Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board confirms denial of coastal permit for 238 Chaita Street after legal challenges
Summary
The Laguna Beach Design Review Board on March 12 approved a confirming resolution (Resolution 2026-0148) denying a coastal development permit for an ADU at 238 Chaita Street, overriding recent attorney arguments that the project should be processed ministerially under state ADU law; vote 3–1, with one abstention.
The Laguna Beach Design Review Board on March 12 confirmed its Feb. 26 denial of a coastal development permit for an accessory dwelling unit at 238 Chaita Street, approving Resolution 2026-0148 by a 3–1 vote with one abstention.
Attorney Edwin Kell, representing property owner Jonathan Lukov, urged the board to disapprove the draft resolution and remand the matter to the Community Development Director for ministerial processing under “state ADU law,” saying the board’s draft resolution raised legal problems on three fronts: coastal scenic-resource treatment, the handling of historic-property considerations, and an interpretation of the Mills Act. Kell argued the board’s focus on a “slight public view impairment” would improperly block routine development and conflict with the city’s housing element and the state Housing Accountability Act.
Ian Walcott, representing nearby homeowners, told the board that the factual record had not changed since the Feb. 26 hearing and urged the board to keep the denial in place and allow the applicant to appeal to the planning commission rather than relitigate the decision before the design review board.
During deliberations Chair Gibbs and other members said they had reviewed the staff report and the previously stated findings and were not persuaded by the new legal arguments. One member (Board member Belta) abstained because she had not attended the earlier hearing. Chair Ganon moved to adopt the confirming resolution; the motion was seconded and carried with Board member W and both chairs voting yes. The chair recorded that three votes are required to carry action; with four members present the motion passed 3–1.
The confirming resolution memorializes the board’s prior findings supporting denial of the coastal development permit for the proposed ADU. The board’s staff report and the resolution were presented to the public as the basis for the decision; attorneys for both sides and neighbors made oral comments during the public-comment period.
Next steps: the resolution was adopted at the meeting and, as the chair noted at the start of the session, anyone residing within 300 feet of the project or the applicant may appeal a board action within 14 days, per the notice the board read into the record.
