PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 18, 2017

Transcription

1 D R A F T PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 18, 2017 A regular noticed meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Laguna Beach, California, convened at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers on January 18, ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Staff Present: Chairperson Sue Kempf, Chair Pro Tem Susan McLintock Whitin and Commissioners Anne Johnson, Roger McErlane and Ken Sadler None Gregory Pfost, Director of Community Development Nancy Csira, Zoning Administrator Scott Drapkin, Principal Planner Martina Caron, Senior Planner Wendy Jung, Senior Planner Ann Marie McKay, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Downtown Specific Plan Update Receive a presentation and discuss MIG s proposed amendments to Section II (Profile of Downtown Characteristics) of the Downtown Specific Plan. Commissioner Kempf provided an overview of the process for the review and Wendy Jung summarized the staff report. Public Testimony: Becky Jones, San Remo Drive, submitted that the chapter needs to be rewritten because it lacks soul. She suggested making special note of the sites that make Laguna the town that it is, such as the Post Office, Whole Foods Market, the hardware store, the Laguna Playhouse, the movie theater, the museum and the Susi Q, which are not mentioned, and similar facilities that are listed without comment. She also noted inconsistencies, such as the surface parking on Ocean Avenue described as a negative whereas the extensive presence of surface parking on Broadway is not considered. Ms. Jones also listed several omissions, such as Laguna s history as an art colony and its current art presence, Laguna s dramatic coastline, restaurants with outdoor seating, important restorations such as the Presbyterian Church and Heisler Building, the sounds of the chimes from the Presbyterian Church floating over the downtown, Ocean Avenue cottages functioning as artist live/work, the effects of tuck-under parking, plusses and minuses of Broadway terminating at Main Beach with two service stations, the visual and practical impacts of Third Street hill, the presence of affordable housing facilities on Glenneyre and Broadway and

2 Coastal Commission impact on development policies. Ms. Jones also suggested better pictures, such as Forest Avenue and Cliff Drive looking from the downtown. Norm Grossman, speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, referenced the letter the Chamber submitted, which suggests adding a topic called The Changing Nature of the Downtown, and rationale to provide the foundation explaining why the Downtown Specific Plan is being updated. Mr. Grossman agreed with Village Laguna and Becky Jones regarding the descriptions, noting that Main Beach is not even mentioned. He submitted that the current Plan may not be in the best format. He suggested a tableau description of how the downtown functions, with the various elements working together, noting its strengths and weaknesses. Mr. Grossman also thanked Ms. Jung for ing the Word version of the strikethrough document to enable the Chamber to more easily provide specific inline recommended changes. Lorene Auger suggested including changes in transportation, such as Uber and Lyft services, and addressing how those service providers take up parking spaces while waiting for fares, with recommended solutions such as providing specific locations for them to sit. She also suggested mentioning autonomous vehicles and having the parking at Main Beach changed to a loading zone to keep the view corridor clear. Barbara Metzger referenced the Chamber s comments on the changing nature and policies in the next section, and she suggested some description about what has been done in the last 25 years and how the downtown may have changed without those policies. Regarding the line-by-line suggested changes, Ms. Metzger noted that some may be conflicting and some may be counterproductive, and asked how it will be determined what changes should and should not be incorporated. Commissioners Comments: Regarding the updated table and text provided on page 63 of the staff report, Commissioner McErlane asserted that it provides no sense of scale and needs something that measures the size/magnitude. Ms. Jung responded that staff can incorporate information obtained with the IBI Group parking demand study. Regarding the purpose of the chapter, Ms. Jung explained to Commissioner McErlane that it is currently supposed to provide a profile of the downtown s characteristics. Mr. Pfost noted that the policy aspect will be addressed in Section/Chapter III, but this chapter can be expanded to include strengths and weaknesses. Mr. Pfost suggested that after reviewing Section III, then maybe the downtown characteristics can be better summarized on a broader scale. Regarding updating the Table of Contents, Mr. Pfost advised that it should be reviewed as the various chapters/sections are reviewed to better determine what should be changed. Mr. Pfost acknowledged Commissioner McErlane s previous request to have the Table of Contents during each review and assured him that it will be provided for the next review. Commissioner McErlane submitted that a summary table should be included in the section that discusses parking. He also noted that there is no mention of the traffic control personnel that are successfully used when traffic is particularly congested. Commissioner McErlane also agreed with Ms. Jones regarding the need for more descriptions, including the trees and horticulture issues. Commissioner McErlane noted that there is no discussion of the architectural fabric and character in the downtown, and how that fabric can be strengthened and reinforced. DRAFT PC Minutes 2 January 18, 2017

3 Commissioner Johnson agreed that more analysis and data should be included. Mr. Pfost confirmed for Commissioner Johnson that in-depth analyses are included in Chapter 3. Mr. Pfost noted that the title of this chapter is Profile of the Downtown Characteristics whereas Chapter 3 has issue statements and policies discussed in depth. Commissioner Johnson noted her concerns about the data included, noting that the City has more recent data. Ms. Jung advised Commissioner Johnson that the draft report on the parking demand study is being finalized and is scheduled to be presented to the Planning Commission at its second meeting in February. Commissioner Johnson agreed with the Chamber s comments regarding the changing nature of visitors and suggested including information from the Visitors Bureau s current study. She reiterated that more analysis should be included. Commissioner Whitin commended the staff report, but commented on the inconsistencies in this chapter. She questioned if the chapter should simply be a descriptive narrative of the City, or also include an evaluation and analytics, or if those items are more appropriate in the policies. She agreed that the chapter needs to set the stage to some degree, explaining the need to revise the Plan. Commissioner Whitin also agreed that it is very dull reading and Ms. Jones comments hit home. Commissioner Whitin submitted that the chapter should provide a snapshot of the City, giving the look and feel of the City, whereas the next three chapters are more technical. She agreed that this chapter should be fun to read, vibrant and express who we are as a City. Commissioner Whitin noted that there is no mention of the art college and she suggested that the first page may need to be expanded. She also suggested more graphics, such as analytics of then and now, to show how things are changing. Commissioner Whitin also stated that there should be explanations provided with graphics, and she suggested including a graphic of the locations of land uses. Regarding the street-by-street descriptions, Commissioner Whitin suggested consolidating those descriptions because there is little differentiation in those descriptions, and simply noting what makes each unique. Commissioner McErlane suggested including an analysis on how one street works better than another. Commissioner Sadler agreed that this chapter should provide a big picture overview. He also agreed that there should be more data and analysis leading into the next section, to provide a basis. Commissioner Sadler also agreed that the document is dull and he commented that it looks and feels dated. He expressed his dislike of the photographs included, asserting that they do not capture the sense of the downtown. Commissioner Sadler had no issue with the sections on the different streets, but agreed that they need to be consistent and tie together. He noted that Wells Fargo is not mentioned and other locations, such as the Laguna Presbyterian Church, are mentioned using incorrect and/or inconsistent names. He thanked Village Laguna and the Chamber of Commerce for taking the time to go through the document and surmised that those comments will be provided to MIG to coalesce. Commissioner Sadler stated that the document needs to have a sense of looking back at the City s history, noting the big issues, successes and failures, such as the establishment of Main Beach and the creation of the Glenneyre parking structure. He also agreed that the chapter should be updated with more current information, the public infrastructure section should be expanded and constraints on the City, such as its relationship with the California Coastal Commission, should be noted. He also agreed with Commissioner McErlane regarding the need for DRAFT PC Minutes 3 January 18, 2017

4 context with the land use summary. Regarding environmental hazards, Commissioner Sadler suggested expanding that section, considering Laguna has had everything. He also agreed on the comments regarding the graphics and noted the floodplain graphic that seems out of context. Commissioner Sadler also agreed with the comments on future transportation and the changing nature of the downtown, and he suggested adding some discussion on why the downtown is changing. Regarding the Resident-Serving District, Commissioner Sadler stated that he understands the history, but argued that it has not worked or been followed and therefore there should instead be a general concept that resident-serving uses are important and should be promoted, reiterating that designating a certain area for those uses has failed. Commissioner Sadler also stated that a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) is a good idea. Commissioner Whitin noted that the rhythm does not change throughout the document, which lends to its dullness. She agreed that the changing nature of the downtown should be included and she suggested adding the land use diagram. Commissioner Whitin stated that she would rather see the street information presented as a matrix and suggested that it could even be a fold-out page, which would add variety in the document s format, presenting the information so that it is more engaging for readers. Regarding the Resident-Serving District, Commissioner Whitin asserted that the whole town should be resident-serving. Regarding the layout, Commissioner Kempf noted that most people review documents online now. She noted Newport Beach s and San Clemente s General Plans, which have a pleasing online appearance. Commissioner Kempf stated that she likes the input from the Chamber regarding the changing nature of the downtown, noting the Chamber s insight into what is working and what is not. Commissioner Kempf also agreed that the environmental hazards section should be embellished to include the flood mitigation measures and make reference to the fire hazard areas. Regarding Ms. Jones comments, Commissioner Kempf agreed with adding references to those items mentioned, such as Laguna s history as an art colony, our coastline, the restorations and sites such as the Community Clinic. Commissioner Sadler added that the sea-level rise issue should also be included. Commissioner McErlane surmised that the problem is that we are starting with an existing document and he submitted that this is a great time to have a refresher and have less of a revision of the existing document. Commissioner Johnson agreed that a complete overhaul may be more appropriate, completely revising how the document is laid out, rather than a revision overlaid on the original document. Commissioner Whitin submitted that this may be an editing job and Mr. Pfost confirmed that the consultant was tasked simply with an update of an existing document; however, Mr. Pfost agreed that this is an opportunity to write the Plan so that it is worth reading and easy to use. Commissioner Whitin clarified for Mr. Drapkin that the overview map of land uses is sufficient and she agreed that an aerial photograph may be a good addition. Mr. Pfost responded to Commissioner Whitin that the consultant is not designing the update to be an online document, but he assured that it can be done. Commissioner Johnson reiterated the need to include updated data and Mr. Pfost noted the recent extensive staff analysis that has been done and can be included. DRAFT PC Minutes 4 January 18, 2017

5 2. Subcommittee on Piecemeal Issue s proposed policies Receive a presentation from staff, hear public testimony, discuss the Subcommittee on Piecemeal Issue s proposed policies, and make a recommendation to the City Council in regard to the proposed new permitting procedures. Gregory Pfost summarized the staff report. Questions of Staff: Commissioner Sadler noted that he served on the Design Review Board (DRB) for six years. He submitted that the proposed policies are a re-evaluation of what gets ministerially approved, what goes to Administrative Design Review and what goes to full Design Review. Commissioner Sadler asserted that piecemealing is a different potential issue, where an approval is obtained, then the applicant submits revisions that require another review, then more revisions are submitted for yet another review, and so on, meaning, applicants that do not come in with a full project and instead come in repeatedly along a short period of time. Mr. Pfost confirmed for Commissioner Sadler that the proposed policies do not address that issue, but rather address over-the-counter approvals that may affect neighborhood character, neighbors privacy, etc. Mr. Pfost explained that the subcommittee whittled down the list of issues to those of the most significant concern, which were items that were not going through the design review process. Mr. Pfost assured Commissioner Sadler that the subcommittee discussed the piecemealing issue that Commissioner Sadler described; however, legal issues involving property rights make that issue difficult to address. Commissioner Sadler noted the recommendation in the Design Review Board s memo regarding cumulative changes, which alludes to that same piecemealing issue. It was confirmed for Commissioner Kempf that if one person objects to a project in Administrative Design Review, it must go to a full DRB hearing; however, Nancy Csira, Zoning Administrator, explained that the person objecting must be in the noticing area. Commissioner Whitin commented that though the proposed policies are from the Subcommittee on Piecemeal Issue, no policy on piecemeal is included, and she asked if there is any way to deal with piecemealing to avoid triggering the 50% threshold for a major remodel. Ms. Csira explained that the Code already takes into consideration the three-year cumulative ratio when adding square footage and Mr. Pfost added that the proposed policies address nonconforming site conditions by requiring any additions over 10% for sites with nonconformities go before the DRB. Commissioner Whitin noted that there can be big changes to the character of a building without adding square footage and Mr. Pfost responded that the subcommittee identified changes that were of concern that needed to be addressed, such as design change and roof style change. He also advised that all Administrative Design Review notices are sent to the DRB members so they can pull an item if it is of particular concern. Regarding the major remodel threshold and allowed amount of demolition, Ms. Csira advised Commissioner Sadler that unlike projects in the downtown, many changes, including an extensive amount of demolition, to residential properties normally would not trigger design review; as the Code and City policy currently are, applicants could replace the entire exterior and interior without design review in many cases. Therefore, the subcommittee identified items it felt should require design review to reduce neighbor angst. Mr. Pfost confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that the proposed policies are specific to the DRB s purview; however, there may be instances that the policies would apply to projects heard by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Whitin commented that there are other piecemeal issues that relate to the Planning Commission that they may want to address at another time and Mr. Pfost DRAFT PC Minutes 5 January 18, 2017

6 recommended that the Planning Commission have a study session to discuss those issues and perhaps include it as a discussion item for the joint meeting with the City Council in April. Public Testimony: Vickie Collins provided pictures showing a property that she stated went through design review, then the applicant withdrew the project, then using administrative approvals had the project approved piecemeal. She asserted that more than 50% of the structure was demolished and that there are about 10 existing nonconformities that the applicant was successful in retaining through the piecemeal process. She also noted that the City considers something one nonconformity even when it exists on three levels. Matt Lawson noted the deference given to design review. He stated that people crave consistency and predictability, which is what the subcommittee is trying to achieve with the proposed policies, and opined that the subcommittee did a good job striking the right balance between development rights and those of neighboring residents, with the proposed policies. Mr. Lawson stated that though he supports the recommendations, he suggests that any change in roofing material or color should go through at least Administrative Design Review, whether or not a change is proposed to the style of the roof. He noted of particular concern a change from a dark non-reflective material to a lighter, more reflective material and suggested using a measurement of albedo to determine what would be acceptable. Marshall Ininns did not support the proposed policies, asserting that they would have a far-reaching effect on how many projects will end up in design review. He asserted that it takes 10 to 12 months to go through the design review process and get a final approved project. Mr. Ininns noted that all it takes is one neighbor to oppose a project, adding at least six weeks delay for each continuance, and the costs that are incurred. Mr. Ininns stated that he went to the first subcommittee meeting and 10 items were presented, with one vocal DRB member driving the discussion. Mr. Ininns disagreed that Department policy and procedure changed in 2014, as has been asserted by those pushing for more review, and agreed with Commissioner Sadler regarding the piecemealing issue. Mr. Ininns asserted that the process has worked well and he submitted that the proposed policies represent a power grab to make it more difficult for people to be creative and change their homes. Larry Nokes stated that he is not a fan of the proposed policies and noted that they do not address the piecemealing issue, but do create a more far-flung design review restriction palette than ever before. Mr. Nokes noted that repainting is supposedly not to be included, but he questioned if someone decides to paint their white house purple, if the City will determine it is a style change. Mr. Nokes stated that the City should not discourage beautification by adding a time and cost veneer to an already difficult process, noting that the Historic Preservation Ordinance proposed revisions are another overlay. He reiterated that the proposed policies do not address design creep and he commented that such projects get denied all the time. Mr. Nokes asserted that the City should retain individuality as part of its charm and continue to allow over-the-counter approvals for modest changes without having to deal with what neighbors want rather than the actual property owner. Morris Skenderian, member of the subcommittee, explained how they pared down the list of concerns. He stated that several pages noting where the City supposedly changed policy was submitted, but Mr. Skenderian asserted that was not the case and policy has not changed. Rather, he submitted that there has been a recent proliferation of several projects that took advantage of DRAFT PC Minutes 6 January 18, 2017

7 the Code to move through the process faster, from people flipping houses. He asserted that those people went for approval of only items that could circumvent the design review process, resulting in 22 permits issued on one project. Mr. Skenderian stated that the proposed policies are meant to vet those attempts. He did note that his only concern is the amount of discretion of the Director to determine what may be required. Mr. Skenderian also suggested revising style change to change that may affect the character of the neighborhood, noting that the examples brought before the subcommittee that caused concern were where cottages had shingles replaced with stucco, impacting the look of the neighborhood. He stated his desire to avoid deferring everything to the Design Review Board. Bob Lawson commented on the creep of the process, noting that things people used to be able to do are being eroded, which bothers him. Mr. Lawson suggested encouraging applicants to talk to their neighbors and if the neighbors sign off on the proposed changes, the City should approve them, rather than deferring all decisions to the DRB. He encouraged keeping administration simple. Gwen Myers stated that she has been affected by a project that has taken advantage of over-thecounter permits. She expressed concern that what the neighbors may sign off on may not be consistent with what is approved. Ms. Myers stated that window changes, decks and exterior changes were made with no notice to the neighbors, and she observed that such practices are becoming more common because people are learning how to circumvent the system. She supported the proposed policies and expressed hope that the Planning Commission would support them. Commissioners Comments: Commissioner Sadler asserted that the DRB has served the City and residents well, keeping Laguna from becoming like other cities, where the character of neighborhoods has been destroyed. He noted that people hate the design review process until a neighbor proposes a project that impacts them. Commissioner Sadler expressed his concern regarding project creep, but also did not want to make the process so onerous that everything requires full design review, creating a backlash against the process. Commissioner Sadler submitted that the proposed policies strike a good balance, noting that the subcommittee identified which issues have caused the majority of the problems and has included escape clauses. He acknowledged that the location of certain changes, like windows, can have a significant impact to the immediate adjacent neighbor, but can be approved with the impacted neighbor s consent. Commissioner Sadler submitted that the list of proposed policies is a reasonable compromise, not overly expanding the design review process, while also respecting property rights. He noted the separate issue regarding incremental piecemealing, but acknowledged the thin legal ground for the City to restrict such activity. He expressed sympathy for the Lagunita neighbor, but asserted that the process has tightened up and the proposed policies are a reasonable, incremental step that hopefully will not create a backlash. Commissioner Sadler supported approval of the proposed policies. Commissioner McErlane agreed that the subcommittee came to the appropriate conclusion, clarifying the issue. He agreed with Commissioner Sadler, noting that there are still options, but with these policies impacted neighbors will be part of the process. He submitted that the changes make processing these applications more efficient by separating out the easy versus the hard. Commissioner McErlane commended the subcommittee for doing a great job, stating that he likes the proposal. DRAFT PC Minutes 7 January 18, 2017

8 Commissioner Johnson thanked the subcommittee and asked staff to address Ms. Collins issue. Mr. Pfost responded that the issue with 9 and 11 Lagunita is being investigated, noting that 11 Lagunita is scheduled for a hearing before the DRB at its next meeting. Mr. Pfost assured that staff has met with Ms. Collins several times, but declined on further comment because of legal issues that are involved. Commissioner Johnson questioned if use of the term piecemeal may be creating confusion with the proposed policies and Mr. Pfost explained that the subcommittee was so named when it was created to address the list of projects that were of particular concern. However, in going through the list, Mr. Pfost explained that the subcommittee determined the specific issues causing the most concern, leading to the proposed policies. He explained that the proposed changes are not ordinance changes, but rather policy changes, and he assured that during the educational process different nomenclature for the policy changes will be used. Regarding Mr. Lawson s suggestion to use the albedo scale for changes in roof material, Mr. Pfost advised Commissioner Johnson that staff needs to research that suggestion, and will carry forward a recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Johnson suggested adding or materials that create glare to the policy title. Commissioner Johnson agreed that items #1 and #2 of the DRB s recommendations are worth considering, to streamline the process and place such items at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner Johnson supported approval of the proposed policies. Mr. Pfost confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that repainting can be approved ministerially; Ms. Csira added that repainting is not regulated unless there is prior design review approval that has an approved color palette. Mr. Pfost acknowledged Commissioner Whitin s concerns, but asked what the threshold would be for determining approvals. Commissioner Whitin stated that she agrees that the City needs more color and she believes in architectural variety, but has concerns about repainting that may be completely out of character for a neighborhood. Commissioner Whitin agreed that Mr. Lawson s suggestion regarding the reflectivity of roof material is important and needs attention. She suggested the development of guidelines, noting that highly reflective roofs can been seen across the City. She acknowledged that they are on the edge of trying to legislate everything and assured that she did not want the City to dictate style too much, because individuality is what Laguna is about. Commissioner Kempf expressed her displeasure that one person can make an applicant have to go to full design review and Ms. Csira advised that there is no additional City processing fee when that occurs, though she acknowledged that the applicant would have to pay a noticing agency for a public hearing noticing packet. Regarding the DRB recommendations, Commissioner Sadler agreed with Commissioner Johnson that items #1 and #2 are reasonable, particularly reducing fees. Regarding #3, Commissioner Sadler was not sure how the piecemeal issue can legally be addressed. Motion RM Second AJ Action Provide comments on the proposed policies and the Design Review Board s recommendations. Motion carried 5-0. Vote: Johnson Y McErlane Y Sadler Y Whitin Y Kempf Y DRAFT PC Minutes 8 January 18, 2017

9 3. Planning Commission Design Review to modify the roofing material at the Sawdust Art & Craft Festival located at 935 Laguna Canyon Road. Communication Disclosures: All Commissioners have visited the site unless otherwise noted in the public hearing. The applicant has withdrawn the request. No action necessary. 4. Planning Commission Sign Permit to install and adopt a revised sign program for the multi-tenant property located at Forest Avenue (currently DeBilzan and Pacific Gallery). Communication Disclosures: All Commissioners have visited the site unless otherwise noted in the public hearing. Motion SW Second KS Action Continue Planning Commission Sign Permit to the February 1, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Vote: Johnson Y McErlane Y Sadler Y Whitin Y Kempf Y 5. Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the onsite consumption of beer and wine within a 280-square-foot area at an existing retail store at 1796 South Coast Highway (The Pearl Street Market). Communication Disclosures: All Commissioners have visited the site unless otherwise noted in the public hearing. Commissioners Johnson, Sadler and McErlane reported communications with Steve Kawartani. Martina Caron summarized the staff report. Questions of Staff: Ms. Caron responded to Commissioner Johnson that the applicant has a Type 20 license for the sale of alcohol for offsite consumption and Ms. Caron explained to Commissioner Johnson that the license they want to obtain is the Type 42, which does not differentiate between a tasting use and a tavern use. Ms. Caron confirmed for Commissioner McErlane that the number of pours would not be limited unless the Planning Commission includes a limit in the conditions of approval. Ms. Caron responded to Commissioner Whitin that the parking code does not address parking on a cross slope; however, Ms. Caron assured that the Building Division will ensure that the handicap space is on the flatter area when the parking lot is restriped. Ms. Caron confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that the eight required parking spaces are proposed to be fulfilled with seven regular parking spaces and two motorcycle spaces. DRAFT PC Minutes 9 January 18, 2017

10 Ms. Caron advised Commissioner Whitin that the revised seating, per ABC (California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control) requirements, can be redlined on the floor plan. Commissioner Whitin noted that the existing wall that almost fully encloses the proposed area for the onsite consumption of alcohol is only 42 inches high, whereas the diagram on page 16 of the staff report shows a 6-foot wall on the plan. Ms. Caron advised that the wall does not have to be 6 feet tall and Ms. Caron confirmed that ABC requires the barrier. Ms. Caron confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that food cannot be prepared onsite and Ms. Caron explained that staff suggested not allowing coffee because of other components that may cause parking issues; however, Ms. Caron advised that the Commission can limit the coffee service to be completely contained in that limited area for onsite consumption only (i.e., no take-out). Regarding the Code violation, Ms. Caron advised Commissioner Kempf that the application was revised to only include what is required by the Health Department; no other facilities are being proposed. Regarding Condition 20, staff agreed with Commissioner Sadler that the business should not be called a restaurant ; therefore, the condition will be revised appropriately. Ms. Caron also clarified that Condition 21 is to ensure that any food served is also available for retail sale within the store. Regarding the eight similar licenses already existing within the census tract, Ms. Caron estimated for Commissioner Sadler that there are five or six tracts within the City, so this tract may extend from about Thalia Street to Nyes Place. Mr. Drapkin advised that the Police Department reviewed the application and were supportive, focusing on the hours of operation, with no expressed concerns regarding the other licenses in the area. Ms. Caron explained to Commissioner McErlane the ABC requirement regarding the number of wine stores. Staff explained to Commissioner McErlane how a restriction of 2-ounce pours would be policed and Commissioner Whitin was advised that the typical size wine pour is 4 to 5 ounces. Commissioner Johnson questioned what use is being approved and Ms. Caron responded that the application is to serve beer and wine for onsite consumption. Regarding the serving area, Mr. Drapkin explained that parking for a restaurant use includes the gross floor square footage, but the proposed alcohol use is ancillary to the market, so the serving area has been limited to maintain that distinction. Regarding other tasting rooms, Commissioner Johnson was advised that Laguna Canyon Winery offers wine tasting and the store where the Visitors Bureau is located was approved with a wine tasting area. Ms. Caron confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that the use could still be considered as a tasting room even if the size of the pour is not limited. Public Testimony Regarding the Project: Steve Kawaratani, project representative, assured that the proposal is not for a restaurant and there will be no cooking facilities. He stated that any facilities proposed onsite for the proposed use have been mandated by the Health Department, for sanitary conditions, etc. He noted that they are only requesting nine seats and stated that the intent is to create an intimate local hangout. Mr. Kawaratani stated that the Pearl Street General Store has DRAFT PC Minutes 10 January 18, 2017

11 attracted a loyal following. He thanked staff for working with them on the parking issue and Mr. Kawaratani asserted that the applicant is providing an important service. Justin Warwick, General Manager of the Pearl Street General Store, explained that they are trying to bring in local artisans and organic, gourmet food. He stated that the large majority of their clientele is residents; they do not generally get tourists. Mr. Warwick asserted that their clientele want a small, local tavern and he submitted that it will help the business be successful. He also thanked staff for working with them on the project. Mr. Warwick advised Commissioner Johnson that the barrier wall is currently 44 inches tall, as suggested by the ABC, but he stated that he is willing to make changes to it if the Planning Commission so desires. Larry Nokes stated that he has been working with the Reynolds family for a long time, and Mr. Nokes expressed appreciation of staff working with the applicant team. Regarding Conditions 31 and 32, Mr. Nokes argued that no other business has similar restrictions. He stated that the idea behind the application is to create a locals spot. He agreed that adding coffee service is a good addition and he stated that it would be appreciated if Conditions 31 and 32 are eliminated. Eden McCracken, a 17-year resident of Laguna that stated that she lives one block from the Pearl Street General Store, asserted that all the neighbors love the business and support the application. She then read the submitted by Meg Monahan, another resident within a block of the business, which expressed Ms. Monahan s support of the business and application. Nick Reynolds, Laguna resident since 1984, stated that he is a local realtor and lover of food and beer. He stated that he is involved in other restaurants and asserted that the City needs more craft beer. Mr. Reynolds also noted that there is not a lot in the Woods Cove community that serves locals. Commissioners Comments: Commissioner Whitin commented that she likes the idea of a neighborhood spot. She noted that it meets the parking requirements and has local support, and she submitted that it is a good use in that location. Commissioner Whitin stated that if there are no conflicts with ABC requirements, then she does not have a concern with the application as proposed. However, she noted that the floor plan should be cleaned up to represent what is built there now, including the entire 280-square-foot area that shows all nine seats. She also supported adding coffee service for patrons of the bar, submitting that it would be a good pairing with the wine and beer service, if it can be done without triggering a parking issue. Commissioner Johnson added that the coffee should be conditioned to be served in cups, not for take-out. Commissioner Whitin also supported allowing 4 to 5-ounce pours, which Ms. Caron advised could be done by eliminating the sentence in the condition that limits the amount of the pours. Commissioner McErlane commented that 2-ounce pours would be hard to regulate. He suggested a one-year review if the use is noted to be creating a problem, and allow a normal wine pour. Commissioner McErlane supported the comments of the other Commissioners. Commissioner Johnson expressed her displeasure about the undefined nature of the request. She noted that members of the applicant team referred to it as a tavern, everyone is adamant that it is not a restaurant and staff has presented it as a tasting room of some sort. She also stated that she DRAFT PC Minutes 11 January 18, 2017

12 does not like motorcycles in the back lot because of the proximity to residences, but she can support bike racks instead. Commissioner Johnson stated that she wants the area walled off, but is bothered by what the aesthetics would be. Commissioner Whitin advised that the existing wall is made of wood with wainscoting, and she assured Commissioner Johnson that it looks good. Commissioner Johnson reiterated that any coffee service needs to be required to be served in a cup and saucer and she submitted that it is a squirrely project. Commissioner Sadler stated that he looked for the other liquor establishments in the neighborhood and commented that the ABC requirement for the City Manager to issue the permit is an odd situation. Commissioner Sadler submitted that the proposed use would not create a liquor/alcohol issue and he noted that no concerns were received. He noted that the Commission s options are to go with the staff recommendation, decide that the use is not appropriate at all and deny the application, or allow the use as proposed. He agreed that limiting pour size is another unenforceable condition of approval. Commissioner Sadler noted the from a concerned neighbor, but submitted that there is clearly not an overwhelming amount of concern, noting that even that one neighbor did not attend this hearing. Therefore, Commissioner Sadler stated that he is willing to support the application without limitation on the pours. However, he stated that he does not want the use to morph into a restaurant or larger tavern; the use should be kept with a limit of nine seats. He also agreed that coffee service should be permitted, with limitations, and agreed with Commissioner Johnson regarding bike racks instead of motorcycles if the parking requirement can be met. Commissioner Sadler also reiterated that the word restaurant in Condition 20 needs to be removed. Commissioner Kempf supported Commissioner Sadler s position. She commented that she is fine with larger pours and coffee service. She stated that she understands why the neighborhood would want this service and she stated that she is willing to support the application. Commissioner McErlane concurred, clarifying that the revisions to the conditions would include the removal of the first sentence in Condition 31 and revising Condition 32. Ms. Caron stated that the amended approval would also include replacing the two motorcycle spaces with eight bike spaces. Commissioner Johnson stated that she is voting against approval because the approved use is not clear. Motion RM Second SW Action Approve Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit at 1796 South Coast Highway, subject to amended conditions. Motion carried 4-1. Vote: Johnson N McErlane Y Sadler Y Whitin Y Kempf Y 6. Conditional Use Permit , Design Review , Variance and Coastal Development Permit to demolish and construct a new 1,168 square-foot, single-family residence located within the C-1, Local Business District and to construct a 195 square-foot addition to a C -rated structure on the City s Historic Register, at 658 South Coast Highway (APN ). A variance is requested to exceed the maximum allowable residential floor area [LBMC (T)(14)(b)] and to not provide the required open space [LBMC (C)(5)/ (A)]. A conditional use permit is requested to allow the residential structure in a commercial zone and for a 50% historic parking reduction incentive. This DRAFT PC Minutes 12 January 18, 2017

13 project was initially heard on May 18, 2016, however the applicant has revised the plans and requests that the Planning Commission provide an updated recommendation to the City Council. Communication Disclosures: All Commissioners have visited the site unless otherwise noted in the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson reported ing Dave Frith. Martina Caron summarized the staff report, correcting a math error in the staff report regarding the modification to the upper level, which was pulled back 18 and not 4 feet. Questions of Staff: Ms. Caron confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that the project received the Planning Commission s recommendation for approval on May 18, Ms. Caron advised that as a result of testimony at that hearing, the applicant further considered potential view impacts, which resulted in the current proposed revisions. Ms. Caron confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that the upper level has been shifted back and the lower level shifted further under the garage. Ms. Caron also confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that the proposed revisions meet both the Planning Commission and Heritage Committee recommendations. Ms. Caron confirmed for Commissioner Sadler that the roof height revisions occurred prior to the previous review. Public Testimony Regarding the Project: Dave Frith, project representative, commented that they were surprised by the Trans concerns that were expressed at the May hearing because the applicant team met with the Trans several times before the hearing. Mr. Frith stated that they proactively contacted the Trans after that hearing and Mr. Tran clearly indicated that no changes would be agreeable. Mr. Frith noted that the open space requirement is now conforming. He advised that they also met with the new property owner to the south, who expressed appreciation for the revisions, and is supportive of the proposed style and building improvements. Mr. Frith noted that the Heritage Committee recommendations included reduced heights, and the updated plans comply with the various Heritage Committee recommendations. Mr. Frith agreed that the changes improve the project. Mr. Frith responded to Commissioner McErlane that he does not have photographs of the Trans view impact, but Mr. Frith explained that the lots are narrow, so the primary view is straight ahead at the ocean, which remains unimpeded; the impacted views would be up and down Coast Highway. Mr. Frith confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that he has been inside the Trans property and Mr. Frith argued that the view impact is not significant because it is only obscuring part of the view of Coast Highway. Mr. Frith noted that the property to the north extends significantly farther forward and he reiterated that the primary view of the ocean is not impacted. Mr. Frith also noted that the revised plans pull the upper level back 18 inches to improve the view to the south of Coast Highway. Mr. Frith confirmed for Commissioner Sadler that the change in the roof parapet is to distinguish the new construction from the historic structure; however, Mr. Frith noted that there is nothing DRAFT PC Minutes 13 January 18, 2017

14 significant architecturally about the building, its historic nature is related to its neighborhood presence. David Tran, owner of 656 South Coast Highway, stated that he never agreed to anything blocking his view. He noted that ocean views are the most important in Laguna and he provided photographs showing the view that will be blocked. Mr. Tran argued that the upper story should be reduced 50% to not block his view, asserting that the applicant should not have an unlimited ocean view at the expense of neighbors to the north and south. Commissioners Comments: Commissioner Sadler explained that view equity does not mean no view impact, rather, it means having a reasonable balance between the right to redevelop property and maintaining important views. He acknowledged that some view impact may occur and he stated that it is part of the design review process to evaluate any impacts, which may be considered a reasonable balance. Commissioner Sadler advised that the most effective way to show view impacts is to provide access to the property to the reviewing body, because photographs are not sufficient. Commissioner Sadler stated that he was able to go onto the deck of the property two doors down and from what he saw, determined that the original approval in May was a reasonable balance, and now that is improved. Commissioner Sadler noted that the revised plans incorporate the previous recommendations and he submitted that the applicant has taken the extra effort to further improve the project. Commissioner Sadler noted that a variance was removed and the project is better than it was before, so his approval has increased. He recommended approval to the City Council and advised the Trans that the City Council hearing will provide them another opportunity to make their concerns heard. He reiterated that the most effective way would be to contact the Councilmembers and invite them into their property. Commissioner Whitin commended Commissioner Sadler on his excellent summary. She noted that Condition 12 states that there will be 770 square feet of open space whereas the plan states 720 square feet, and advised that the inconsistency should be corrected prior to going before the City Council. Regarding Condition 13, Ms. Caron advised Commissioner Whitin that verification of compliance is done through the construction process. Regarding Condition 16, Commissioner Whitin recommended that it be worded more definitely, and agreed with Ms. Caron s suggested revision as not permitted without review. Regarding Condition 19, staff confirmed for Commissioner Sadler that the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element is not yet approved. Commissioner Johnson concurred that Commissioner Sadler provided a good summary. Commissioner McErlane reinforced what Commissioner Sadler said and reiterated that the Trans should make sure the City Councilmembers can access their property. Motion KS Second SW Action Recommend that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit , Planning Commission Design Review , Coastal Development Permit and Variance at 658 South Coast Highway, subject to findings and amended conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Vote: Johnson Y McErlane Y Sadler Y Whitin Y Kempf Y DRAFT PC Minutes 14 January 18, 2017

15 REGULAR BUSINESS 7. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the December 14, 2016 meeting was continued to the February 1, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. 8. Departmental Reports Mr. Drapkin advised the Commission that the IBI parking demand study is tentatively scheduled to be presented at the February 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. He also reminded the Commission that the February 1, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting will be a joint meeting with the City Council to review the Village Entrance Project. Mr. Drapkin also reminded the Commissioners to confirm with Ann Marie McKay no later than tomorrow if any of them want to attend the 2017 Planning Commissioners Academy in Los Angeles, to be held March Commissioners Reports The Commission noted unpermitted signage, such as neon signs at Robin s Jean and Toes on the Nose, and banners at EPIQ and Laguna Beach Lodge. Mr. Pfost assured the Commissioners that staff will get an update on the status of the Frontier Communications generator parked on Beach Street. Mr. Pfost advised that Frontier Communications is paying meter fees on a daily basis. Mr. Pfost apologized that the new City Hall door code was not communicated to the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner McErlane reported that the Citywide Wayfinding Sign Program Subcommittee had its second meeting and focused of defining problems and creating solution statements to address those problems. He stated that the subcommittee will review proposed signs at the next subcommittee meeting. Regarding the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element, Mr. Pfost advised the Commission that it is anticipated that the Design Review Board will review the document in February and the Planning Commission will review it in March or April. 10. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting on February 1, DRAFT PC Minutes 15 January 18, 2017