The Appellant’s broader argument—that historic resources are categorically outside the scope of coastal resource protection under the Coastal Act and the City’s LCP—is also unpersuasive. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act explicitly calls out “special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points.” Previous Coastal Commission decisions as well as case law all support the idea that historic resources are afforded some protection under the Coastal Act.

This is further supported by the City’s certified LCP – which has policies meant to protect historic resources.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

The City’s LCP includes adopted policies that expressly protect historically significant structures, neighborhood character, and the visual setting of historic resources. Those policies are part of the certified LCP and are therefore applicable in CDP review.

Moreover, the Coastal Commission staff has expressly found that historic resources fall squarely within the coastal resource protections of the Coastal Act and the City’s LCP. On August 11, 2020, the City Council adopted LCP Amendment No. 17-0388 related to the City’s historic preservation program, which amended the Municipal Code, the General Plan, and the City’s Residential Design Guidelines. Amendment for these modifications was required to be certified by the Coastal Commission. On February 10, 2022, the Coastal Commission approved the LCP amendment (LCP-5-LGB-20-0051-3) with certain modifications, which were adopted by the City Council later that year. In the Coastal Commission staff report prepared for this hearing, the report makes clear that in no uncertain terms, the Coastal Act and the City’s LCP expressly address the preservation of historic resources:
“The policies cited below are the relevant policies with regard to preservation of historic resources:

The Coastal Land Use Plan Technical Appendix segment of the certified LUP expressly incorporates the following Coastal Act policies regarding historic preservation and community character:

Section 30251 states:

The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

The Land Use Element of the certified LUP contains the following policies:

Action 1.1.13 states: Encourage preservation of historic structures and adaptive reuse of buildings.

GOAL 2: Preserve, enhance and respect the unique character and identity of Laguna's residential neighborhoods. Intent - The residential neighborhoods of Laguna Beach are diverse in housing design and are characterized by a strong neighborhood identity. Styles range from traditional to contemporary, with a majority of neighborhoods being of an eclectic mix. Pressures for development created by Laguna Beach's spectacular coastal and hillside settings and consistently high property values are perceived as creating cumulatively negative aesthetic and other impacts on these unique neighborhoods.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

In response to such impacts, Goal 2 sets forth policies and actions to preserve, enhance, and respect the character and identity that make Laguna Beach a highly desirable community in which to live through actions such as 1) amending zoning ordinances, including the implementation of long-term anti-mansionization standards; 2) changing the Design Review guidelines and process; 3) encouraging the preservation of historic residences; and 4) strengthening the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

Policy 2.2 Encourage the preservation of historically significant residential structures and protect the character-defining components of Laguna Beach's traditional neighborhoods.

Action 2.2.2 Receive an annual report from the Heritage Committee regarding preservation issues related to historically significant structures and amend preservation policies and ordinances as necessary to address identified issues. (Same as Action 3.3. I.) Action 2.2.3 Adopt incentives to preserve residential structures that contribute to the cultural and/or architectural character and heritage of the community.

GOAL 3: Preserve, enhance, and respect the unique, small-scale village character and individual identity of Laguna Beach's commercial areas. Intent -Laguna Beach's commercial areas are predominantly low-scale, which contributes to the pedestrian-oriented street environment. The village charm of Laguna Beach is a character that community members have long worked to preserve and enhance. An example of such a preservation technique is the Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in 1989 to preserve the "village atmosphere." The following policies apply to all commercial areas of the City and encourage compatibility of uses, the creation of small businesses, pedestrian orientation and access, art-related uses, enhanced and appropriate landscaping, and the preservation of historically significant commercial structures.

Policy 3.1 Promote development that is compatible with the pedestrian-oriented village character of the downtown (e.g., small lot sizes and height limitations).

Action 3.1.1 Consider adopting appropriate incentives for small commercially zoned lots to encourage a continuation of historic development patterns of small buildings on small lots.

Examples of such incentives could include relaxed parking and setback standards.

Policy 3.2 Encourage expansion of the village character, as defined in the Downtown Specific Plan, to other commercial areas of the City.

Policy 3.3 Encourage the preservation of historically significant buildings and protect the characterdefining components of Laguna Beach's commercial neighborhoods. (Similar to Policy 2.2.) Action 3.3.1 Receive an annual report from the Heritage Committee regarding preservation issues related to historically significant structures and amend preservation policies and ordinances as necessary to address identified issues. (Same as Action 2.2.2) APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Action 3.3.2 Develop City incentives to preserve significant/special commercial buildings in Laguna Beach.

Action 3.3.3 Consider the establishment of a land trust or other mechanism to purchase historically significant and special commercial structures.

Action 5.1.3 Promote preservation of historic structures and adaptive reuse of existing buildings.
…
Historical resources range from architecturally significant historic buildings and collections of buildings or residences that form distinctive neighborhoods to those associated with important persons or events in Laguna Beach’s history. As noted in the Laguna’s Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development: “The preservation of local landmarks, historical development patterns, diversity of design and pedestrian scale have contributed to Laguna’s village atmosphere[.]” The certified LUP has expressly incorporated Coastal Act Section 30251, which requires, in relevant part, that permitted development be sited and designed to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas. In addition, the LUE of the LUP contains policies and actions that encourage the preservation of historic structures and adaptive reuse of buildings (Action

1.1.13 and 5.1.3); encourage the preservation of historically significant residential structures and protect the character-defining components of Laguna Beach’s traditional neighborhoods and commercial neighborhoods (Policy 2.2 and 3.3); promote development that is compatible with the village character of the downtown (e.g., small lot sizes, pedestrian orientation, eclectic mix of architectural styles, etc.) (Policy 3.1); and encourage expansion of the village character to other commercial areas (Policy 3.2). Moreover, the LUE defines neighborhood character as the “sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
…
Additionally, it should also be noted that impacts to community character will continue to be determined on a case-by-case basis through the coastal development permit process. Therefore, these proposed changes to the IP will not be inconsistent with the LUP regarding the protection of character and impacts to historic resources.”
(Coastal Commission staff report dated January 21, 2022 and posted to the February 10, 2022 Coastal Commission meeting agenda.)21 (Emphasis added.)
This Coastal Commission staff guidance confirms that historic preservation policies within the City’s certified LCP are valid and relevant considerations in CDP review. 21 The staff report may be accessed here: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2022/2/Th9b/Th9b-2-2022-report.pdf APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Accordingly, the Board did not deny the Project based on an improper or extraneous theory of coastal resource protection. Rather, the Board denied the Project because it could not make the required finding that the Project conforms to all applicable provisions of the certified LCP. As reflected in Resolution No. 2026-0148, the Board found that the proposed detached ADU would adversely affect the visual setting and integrity of the designated historic residence and would conflict with applicable LCP policies, including General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.2 and Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 12-C. The Resolution also relies on HRG’s conclusion that the proposed siting and scale of the ADU would impair views of the historic residence and disrupt the spatial relationship that characterizes the property. Those are proper LCP-based considerations and provide substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision.

In sum, the record does not demonstrate any misunderstanding of coastal resources by the Design Review Board. The references made during deliberation to visitor-serving concepts were not adopted as findings and did not form the basis for denial. The actual basis for denial, as stated in Resolution No. 2026-0148, was the Project’s inconsistency with applicable provisions of the City’s certified LCP, including policies protecting historic resources and their visual setting. For that reason, the Appellant has not established that the Board’s decision was unreasonable, invalid, or an abuse of discretion.

6. “Failure to Abide by Permit Streamlining Act and State ADU Law: Outside of narrow range of resources regulated by the Coastal Act, it is the State ADU law, and not the City’s subjective design review process, that applies to Mr. Lukoff’s project. Under State ADU Law, a city “shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone” to create specified units (emphasis added). Gov. Code § 66323(a). This includes one detached ADU that has four-foot side and rear setbacks that is no more than 800 square feet of livable space and not taller than 16 feet in height. Gov. Code § 66323(a)(2). Furthermore, a local agency “shall not impose any objective development or design standard that is not authorized by this section” for a qualifying project. Mr. Lukoff’s project is a qualifying project under Gov. Code § 66323(a)(2). Mr.

Lukoff proposed a detached ADU that abides by 4-foot side and rear setbacks, is under 800 square feet, and is no taller than 16’ in height from the finished floor. However, the Board imposed lot coverage standards to deny the project, claiming that the 48% lot coverage was greater than the

42.88% lot coverage for the R-2 zone and purporting to deny the ADU project on that basis. The discussion captured during the February 26, 2026 and March 12, 2026 DRB hearings, as well as Resolution 2026-0148, provide a clear indication that the City is applying subjective standards and not objective standards to Mr. Lukoff’s project. Under Gov. Code 66313(i), “‘objective standards’ means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant ... and the public official prior to submittal.” Even where Gov. Code § 66323(a) by-right approval does not apply, in evaluating an application under Gov. Code § 66314(b)(1), a city may only “[i]mpose objective standards on accessory dwelling units 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 Historic Places” (emphasis added). A listing under the City’s Historic Register is not a listing on the California Register of Historic Places. In fact, in review of the California Register of Historic Places, within the City of Laguna Beach, only the Museum of Art, Mariona, and St. Francis Catholic Church are listed, not the subject property. See, California APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Historic Resources, available at https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=30 (last visited Mar. 10, 2026). The fact that the City seeks to deny Mr. Lukoff’s ADU project based on dueling consultant reports that come to different conclusions shows that the DRB is applying subjective, and not objective standards. Furthermore, the DRB’s decision is based on zoning standards that State ADU Law supersedes. The processing of Mr. Lukoff’s application also raises an Equal Protection issue under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mr. Lukoff appears to have been singled out for disparate treatment by having had his application heard by the Design Review Board when ADUs are mandated to be ministerially processed under Gov. Code § 66317(a). Under LBMC § 25.07.012(D), when only a CDP is required, such as a ministerially approved ADU, the CDP decision is within the purview of the Director of Community Development, not the Design Review Board. The DRB’s decision is inconsistent with a recent project at 239 Viejo St. where the City permitted demolition of a historic home that contained the same historically significant characteristics (upper story windows and cross-gable roofline) as Mr.

Lukoff’s home as well as the project at 320 North Coast Hwy. (the former Madison Square & Garden Café) that blocks the front façade of a historic cottage. Furthermore, Moreover, the City is not following the requirements of Gov. Code § 66317(b), which states, If a permitting agency denies an application for an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to subdivision (a), the permitting agency shall, within the time period described in subdivision (a), return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant. Additionally, “No local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than an accessory dwelling unit ordinance consistent with this article shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this section” per Gov. Code § 66317(d). The City’s proposed action violates both of those State ADU Law requirements. The City proposes to issue Mr. Lukoff a blanket denial based on non-coastal and non-ADU ordinance bases with no direction on how Mr. Lukoff could remedy any purported defective items, which is an issue that Mr. Lukoff raised during his testimony before the DRB. The City appears to take a position that Gov. Code § 66329(a) allows the City to impose the provisions of the ordinary zoning code to deny ADU projects based on lot coverage and front yard setbacks. For instance, staff has made the assertion that because the City’s entire zoning code is incorporated wholesale into the LCP, the City escapes the requirements of State ADU Law entirely since it can use of the standard provisions of the zoning code to prevent ADU construction. However, it is clear that the State ADU Law governs non-Coastal Act aspects of a project. For instance, under Gov. Code § 66321(b)(3), a city may not impose: Any requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review or any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit an accessory dwelling unit with at least 800 square feet of interior livable space and with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.

Under canons of statutory construction, a statute that speaks to a specific matter applies over a general statute. Additionally, the State ADU Law “shall supersede a conflicting local ordinance.” Gov. Code § 66325. Here, although the City can consider coastal impacts under the Coastal Act per Gov. Code § 66329(a), the City is abusing its authority to assert that on issues not contemplated by the Coastal Act, that the LCP can wholesale override provisions of the State ADU Law. For instance, the City directed Mr. Lukoff to submit a project with a 21’ front yard setback, and then APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

obtained the HRG historic consultant to state in their report that the proposed ADU is too close to the existing residence. If Mr. Lukoff had been able to submit with a 13’ – 15’ front yard setback as permitted under Gov. Code § 66323(a)(2) and (b), this would allow for increased spacing from the existing home, since under this provision, front yard setbacks cannot be applied to deny an ADU project for up to 800 square feet. Even more telling is that whilst other cities have sought review of their ADU laws by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as required by Gov. Code § 66326(a), the City of Laguna Beach does not appear to have done so with either Ord. 1713 or Ord. 1715, which were passed after the enactment of Gov. Code § 66326.” Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the City failed to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act and State ADU Law by subjecting the Project to discretionary review, applying subjective standards, and relying on zoning provisions—such as building site coverage—that are allegedly preempted by State law. The Appellant further contends that the Project qualifies for ministerial approval and that the City improperly imposed additional requirements and procedures, including review by the Board.

The record does not support these assertions. The City’s processing and evaluation of the Project are consistent with State ADU Law, the Coastal Act, and the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP).

First, State ADU Law expressly preserves the applicability of the Coastal Act within the coastal zone.

Government Code Section 66329(a) provides that ADUs located within the coastal zone “shall be subject to the requirements of the California Coastal Act.” As a result, even where an ADU meets the dimensional standards identified in Government Code Section 66323(a)(2), it is not exempt from CDP requirements or the findings that must be made under a certified LCP. In the City of Laguna Beach, the Coastal Commission has delegated CDP authority to the City through its certified LCP, which requires discretionary review of development to ensure consistency with coastal resource protection policies.

Here, the Project required a CDP due to its location within the coastal zone and its potential to affect coastal scenic resources and a designated historic resource. As such, the Project is not eligible for purely ministerial approval, and the City is required to evaluate the Project under the applicable CDP findings, including visual compatibility, impacts to coastal scenic resources, and consistency with General Plan and historic preservation policies incorporated into the LCP. The involvement of the Board in this process is consistent with the City’s implementation of its LCP and does not conflict with State ADU Law. Staff furthermore incorporates the staff response to Contention No. 5 regarding historic resource protections in the LCP and Coastal Act in this response to Contention No. 6.

Second, the Appellant’s assertion that the City applied impermissible “subjective” standards is not supported by the record. The standards applied by the Board—including CDP Review Criteria 3 and 6, building site coverage limitations, and policies related to historic resources—are codified in the Municipal Code and General Plan and are applied uniformly to development proposals within the coastal zone. Here, because a CDP is required, applicable policies and provisions apply. While certain findings, such as visual compatibility, inherently require the exercise of professional judgment, they are grounded in adopted policies, determined on the basis of substantial evidence, and are not arbitrary or ad hoc.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Third, the Board did not deny the Project solely on the basis of building site coverage or other zoning standards in isolation. Rather, the building site coverage finding was one of several required findings under the Municipal Code and was directly tied to the City’s ability to approve increased coverage only where it preserves views or maintains neighborhood development patterns. The Board found that the Project did neither. Importantly, the denial is independently supported by the Project’s failure to meet CDP findings, including adverse impacts to coastal scenic resources – which include historic resources – and lack of visual compatibility. Accordingly, even if certain zoning standards were not dispositive, the Project would still fail to meet required CDP findings.

Fourth, the Appellant’s reliance on Government Code Section 66321(b)(3) and related provisions is misplaced in the context of the coastal zone. While State ADU Law limits the application of certain local development standards, it does not override the Coastal Act or the City’s certified LCP. The Coastal Act is a separate and independent statutory framework that the Legislature has expressly preserved. The City is therefore obligated to harmonize State ADU Law with Coastal Act requirements, and where a conflict exists, Coastal Act provisions govern development within the coastal zone. The City has not “wholesale overridden” State ADU Law; rather, it has applied the appropriate statutory framework for a coastal development project. As one example, the City allows certain ADU projects to qualify for an exemption from the ADU parking requirement, consistent with state ADU law.

Fifth, the Appellant’s argument regarding front yard setbacks and alternative siting does not demonstrate a violation of State ADU Law. The Project as proposed was evaluated based on its actual design, including its location within the front portion of the lot. While State law may limit the imposition of certain setback requirements for qualifying ADUs, it does not require the City to approve a specific design that results in adverse impacts to coastal resources or historic properties. The Board evaluated the Project that was submitted and found that its siting and configuration did not satisfy required findings. The City is not obligated to redesign the Project on the Applicant’s behalf or speculate as to whether an alternative configuration might be approvable.

Sixth, the Appellant’s claim of disparate treatment and Equal Protection violations is not supported by the record. The examples cited by the Appellant involve materially different properties, regulatory contexts, and project characteristics. With respect to 239 Viejo Street, the project involved demolition of an existing duplex that was expressly determined not to be a historic resource and did not qualify for listing on either the California Register or the City’s Historic Register. Accordingly, no Mills Act contract or Secretary of the Interior’s Standards applied, and there was no requirement to preserve the visibility or spatial relationships of a designated historic resource. In contrast, the subject property is a designated historic resource subject to a Mills Act contract that remains in effect, where preservation of character-defining features and their public visibility are core considerations. Further, the Appellant left mid-deliberations and did not avail himself to the potential iterative process where the Board explores possible project modifications in an attempt to meet the required findings.

Similarly, the comparison to 320 North Coast Highway is ill-fitting to the facts of this CDP application.

That project included the construction of two open, freestanding pergola structures between a historic commercial building and the street, rather than the placement of a new enclosed two-story building mass directly in front of a historic façade. The trellis design did not obstruct public views of the historic resource APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

in the same manner as a solid structure. Moreover, as a commercial site, the property is open to the public, allowing direct access and visibility of the historic building from within the site, which fundamentally differs from a private residential property where public views are limited to the public right-of-way. Finally, the project plans for 320 North Coast Highway were reviewed by the City’s architectural historian (HRG), who found that the proposed alterations met the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

Here, HRG found that the Project does not comply with SOIS.

These distinctions are critical. Land use determinations are inherently site-specific, and the subject property’s combination of a Mills Act-designated historic resource, its location within the coastal zone, and the proposed placement, massing, and scale of the ADU present a unique set of facts not present in the cited examples. As such, the City’s decision-making in this case reflects a reasoned application of applicable standards rather than disparate or arbitrary treatment.

Seventh, with respect to Government Code Section 66317(b), the requirement to provide written comments identifying deficiencies applies to ministerial ADU applications. As discussed above, the Project is not subject to purely ministerial approval due to the need for a CDP. Notwithstanding this, the City provided extensive feedback to the Applicant over the course of the review process, including through staff communications, consultant reports, and the public hearing process. The record reflects that the Applicant was aware of the issues related to siting, massing, historic resource impacts, and view impacts, and had the opportunity to revise the Project in response.

Finally, the Appellant’s suggestion that the City has failed to comply with State requirements for ADU ordinance review by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) is not relevant to the validity of the Board’s decision on this Project. The issue before the City Council is whether the Board properly applied applicable law to the Project as proposed. The record demonstrates that it did.

Nevertheless, Ordinance No. 1713, which currently governs the regulation of ADUs and JADUs, was adopted as an urgency measure in accordance with Government Code Sections 65858 and 36937. Under applicable law, a city may adopt an urgency ordinance that becomes effective immediately upon adoption without Coastal Commission certification when the ordinance does not conflict with the Coastal Act and does not authorize a use other than those already permitted under the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”). (Conway v. City of Imperial Beach (1997) 25 Cal.App.4th 78, 88–89.) The City has also submitted a corresponding non-urgency ordinance to the Coastal Commission, which was transmitted in April 2025 and remains pending. Because the City has a certified LCP, the non-urgency ordinance cannot take effect unless and until it is certified by the Coastal Commission. It is anticipated that this certification process will address applicable requirements of both the Coastal Commission (with respect to LCP amendments) and HCD (with respect to approval of the City’s ADU ordinance).

In sum, the City did not violate the Permit Streamlining Act or State ADU Law. The Project is subject to the Coastal Act and the City’s certified Local Coastal Program, which require discretionary review and findings that were not met in this case. Whether or not a property is on the California Register of Historical Resources, historic resources in the coastal zone are protected as coastal resources by the Coastal Act and the City’s LCP. The Board’s denial is supported by substantial evidence and reflects a lawful application of the governing statutory and regulatory framework.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

7. “Misunderstanding of CEQA: The DRB deliberations and Resolution 2026-1048 also show a misunderstanding of CEQA. The Board alleges that the project could not be approved on the basis that a Class 3 (Small Structures) categorical exemption may not apply because of the historic home.

The DRB ignored that under SB 131, which creates the “near miss” category of CEQA processing, a City-registered historic home is not a barrier to the project under CEQA. Since the historic home is the only purported condition that could potentially render the project ineligible, the City would not need to conduct a full initial study or EIR and instead limited to analysis of the potential effects of the action on the historic property. Pub. Res. Code § 21080.1(b) (2025). Furthermore, had the Board fully analyzed the potential effects on the historic property in line with the GPA and Sapphos reports, the Board would have concluded that the CEQA Class 3 (Small Structures) categorical exemption would apply.”
Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Board misunderstood and misapplied the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically with respect to the applicability of a Class 3 categorical exemption and recent statutory changes under Senate Bill (“SB”) 131. The Appellant contends that the presence of a historic resource does not preclude use of a categorical exemption and that, at most, limited environmental review would be required. This argument is not relevant to the validity of the Design Review Board’s action and is not supported by the record.

Under SB 131, “housing development projects”, as defined, that narrowly fail to qualify for any CEQA exemption due to a single disqualifying condition need only review those environmental effects caused solely by that condition, which substantially reduces the scope of the CEQA review. Here, however, the Project does not qualify under SB 131. Section 65589.5 of the Government Code includes the following definition of a “housing development project”:
“(h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: . . . (2)“Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:
(A) Residential units only.”
(emphasis added)
Staff believes that the plain language of the statute and its use of the plural “residential units” means the project must be creating more than just one residential unit; indeed, the term of art, "housing development project" contemplates one project that is developing a use of at least two residential units. Thus, for a project like this one – with an existing use of one unit and the development of a use of a second unit (i.e., the ADU) – SB 131 would not apply, as the only “residential unit” being developed or created is the ADU and thus it is not a project consisting of “residential units only.” As a matter of due diligence on a separate matter regarding this same definition but under the context of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), on November 5, 2025, City staff submitted a request for technical assistance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on this very issue of whether the HAA applies to a project that only involves an addition to an existing single-family home and an ADU.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

On November 17, 2025, HCD responded that they had reviewed the inquiry, but would not be able to provide technical assistance on the matter “[d]ue to limited staff resources and fluctuating caseloads.” While HCD did posit that this refusal to answer should not be interpreted as an endorsement or rejection on the merits of the City’s inquiry, HCD’s refusal to posit that the HAA does apply to these types of projects does provide City staff a modicum of confidence in our position. HCD is typically not shy about staking out broad and expansive positions regarding the application of State housing laws to certain projects. Thus, HCD’s refusal to do so here may be instructive. Accordingly, staff’s position that the Project does not qualify as a housing development project under SB 131 because it adds only a single new residential unit to the property remains unchanged.

Here, as a threshold matter, the Project was denied. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 and Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5), projects that are rejected or disapproved are not subject to CEQA.

Resolution No. 2026-0148 expressly states that the Project is not subject to CEQA on this basis.

Accordingly, no CEQA analysis—whether categorical exemption, “near miss” analysis, or otherwise—was required or relied upon in connection with the denial. The Board’s decision does not depend on CEQA compliance.

While CEQA was not determinative here, the Board’s discussion regarding the applicability of a categorical exemption was not incorrect. CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(f) provides that a categorical exemption cannot be used where a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as was found to be the case with the proposed Project. The Project site contains a designated historic resource subject to a Mills Act contract, and the record—including the HRG reports and staff analysis—supports the conclusion that the proposed ADU would adversely affect that resource by altering its spatial relationship to the street and obscuring a substantial portion of its primary elevation. Under these circumstances, the potential applicability of the historical resource exception to a categorical exemption is a valid consideration.

In sum, the Board properly concluded that CEQA does not apply to projects that are not approved. Because the Board found that the Project would not preserve the historic integrity of the existing single-family residence, the Board would not have been able to approve the Project with a categorical exemption from CEQA. Because SB 131 does not apply, an Initial Study (and potentially an Environmental Impact Report) would be required in order to consider approval of the Project.

8. DRB Denial Constitutes Unconstitutional Taking: In the DRB’s deliberation, the Board Members used both the Mills Act, and a designation of Mr. Lukoff’s property as a “recreational” or “visitorserving facility” to justify unconstitutional taking of Mr. Lukoff’s property rights. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Art. 1, Sec. 19(a) of the California Constitution guarantee the right to just compensation in the event of a physical or regulatory taking of private property.

Unless just compensation is provided to Mr. Lukoff by the City, the DRB’s actions are unconstitutional pursuant to the three-part framework established in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 483 U.S. 104, 124, based on economic impact, investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. The Board seems to believe that Mr.

Lukoff consented to waive his Fifth Amendment rights when he signed onto the Mills Act because of the tax break associated. Mr. Lukoff received consideration of tax breaks under the Mills Act to APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

provide for the upkeep and maintenance of his historic property. The Fifth Amendment standard for a taking is “just compensation,” not a tax break. By entering into the Mills Act contract, Mr. Lukoff did not receive just compensation and did not consent to a taking of his property rights under the State ADU Law or development rights of an R-2 zoned property, contrary to the Design Review Board’s assertion. First, the economic impact is substantial. Resolution 2026-0148 and the deliberations of the DRB effectively foreclose not only the ADU as proposed, but signals that no ADU would be permitted on Mr. Lukoff’s property at all, thereby depriving Mr. Lukoff of a significant and expressly authorized residential use on an R-2 zoned lot that otherwise allows multiple dwelling units. Additionally, as Mr. Lukoff plans to age in place, his current residence may not be adequate. Thus, Mr. Lukoff’s proposed ADU is instrumental to his aging-in-place plan.

Second, the DRB’s denial directly interferes with reasonable, investment-backed expectations. Mr.

Lukoff purchased the property prior to the Mills Act designation, and as he stated during the DRB hearing, the property was in serious disrepair. Based on the Real Property Report obtained from the City at the time of purchase, Mr. Lukoff formed the understanding he would be able to construct a dwelling unit on the property. Mr. Lukoff later relied on State ADU Law to develop a compliant detached ADU. The Mills Act does not provide cover for the City to conduct a regulatory taking of Mr. Lukoff’s property rights under State ADU Law. Mr. Lukoff purchased the property in 2007 and entered into a Mills Act contract in March 2009. Mr. Lukoff used the benefits of the Mills Act to rehabilitate a dilapidated property. There is no clause in the Mills Act contract that waives Mr.

Lukoff’s rights to improve his property, as long as he complies with the terms of the contract. For instance, while he is prohibited from demolition of the house or exterior alterations not within Secretary of the Interior Standards. Here, the proposed ADU is for a detached structure that does not physically alter or add onto the existing Mills Act residence, which is why Mr. Lukoff applied for a detached instead of an attached ADU. Since Mr. Lukoff bought the property with the intention and understanding of developing a second unit, the DRB’s action interferes with his reasonable, investment-backed expectations. Third, the character of the governmental action strongly favors a finding of a taking. First, the DRB’s categorization of Mr. Lukoff’s home as a “recreational, visitorserving facility” encourages the public to trespass a physical invasion of Mr. Lukoff’s property to tour Mr. Lukoff’s historic property.7 Rather than a general land use regulation evenly applied, the City has engaged in ad hoc, discretionary decision-making, including shifting application requirements, reliance on conflicting consultant analyses, and the imposition of subjective criteria and non-ADU standards to single out and deny this project, effectively “weaponizing” the Local Coastal Program and historic designation to preclude otherwise lawful residential development.

Furthermore, as discussed above, the obligations under the Mills Act contract are fixed at the time of contract in 2009 and not as the City would like them to be in 2026. Thus, in terms of the Mills Act, Mr. Lukoff is held to the preservation of the significant features of his home as it was in 2009, which did not include the first-floor window, pergola, porch, or entry door. Taken together, these factors demonstrate that the City’s action goes beyond legitimate regulation and instead operates as the functional equivalent of a taking, depriving the owner of core property rights without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Design Review Board’s denial of the proposed Coastal Development Permit constitutes an unconstitutional regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, applying the framework established in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104. The Appellant argues that the denial deprives the property owner of economically viable use, interferes with investment-backed expectations, and reflects an improper exercise of governmental authority. This argument is not supported by the facts in the record or applicable law.

Staff incorporates by reference the staff’s response to Contention No. 5 regarding recreational and visitorserving facilities.

As an initial matter, a regulatory taking occurs only in limited circumstances where a governmental action deprives a property owner of all economically viable use of the property, or where the impact of regulation is so severe under the Penn Central factors that it effectively functions as a physical appropriation. Courts have consistently held that the denial of a single development proposal, even one that reduces potential property value or development intensity, does not constitute a taking where reasonable economic use of the property remains.

Here, the subject property is currently developed with a single-family residence that remains fully usable and occupied. The denial of a Coastal Development Permit for a detached ADU does not deprive the owner of all economically viable use of the property, nor does it prohibit continued residential use consistent with the underlying R-2 zoning. The property retains substantial value and utility, and the owner is not deprived of fundamental property rights. Accordingly, the threshold for a categorical taking is not met.

While the denial of the proposed ADU may limit the intensity of development on the property, it does not eliminate economic use or value. The ability to construct an additional dwelling unit is only one of many potential uses of the property. Courts have routinely found that diminution in value or lost development opportunity, standing alone, does not constitute a taking. The property continues to function as a residential property, and the denial of one particular configuration of development does not rise to the level of a compensable taking.

The Appellant’s asserted expectations of constructing an additional unit are not determinative where those expectations are subject to existing regulatory frameworks, including the Coastal Act, the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), and historic preservation requirements. At the time of purchase and at the time of entering into the Mills Act contract, the property was subject to land use regulations that require discretionary review and findings for development impacting coastal resources and historic properties.

Importantly, the Mills Act contract is a voluntary agreement entered into by the property owner in exchange for significant property tax benefits. That contract expressly requires preservation of the historic resource in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and applicable City regulations. Compliance with these standards necessarily constrains future development on the property as the quid pro quo for tax benefits. Thus, the owner’s expectations that this Property is identical to every other R-2 zoned property without a Mills Act contract is not accurate and the expectations for future development must therefore be understood in the context of these voluntarily accepted obligations. The assertion that no ADU would be permitted is not accurate as other options or configurations could have been explored by the Appellant – but were not.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

Additionally, State ADU Law does not create an absolute right to develop an ADU irrespective of other applicable laws. As discussed in prior sections, the Coastal Act and the City’s LCP govern development within the coastal zone, and the proposed ADU remains subject to Coastal Development Permit findings.

Thus, any expectation of ministerial approval is inherently limited by these applicable coastal and historic preservation regulations.

The Design Review Board’s action represents a routine exercise of the City’s police power to regulate land use in furtherance of legitimate public purposes, including protection of coastal resources, preservation of historic structures, and maintenance of neighborhood character. The denial is based on adopted policies and standards within the certified LCP, including Coastal Development Permit criteria, General Plan policies, and Municipal Code provisions.

The Appellant’s assertion that the Board’s characterization of the property as a “recreational or visitorserving facility” resulted in a physical invasion is not supported by the Resolution. While individual Board member comments during deliberation may have referenced the broader public interest in historic resources, Resolution No. 2026-0148 does not designate the property as a public facility, nor does it authorize or encourage public access to private property. The legal findings supporting denial are grounded in coastal visual resource protection, historic preservation standards, and zoning compliance—not in any reclassification of the property’s use.

Furthermore, the record demonstrates that the Project was evaluated through an established public process, with input from staff, independent historic consultants, the Heritage Committee, and members of the public.

The decision was based on substantial evidence and consistent application of adopted standards. There is no indication of arbitrary or discriminatory treatment that would support a takings claim.

Finally, the Appellant’s contention that the denial forecloses all future ADU development on the property is speculative. The Board evaluated a specific proposal based on its siting, massing, and relationship to the historic resource and surrounding context. The denial does not preclude the possibility that a revised project, designed to comply with applicable standards, could be considered in the future. And to reiterate, the Appellant left mid-way through the Board’s deliberations. This is often when the various Board members float possible project modifications to an applicant to flesh out feasibility of changes and agreement by the Applicant in an attempt to get to approval. While it cannot be said with certainty that for this proposal, the Board would have gotten there for this Project, the Appellant’s decision to purposefully leave the meeting mid-deliberation vitiated any chance at this process and belies his claim of a taking.

In sum, the denial of Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 does not constitute a regulatory taking. The property retains viable economic use, the owner’s expectations are constrained by applicable and voluntarily accepted regulations, and the City’s action represents a lawful exercise of its land use authority.

Accordingly, the Appellant’s takings claim does not provide a basis to overturn the Design Review Board’s decision.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF CDP 2026-0148, AT 238 CHIQUITA STREET May 13, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is not subject to environmental review. CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 provides that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Specifically, Section 15270(a) states that CEQA “does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.” In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) similarly provides that CEQA does not apply where a project is denied. Here, the Design Review Board adopted Resolution No. 2026-0148 denying Coastal Development Permit 2026-0148 for the proposed accessory dwelling unit at 238 Chiquita Street. Because the project has been denied, no development will occur, and there is no potential for resulting physical environmental impacts. Accordingly, the action is not subject to CEQA.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 51-118)

2. February 23, 2026, Heritage Committee Transcript (Pgs. 119-134)

3. February 26, 2026, Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 135-153)

4. February 26, 2026, Design Review Board Plans (Pgs. 154-165)

5. February 26, 2026, Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 166-171)

6. February 26, 2026, Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 172-187)

7. Sapphos Memorandum For The Record (2023) (Pgs. 188-209)

8. Historic Resources Group Peer Review Memo (2023) (Pgs. 210-219)

9. Historic Resources Group Updated Memo (2026) (Pgs. 220-223)

10. Mills Act Contract (Pgs. 224-230)

11. March 12, 2026, Design Review Board Staff Report (Pg. 231)

12. March 12, 2026, Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 232-237)

13. March 12, 2026, Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 238-241)

14. Board Denial Resolution 2026-0148 (Pgs. 242-248)

15. Appeal (Pgs. 249-263)

16. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 264)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Sammi Montalto, Associate Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development