PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 5, 2016

Transcription

1 Approved 10/19/16 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 5, 2016 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 October 5, ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Staff Present: Chairperson Sue Kempf, Chair Pro Tem Susan McLintock Whitin and Commissioners Roger McErlane and Ken Sadler Commissioner Anne Johnson Scott Drapkin, Principal Planner Martina Caron, Senior Planner Wendy Jung, Senior Planner Ann Marie McKay, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit , Planning Commission Design Review , Coastal Development Permit and Variance to amend Conditional Use Permit in order to expand an existing 56-seat restaurant located at 2894 South Coast Highway (previously Tabu Grill) into the adjacent retail space most recently occupied by Nicole Smith Interiors. A new outdoor dining area would also be provided for a grand total of 33 additional seats. The additional parking demand would be satisfied by several parking measures to include new motorcycle spaces and an off-site joint-use parking area at 2900 South Coast Highway (currently Arch Beach Veterinary Clinic). A four-piece piano bar is proposed to be located within the former retail area. The hours of operation are proposed to be extended as follows: 5:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, Friday from 5:30 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The applicant is requesting three parking credits for providing outdoor seating available to the general public. Planning Commission Design Review is required for exterior changes including parking lot restriping, the addition of a canvas awning and a block wall patio enclosure. A variance is required to provide a second off-site parking lot. Motion KS Second RM Action Continue Conditional Use Permit , Planning Commission Design Review , Coastal Development Permit and Variance to the October 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Johnson Absent McErlane Y Sadler Y Whitin Y Kempf Y

2 2. Planning Commission Design Review and Planning Commission Sign Permit for exterior modifications to an existing building, including installation of a new window along the alley elevation and new signage at Broadway Street (Shift Digital). Communication Disclosures: All Commissioners have visited the site unless otherwise noted in the public hearing. Wendy Jung summarized the staff report. Questions of Staff: Ms. Jung clarified for Commissioner Whitin that the proposed letters are aluminum with 1-inch standoffs. Ms. Jung advised Commissioner McErlane that the letters are proposed to be 1.5-inch thick and she confirmed for Commissioner McErlane that the proposed lighting is built into each letter. Public Testimony Regarding the Project: In response to Commissioner McErlane s question, Todd Skenderian, project architect, advised that the header for the window is 6 feet, 8 inches above the floor of the interior. Mr. Skenderian explained that the pavement outside is 12 inches higher, so the header appears to be lower. Regarding any unevenness of the wood facing on the building behind the proposed signage, Mr. Skenderian advised Commissioner Whitin that individual planks can be replaced if necessary. He also confirmed for her that the standoff is adequate so there will be no contact with the wall. Mr. Skenderian explained that the proposed window at the alley will provide light and ventilation in the breakroom to provide a better work environment for the tenants. In response to Commissioner McErlane s question regarding concerns about vandalism, Mr. Skenderian explained that the proposed slider-fixed-slider window, with the fixed pane of glass for the largest section, was selected to prevent someone from climbing in. Commissioners Comments: Commissioner McErlane commented that the proposed signage is appropriate for the building and he likes the added window, so can approve the application. Commissioners Sadler and Whitin agreed, and Commissioner Kempf stated that she had no issues with the application. Motion SW Second KS Action Approve Planning Commission Design Review and Planning Commission Sign Permit based on the facts and findings stated in the staff report, and subject to the conditions that: (1) any sign lighting be turned off when the office is closed and (2) if there are complaints regarding the intensity of the lighting, the Director of Community Development can require the lighting to be dimmed or, if necessary, turned off. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Johnson Absent McErlane Y Sadler Y Whitin Y Kempf Y PC Minutes 2 October 5, 2016

3 3. Planning Commission Design Review , a request for door and window modifications and to install two air conditioning units at 505 Forest Avenue (City Hall). Design Review is required for modifications to an E-rated structure listed on the City s Historic Register. Communication Disclosures: All Commissioners have visited the site unless otherwise noted in the public hearing. Commissioner Sadler reported that he spoke to Todd Skenderian regarding the project. Martina Caron summarized the staff report. Questions of Staff: Ms. Caron advised Commissioner McErlane that the current Police Department doors proposed to be replaced are not considered to be historic. She explained that those doors were installed in 1988 as part of a renovation, and Ms. Caron stated that the historic consultant concurred with staff s determination. Commissioner Sadler noted that the staff report states that the new Police Department doors will match the door outside the City Manager s office; however, that door s lowest panel is solid and the drawings for the proposed new Police Department doors appear to have all four panels as glass. Ms. Caron responded that the new Police Department doors may not be identical to the door outside the City Manager s office, but will be the same style, using the same materials. Commissioner Sadler noted that the Police Department counter is currently open, and questioned the reason for the proposed interior remodel, which includes a solid wall with bulletproof panels. Commissioner Kempf referenced item #6 on page 4 of the staff report regarding the roof tiles, asking how many will be relocated and/or saved. Ms. Caron advised that the entire roof will be waterproofed, so all of the roof tiles will be removed. Public Testimony Regarding the Project: Todd Skenderian, project architect, noted the two parts of the project, the entry to the Police Department and the modifications for the Recreation building. He explained that the purpose of the Police Department modifications is to reduce staff exposure and improve visibility to provide better reaction time when necessary. He stated that the new doors will match the door outside the City Manager s office, with a solid panel on the bottom. For the Recreation building, Mr. Skenderian noted that the window and door modifications will be concealed from public view and will match existing conditions. He explained that the modifications are a result of the remodel of the interior to provide additional office space. Mr. Skenderian also commented on the reroof and noted that the two new condensers will be in the courtyard, also concealed from public view. Commissioner Whitin asked if the wall-mounted units currently in the courtyard will be removed and Mr. Skenderian advised that the smallest unit, closest to the sidewalk, will be removed and the other larger unit will be relocated. Regarding the interior change to the Police Department, Mr. Skenderian advised Commissioner Sadler that the changes are to provide staff with better reaction time, control and more protection. PC Minutes 3 October 5, 2016

4 Mr. Skenderian advised Commissioner Whitin that the door glazing will not be bulletproof because it would be too expensive, so they will depend on the protection provided by the interior bulletproof wall. Commissioners Comments: Commissioner McErlane stated that he understands the rationale for the change in the doors, with the tightness of the lobby, and the desire for more security. However, he noted that the current doors are beautiful and he hoped that they will be repurposed. Commissioner Sadler agreed that the proposed changes are reasonable, but encouraged that where possible, materials are reused. Regarding the interior of the Police Department, he agreed with the change to the exterior doors, but questioned the need for the proposed interior changes, wondering if the Police Department has had specific issues here in Laguna Beach, and suggested that the Police Department consider what the proposed changes will present to the public. Ms. Caron confirmed for Commissioner Kempf that the proposed interior modifications are not within the Planning Commission s purview, unless those changes cause visual impacts that will seen from the exterior with the transparent doors. In response to Commissioner Kempf s question regarding the timing of the interior remodel, the applicant indicated that they are ready to go to bid. Motion SW Second RM Action Approve Planning Commission Design Review , pursuant to the facts and findings listed in the staff report. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Johnson Absent McErlane Y Sadler Y Whitin Y Kempf Y 4. Tentative Parcel Map and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide an existing 25,023-square-foot vacant property located at Top of the World Drive into two single-family residential lots. Communication Disclosures: All Commissioners have visited the site unless otherwise noted in the public hearing. Scott Drapkin summarized the staff report. Public Testimony Regarding the Project: Greg Vail, applicant, complimented Mr. Drapkin on the staff report and concurred with the findings and conditions. He noted that no comments were received during the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process. Mr. Vail advised that he is aware of the letter the Commissioners received yesterday from Tom Davis, but stated that he just became aware today, yet the project has been in process since September He asserted that the subdivision makes perfect sense and there are no valid allegations in the letter from the attorney that was just retained on Friday. Mr. Vail stated that the CEQA process was thoroughly worked through and the project is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act; therefore, he urged the Commission to recommend City Council approval. Tom Davis, representing Top of the World property owners, advised that he was retained by the property owners of the houses adjacent to the project site, on Sommet du Monde. Mr. Davis PC Minutes 4 October 5, 2016

5 provided an aerial map with the project site in a red circle and advised that his clients own the properties immediately adjacent, touched by that red circle. He noted the written letter of opposition he submitted yesterday, covering six points. Regarding one point, access, Mr. Davis noted the street condition is only 14 feet and would have to be at least 20 feet to meet Code requirements. He also noted that a subdivision requires adequate on-street parking, but the staff recommendation waives the required two spaces for this project in connection with the adjacent trail because the City agreed to restrictions. However, Mr. Davis argued that the Code requires those improvements and there are no exceptions in the provisions. Regarding grading, Mr. Davis noted the lack of discussion on this topic, yet he estimated that grading may be significant, and he asserted that before the subdivision is approved, certain information should be provided to determine if the project is feasible. Mr. Davis also asserted that there are significant drainage issues and the drainage report is very inadequate because it is very general and does not describe what will happen after development. Mr. Davis stated that the report assumes improvements will occur with the street, which is inconsistent with the proposal. He also noted his concern regarding granting a trail easement conditioned on approval of the subdivision, but acknowledged Mr. Gratz s written response letter that states that this is not the case and the two projects are to be treated independently. Mr. Davis asserted that several issues need to be considered before the Commission can recommend approval. Steve Goldstein, Top of the World Drive, stated that he is one of many residents that had signed the petition regarding concerns that residents had related to old Top of the World, the trail and impacts to homes. He noted the residents desire to ensure that old Top of the World Drive remains as a country road and he stated that they do not want a duplicate of Alta Laguna Park. Mr. Goldstein stated that they are adamant in ensuring the preservation of their neighborhood and therefore he requested that the Commission not approve the subdivision. Mr. Goldstein noted the maximum height noted on the plans is 17.5 feet, but the posts are 10.5 feet, and he stated that the difference will have a substantial effect on views. He concluded by referencing his additional comments in the he sent. Joe Ward, Top of the World Drive, stated that he has been involved in issues related to the neighborhood for the last 15 years. He acknowledged that progress is necessary and that the lot can be developed, but questioned the subdivision to create two lots, that may block views. Mr. Ward stated that he knew Dick Smith and claimed that Mr. Smith wanted to donate that land to the City. Mr. Ward acknowledged that the trail will be done, so now the decision is whether or not to approve the subdivision. Because of the impact on traffic, Mr. Ward strongly recommended that the subdivision is not approved, and let the property owner build one home on the lot. Jason Hoffs, Top of the World Drive, noted that the road narrows as small as 12 feet and expressed concerns about safety. He noted neighborhood issues with a sober living facility and a nearby construction site, and expressed concerns about additional parking spaces, the narrowness of the street at the corner, and traffic impacts. Carter Mudge, representing George Sperling, who has property on the south side of the subdivision, stated that they worked with the City on the trail improvement progress, but cannot support this application. He asserted that drainage from the site will be funneled onto his client s property, causing erosion onto his client s property. Mr. Mudge noted that when the trail easement was agreed on, it included side yard setback exceptions, which Mr. Mudge surmised may canyonize the trail. Therefore, Mr. Mudge suggested a condition that the side yard setbacks be PC Minutes 5 October 5, 2016

6 moved further from the trail. He noted that the staff report defers to the design review process, but Mr. Mudge argued that doing so is kicking the can further down the road, when certain issues can be dealt with now by imposing conditions as part of the subdivision approval. Mr. Mudge also noted that the biological report is over two years old and though it addresses songbirds, it does not address raptors. He also stated that incidental runoff and reuse of water was not addressed, and requested that the Commission instruct the applicant to revisit these issues. Rebuttal: Greg Vail clarified that the proposed map does not call for widening of the road or onstreet parking, and he explained that there is an exception in the Subdivision Map Act that allows the City to use an alternative set of standards. Mr. Vail explained that the City has a two-step process for such projects, which is very robust, and he argued that the subdivision approval is not the time for specific design determinations. Mr. Vail explained that the prototype layout was provided simply to make sure views can be protected, and he stated that the neighbor across the street, which is the most affected, is fine with the proposal. Mr. Vail also asserted that Dick Smith never offered to dedicate the land to the City, according to Mr. Smith s daughter. Mr. Vail stated that the project has been fully vetted and he reiterated that not one comment was received during the CEQA process. He expressed his confidence that the map works and will protect views. Mr. Vail noted that the Design Review Board makes decisions on how a property is developed and is the appropriate avenue rather than conditions placed on theoretical plans that could create confusion and more contention. Mr. Vail asserted that they have what is needed to move forward and he noted that the City has an obligation not to deny the application if all findings can be made. Gene Gratz, attorney for the applicant, referenced the petitions and noted that the City Council gave the neighbors what they wanted, determining that the road will not be widened and no onstreet parking will be added. Mr. Gratz stated that a waiver of parking requirements is permitted by the Code and he explained that under the Subdivision Map Act, the City has an obligation to approve the application unless findings for denial can be made. Mr. Gratz asserted that all considerations raised have been addressed and he noted that it took two years to get to this point. Mr. Gratz stated that they are ready for the recommendation of approval. Rebekah Bhansali, Sommet du Monde, noted that her property is 12 feet from the site. She stated that she went to the meetings about the trail and had no issues with the trail, but was never invited to a meeting about a subdivision, and stated that she was first informed when she received the letter on September 20, She commented that the trail and subdivision appear to be linked, and asserted that they should be separate. Ms. Bhansali also argued that the purpose of why the Code was created in the first place should be considered, and the purpose for the street widening requirements is for safety; the current road conditions in this area are unsafe. Commissioners Comments: In response to Commissioner Sadler s request for a response to the implication that the trail and subdivision are inextricably linked, Mr. Drapkin explained that the Planning Commission reviewed the trail in 2014, and the approval was appealed to City Council. Mr. Drapkin advised that at the appeal hearing, neighbors concerns regarding road improvements were heard and the Council determined that those improvements will not be completed. However, Mr. Drapkin assured that the subdivision project is separate and he confirmed for Commissioner Sadler that the easement agreements have been recorded, so denying the subdivision will not quash the trail project. PC Minutes 6 October 5, 2016

7 Regarding the noticing, Mr. Drapkin advised Commissioner Kempf that the environmental review, primarily for public agencies, is a 30-day period, and the public noticing is a 10-day noticing requirement. Mr. Drapkin confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that if any of the subdivision denial findings can be made, the application must be denied, and he confirmed that staff s position is that none of those findings can be made. Mr. Drapkin noted that the hydrology report indicates that the drainage is adequate for a 100-year flood, with dissipaters, and he noted the environmental review that was completed. Mr. Drapkin explained that it takes a long time for subdivision maps to process through the City to ensure they have been fully vetted. Mr. Drapkin confirmed for Commissioner Sadler that the Commission can recommend conditions to change certain zoning standards for the project, such as larger setbacks. In response to Commissioner Kempf s question on how the Commission determines the appropriate recommendation, Mr. Drapkin stated that the Commission must consider what issue it is trying to resolve. Mr. Drapkin submitted that the subdivision approval is not a good process for such conditions because those conditions may impair the Design Review Board, and the Code is restrictive already. Regarding the height of the posts on the property, Mr. Drapkin advised Commissioner McErlane that the posts were likely placed to alert neighbors of any potential view impacts, and differences in the elevations versus the staking may be because of grading that will occur. Mr. Drapkin clarified for Commissioner McErlane that the staking is not used for approval of the subdivision. Commissioner McErlane commented that it would have been helpful for the property lines to be marked at the site. Regarding the downstream storm water, Commissioner McErlane noted that a City culvert takes that water to the lots and Mr. Drapkin advised that the private property owners are responsible for handling what comes onto their property and how it leaves. Mr. Drapkin explained that the dissipaters are designed to modify the drainage to spread the water naturally, and he confirmed for Commissioner McErlane that the dissipaters are on the plan. Commissioner McErlane commented on the issues with other hillside projects and the unknown process of dealing with the water that runs downstream. Regarding attempts to determine the building footprint and dictating the envelope, Commissioner McErlane asserted that the design review process will deal with those issues. He noted that the plans have no merit and may be deceiving, so he suggested that they be removed since they are not legally binding. Mr. Drapkin confirmed for Commissioner Whitin that the building plans are not required and are not part of what the Planning Commission is approving. Mr. Drapkin explained that when other subdivision maps were processed, the Planning Commission and/or City Council wanted to see an idea of what may be proposed to be developed, but those concept plans are not binding. Commissioner Sadler commented that he has been involved in these issues for a long time, as a former Design Review Board member that reviewed other houses in the neighborhood and as a Planning Commissioner that reviewed the trail. He also noted that he has lived in the Top of the PC Minutes 7 October 5, 2016

8 World neighborhood for 20 years. Commissioner Sadler noted that the Code would require street improvements and added on-street parking, but the neighbors did not want those improvements and he noted that the developers were willing to go either way. Commissioner Sadler stated that he thought the street improvements and added on-street parking was a good idea, but neighbors expressed concerns that the area may become a destination party spot; therefore, the neighbors requests were agreed to and those concessions were made part of easement agreements. Because of those agreements, the applicant cannot do street improvements. Commissioner Sadler noted that it is a buildable parcel and the applicant is proposing to subdivide the buildable lot. He agreed that the subdivision process is different from the usual process in that they have to make findings to deny rather than to approve, and he agreed with staff that those findings cannot be made. Commissioner Sadler commented on the CEQA process and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and asserted that other issues, such as grading, drainage and setbacks, are all dealt with during the design review process. Commissioner Sadler noted that areas with vacant lot syndrome have the toughest time getting through the process because of neighborhood opposition, because anything built on a vacant lot will have some impact. Commissioner Sadler assured that the Design Review Board will be thorough in evaluating the development project and will have full authority, so if the Board deems larger setbacks are appropriate, it can require that. However, Commissioner Sadler argued that such determinations cannot be figured out before there is a plan. He concluded that the applicant has met the requirements for subdivision approval and therefore Commissioner Sadler supported recommending City Council approval. Commissioner McErlane stated that he lives in a subdivision created in 1920 in North Laguna and he commented that the individual subdivisions are what make Laguna unique. He also submitted that two lots may be better than one in reducing the impact to the neighbors because otherwise the applicant could build a huge mansion rather than two smaller residences. Regarding drainage, Commissioner McErlane reiterated his concerns that downhill drainage is not monitored or maintained, but he acquiesced that there is nothing this project can do to address that overall issue. Commissioner McErlane also agreed that a project should not go to the Design Review Board referencing elevations dictated with no reference to building design. Regarding the trail, Commissioner McErlane estimated that he saw 15 bikes pass while he visited the site, and he noted the terrible condition of the trail. He agreed that with no on-street parking for vans and the narrow road conditions, there is a neighborhood advantage in reducing the likelihood of drop-offs for trail access. Commissioner McErlane agreed that the proposal is a valid subdivision and that development issues will be fleshed out during the design review process, so he supported recommending approval. Commissioner Whitin stated that she had nothing to add. She noted that the Planning Commission is charged with one thing, to determine if the proposal meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. She noted that though the issues raised by the neighbors are important, they are neighborhood issues to be addressed in the design review process. Commissioner Whitin noted that it is a grueling process to get anything approved, and there will be many opportunities for the neighbors to provide their input. Commissioner Kempf agreed. She acknowledged the thoughtful letters submitted and she stated that Commissioner McErlane made an interesting point regarding not having a lot of people with vans, etc. because of the road restrictions. She deferred to her colleagues regarding the design review process and she agreed that the project meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Therefore, Commissioner Kempf supported the staff recommendation. PC Minutes 8 October 5, 2016

9 Mr. Drapkin noted that after approval of the Tentative Parcel Map, then the applicant will have to obtain City Council approval of the Final Map. Commissioner McErlane again recommended that the architectural specifics are removed from the application, but Commissioner Sadler noted that those are included only for informational purposes. Motion KS Second RM Action Recommend City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map and Coastal Development Permit , and that the City Council adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Johnson Absent McErlane Y Sadler Y Whitin Y Kempf Y 5. Conditional Use Permit , Planning Commission Design Review , Coastal Development Permit and Variance to change the use of an existing singlefamily residence to a nature interpretive center/office for the Laguna Canyon Foundation at Laguna Canyon Road. A variance is required for driveway slope that exceeds 14%. Communication Disclosures: All Commissioners have visited the site unless otherwise noted in the public hearing. Scott Drapkin summarized the staff report. Questions of Staff: Referencing the second to last paragraph on page 2 of the staff report, Commissioner Whitin requested clarification on the statement that the nature center component will likely be used throughout the structure, and Mr. Drapkin responded that the tentative idea is a free flowing mix of the uses. Mr. Drapkin advised Commissioner Whitin that the proposed pavement is a brown-colored asphalt, intended to blend into the environment. Commissioner Whitin noted that the grading plan indicates that decomposed granite will be used; however, Mr. Drapkin explained that the proposed material was changed. Mr. Drapkin explained to Commissioner McErlane the circulation, using the existing street to circle around. Mr. Drapkin clarified for Commissioner Whitin the proposed driveway and parking on the plan and he confirmed for her that the Fire Department has approved the plan. Commissioner Whitin noted the 18-foot minimum requirement, yet the plan indicates certain areas are only 15 or 17 feet, and Mr. Drapkin explained that the plan was modified after the Fire Department s review and the resolution includes a condition with the 18-foot-minimum requirement. Regarding the possible residential use, Mr. Drapkin responded to Commissioner Sadler that it is not clear how the residency will operate with the primary use, but the intent is to provide the option for a staff member to live onsite for security, and to provide affordable housing. Mr. Drapkin assured that the potential residential use has been included in the resolution (Condition #11) and is covered in the parking requirement. PC Minutes 9 October 5, 2016

10 In response to Commissioner Kempf s comment that it seems strange to mix the residential use with the other uses, Mr. Drapkin noted that the structure is currently a residence, so it is likely one of the existing bedrooms would be set aside for that use. Regarding the deferral of lease payments, Mr. Drapkin advised Commissioner Sadler that the terms of that deferral were set by the City Council. Regarding the parking lot in relation to Coastal law and the Coastal Development Permit, and staff s determination that the project is exempt because there will be no impact, Mr. Drapkin explained that staff s determination was based on the fact that the site for the parking lot will remain in the same general condition as it currently exists. Regarding the application statements on the bottom of page 14 of the staff report regarding parking spaces, Mr. Drapkin explained that the variations were to address compliance with certain Code requirements. Regarding the traffic analysis summarized on page 5 of the staff report, Mr. Drapkin explained to Commissioner Kempf that regardless of the exact number of people that may be relocated from the Broadway location, the conclusion is the same, that there will be less than significant traffic impact. Commissioner Kempf was advised that the trees mentioned on page 5 of the staff report are proposed to be 15-gallon sycamore trees and 24-inch-box Coast Live Oak trees. Commissioner Sadler noted that in the project description on page 15 of the staff report, paragraph (f), the applicant states that there will be no use of sound amplification at any time; however, paragraph (h) mentions fundraising events. Commissioner Sadler noted the restriction on sound amplification is not included in the resolution and Mr. Drapkin responded that staff did not consider it to be an issue, but the restriction could be added in the Commission prefers. Regarding the parking lot, Commissioner Whitin noted that in response to question (1) on the Variance application on page 21 of the staff report, the applicant stated that the City preferred the currently proposed location to the area originally proposed, and asked if the Commission, then, cannot consider the other location. Mr. Drapkin responded that the Commission is not restricted from considering the other location; however, the concerns are related to the adjacency to the creek and the required 25-foot setback from the creek bluff, which may affect the feasibility of that location. Mr. Drapkin estimated that the structure is about 100 feet from the creek; however, he advised that a grant was recently obtained through the California Natural Resources Agency for the DeWitt Property Habitat Restoration Project, and the boundary of that restoration area goes to the edge this site, and it is unlikely the California Natural Resources Agency would want a parking lot there. Public Testimony Regarding the Project: Derek Ostensen, applicant, explained that the goal of the project is to maximize the capacity of the Laguna Canyon Foundation. He noted that the Foundation was previously on Broadway and is now in Legion Hall, and relocating close to where the Foundation does its work makes sense. Mr. Ostensen stated that the interpretative elements are designed to be low-impact on the neighborhood, limited to small groups, because it is crucial to the Foundation to respect the environment and its neighbors. He showed photographs of the current poor condition of the property and noted its great potential. He explained that the structure will be PC Minutes 10 October 5, 2016

11 opened up by removing some walls and he showed a rendering of the remodeled structure and colored elevations. Mr. Ostensen noted that they are keeping the site as is and renovating it. Mr. Ostensen also explained the history of the parking lot, stating that a parking lot was designed, using leftover Proposition 12 money; however, after discussions with neighbors that use the trail and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) concerns regarding the proximity to the creek, the Foundation decided not to proceed with the grant to move forward with that proposal. Mr. Ostensen noted that the burn site remediation graded out the area above the house, so they decided that would be a suitable area to reuse for the parking lot. He stated that there will be a vegetation area in front to obscure views of the lot from the neighborhood. Mr. Ostensen also explained that the area below the originally proposed location is too narrow, which led to the current plan. He then noted the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)-compliant parking spot in front. Mr. Ostensen confirmed for Commissioner McErlane that a parking lot is the other area may be feasible if the neighbors do not oppose it and if the required spaces can still fit after complying with the 25-foot setback; however, Mr. Ostensen reiterated that they were previously advised that the location would not work. Regarding bus drop-off, Mr. Ostensen advised Commissioner McErlane that there is space for a 4- foot pedestrian path from the lot to the building. He also advised Commissioner McErlane that the ADA-compliant space is at grade. Mr. Ostensen confirmed for Commissioner McErlane that the pepper tree is proposed to stay. Regarding the permeability of the surface for the parking lot, Mr. Ostensen advised Commissioner Sadler that the Foundation s preference was decomposed granite, but they were unable to reduce the slope enough to comply with the Code. Regarding using pervious concrete, Mr. Ostensen responded to Commissioner Sadler that cost was a factor, but also that their soils engineer recommended asphalt because of the slope conditions. Regarding a possible live-in resident, Mr. Ostensen explained to Commissioner Sadler that Laguna is expensive, especially for a nonprofit, so the option is intended to attract candidates by providing affordable housing, but will also help with site security. Mr. Ostensen explained that there will be a dedicated room for the resident, that will be locked. Regarding a condition of approval for no sound amplification, Mr. Ostensen responded to Commissioner Sadler that it would be helpful to have some allowance for a microphone with perhaps a limitation on the decibels, for use during special events. Commissioner Whitin asked about other options for parking, such as using the parking across Laguna Canyon Road and shuttling people over. Mr. Ostensen noted that there may be a policy conflict with the parks, and he noted that those lots are already oversubscribed, as evidenced by the amount of people that park on the side of the road. Commissioners Comments: Commissioner McErlane stated that he likes everything about the project except for the proposed parking on top of the hill, in the most visible location. He argued that parking in that location does not fit with the Foundation s purpose and he said that he has a hard time making the variance findings. Commissioner McErlane suggested that the applicant study other ways to provide the required parking. He asserted that the proposal does not preserve open PC Minutes 11 October 5, 2016

12 space and is impacting that open space even though they are not grading. He also expressed concern about the elderly negotiating the slopes and noted that vehicles roll easily on such slopes. Commissioner McErlane also submitted that brown tinted asphalt may call more attention to it and suggested considering other solutions, such as mixing in materials with the asphalt instead. He also questioned how drainage and erosion issues will be addressed and reiterated that moving the parking lot to such an awkward location is not a good solution. Commissioner Whitin noted that with the new architecture, a window will be looking at the parking lot, and the Foundation is about the opposite of parking lots. She asserted that the lot is proposed in the wrong location for delivering the wilderness experience. She also commented on the treacherous conditions and suggested that head-in parking off the main road would even be better, especially for a less visual impact. She suggested that the applicant revisit parking options, noting that it is overall a great project for the Foundation and everything should be done in the right way to convey the right message. Commissioner Whitin stated that she also found it difficult to make the required variance findings and she asserted that there should not be trees, just landforms. She noted that this should not be just a new building, but also an experience for the user. Commissioner Sadler stated that the other Commissioners made valid points. He acknowledged that pervious concrete would be more expensive, and on a 70-acre lot would have a minimum impact, so he would not make that an issue. However, he noted that because of the slope, water would flow quickly and would create issues. Commissioner Sadler noted that for granting variances, there are normally no other solutions, and he submitted that not enough of a case was made that this is the only solution. Commissioner Whitin agreed that there is an issue in making the findings, but she did not want to deny the project; therefore, it was suggested that the project be continued. Mr. Ostensen assured that the proposed location is not where the Foundation wanted to put the parking lot, but because on the required setback, neighbor issues and the initial City review, the original proposed location was determined to be infeasible. Commissioner McErlane suggested reviewing other alternatives, perhaps not placing all the parking in the same place. Commissioner Whitin suggested considering tandem parking since most of the spaces will be for staff, and Commissioner Sadler suggested working with staff to see if the parking requirement can be reevaluated. Motion RM Second SW Action Continue Conditional Use Permit , Planning Commission Design Review , Coastal Development Permit and Variance 16- to the November 9, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Johnson Absent McErlane Y Sadler Y Whitin Y Kempf Y REGULAR BUSINESS 6. Discussion Determine three potential dates for a joint City Council/Planning Commission review of the Village Entrance project. The Commission decided on January 18, February 1 and February 15, 2017 as three potential dates. PC Minutes 12 October 5, 2016

13 7. Minutes The minutes from the September 21, 2016 meeting were approved unanimously, as written (Commissioner Sadler, seconded by Commissioner Whitin). 8. Departmental Reports Mr. Drapkin reported that the Heritage Committee completed its review of the draft updated Historic Preservation Ordinance, voting 4-3 to have C-rated properties remain under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), using local standards. He advised that the draft Ordinance will go before the Planning Commission after the Design Review Board does its review. He noted that it is tentatively scheduled for the Design Review Board to review the draft Ordinance on November 10, Mr. Drapkin also reported that Code Enforcement staff are performing random inspections through the downtown and along Coast Highway, addressing violations such as unpermitted outdoor displays and signage, per the Commission s request. 9. Commissioners Reports Commissioner McErlane advised that he will be absent at the November 9, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Sadler reported that the Coastal Law seminar he attended was interesting, and attended by the Coastal Commission Director, some of the Coastal Commissioners and attorneys involved in litigation cases regarding access. Commissioner Whitin reported that she and Commissioner McErlane attended the Downtown Specific Plan Update Subcommittee meeting last week, and again reviewed the schedule. She advised that she and Commissioner McErlane told City Manager John Pietig that the schedule is unrealistic. She also reported that she and Commissioner McErlane expressed their view that reviewing a strikethrough document now seems to be premature considering they have not yet discussed the content. She advised that the next Planning Commission review will be on the Table of Contents. Regarding the Parking Demand Study, Mr. Drapkin advised that staff is completing an internal analysis on land uses and associated square footages to better determine demand, and is also obtaining beach occupancy statistics. Commissioner Whitin also reported that she and Commissioner Johnson attended the 2016 Planning Directors Forum at the Nixon Library that covered a range of current topics, such as short-term lodging, parking, ethics, etc. She stated that she found the forum to be very worthwhile. 10. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting on October 19, PC Minutes 13 October 5, 2016