RE COAST LIQUOR: Village Laguna’s July 15, 2020, Letter to City Council:

This project is a little less intense than we had expected because of the reduction of two restaurants to one, but it still more than doubles the uses on the site and proposes to provide largely imaginary parking. Given the limited on-site parking and the pressure anticipated from the new development across the road, one business is still the right number for each of this property’s buildings. 

The division of the main floor of Coast Liquor into two businesses may be at least partly responsible for the applicant’s failure to restore the slanted window panels on the front of the building as the Heritage Committee recommended, and the use of the garages below for offices also requires a departure from the building’s historic character. The first Secretary of the Interior’s standard for rehabilitation is that “a property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.” Turning the original liquor store into two stores with outdoor seating and two offices is inconsistent with this standard.  Considering that lack of parking is such an important issue on this property, it seems especially inappropriate to convert existing parking (garages) into a use that itself requires more parking.

The plans in fact show a general disregard for the Heritage Committee’s modest recommendations, which included, in addition to restoring the slanted windows, returning to the original color and moving the mechanical equipment to a less visible position on the roof.  (Even the consultant wanted the original color restored.) Given the many changes in colors and materials and the addition of doors where there were none, it seems to us unlikely that the proposed “restoration” will conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.  It should be modified to include at least the recommendations of the Heritage Committee. The parking credits can’t be justified with the proposed treatment.

With the Olympic Village cottage, the building has been so altered over time that there’s no real connection between the proposed changes and its original appearance.  Without the restoration of the front porch, this building isn’t going to look like an Olympic Village cottage. A modern-looking remodel is not a rehabilitation of a historic resource, and therefore there’s no justification for any historic-related benefits.

Finally, we strongly disagree with staff’s proposed findings for justifying a variance for the roof sign, given that the “hardship” cited arises from the building’s architecture and not the size, shape, etc., of the property. The flat prohibition of roof signs in the municipal code indicates that the City is serious about rejecting them, and the granting of a variance for one is likely to set a dangerous precedent.  

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

Our objections to the project version from the July 15 PC meeting :

• Double the number of businesses:  There are currently 2 retail spaces on the property:  Coast Liquor and the Olympic Cottage.  Dornin proposes to add 2 more spaces—a convenience store in the garage of the liquor store that faces the parking lot.  And he plans to divide the space of the former liquor store into 2 food service spaces.

• Double the square footage:  They are proposing to double the size of the current Coast Liquor space by putting a convenience store in the garage that faces the parking lot.

• Adding 28 seats:  There were never any “seats” on this property.  He proposes 28 outdoor seats on the sidewalk in front of the liquor store.

• Parking:  He is doubling the square footage, adding seats, doubling the number of employees, but providing no additional parking.  He is claiming a historic parking credit.  This means at least double the # of cars parking in the neighborhood.

• Doubling the impact:  By doubling the square footage and the number of businesses, and adding seats, he is doubling the impact on parking, traffic, trash and deliveries.

• Trash:  He is proposing 3 small dumpsters to handle the trash for these 4 businesses, as well as the entire Coast Inn.

• Deliveries:  The number of different delivery trucks required for these 4 businesses would be huge.

• Traffic/Circulation:  There will be much more traffic on Coast Hwy at the intersection of Mountain Ave. and on one-way Gaviota Drive.

• Exempt from CEQA:  The applicant claims this project is exempt from CEQA, even though he is proposing an intensification of use.

• Variance for a rooftop sign:  Rooftop signs are prohibited in the City of Laguna Beach.  (Marshall claims that Heritage supports the sign, but Heritage did not comment on the sign.)

• Heritage recommendations ignored:  The Heritage Committee recommended that the 4 slanted windows on the front of the building should be restored and that the building should be returned to its original color.  The applicant is ignoring these recommendations.

• Privacy, light, noise issues from the convenience store in the parking lot.  He proposes operating hours until 1am.

Architect Marshall Ininn’s letter to the Planning Commission

RE COAST INN PROJECT: Village Laguna’s June 23, 2020, Letter to City Council:

We think you should send this project back to the Planning Commission without discussion. It’s our impression that, despite the applicant’s and the staff’s efforts to make it look acceptable, it still has most of the problems of the original version. We would all benefit from the commissioners’ experience in evaluating its impacts, especially now that the original project has been split into two to be treated separately and you haven’t seen the Coast Liquor Store proposal.

In the past we’ve raised questions about the proposed historic rehabilitation, explaining that the rooftop deck, furniture, umbrellas, and heaters will be highly visible and that, contrary to what the resolution in the staff report says, rooftop decks are specifically not recommended under the Secretary of the Interior’s standards.

We’ve also argued that the rooftop deck violates the City’s 36-foot height limit and there’s no legal justification for a variance. The “special circumstances” that state law requires for justification are all features of the property (size, shape, topography, surroundings) rather than the building.

We share the concerns of the neighborhood about the potential impacts of this project, even as modified, and hope that you will let the Planning Commission advise you about it before you make a decision.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

Village Laguna’s November 7, 2018, letter to the Planning Commission:

Once again you’re being presented with a dramatic intensification of use on the Coast Highway, and we hope that you’ll encourage the applicant to think smaller.

The municipal code has limits on hotel-room density for a reason: to preserve an “appropriate visual and functional interrelationship between residential and commercial uses.” There’s absolutely no reason that a hotel that’s being built from scratch shouldn’t conform to the code’s requirements.  We hope that you’ll reject the applicant’s suggestion that the code simply be changed to accommodate his proposal, which would of course affect not only this project but all future projects.

Cutting the project back to an appropriate size might also solve a number of other problems that the staff report has identified—insufficiency of parking, height and view blockage, and neighborhood compatibility issues—and what we consider a predictable increase in traffic in an area that’s already heavily used by shoppers at Ralph’s.

We hope that the final plan will follow through on the applicant’s expressed commitment to replacing the 14 existing apartments elsewhere in the City with a very specific proposal for doing that.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

“Sometimes the Answer is ‘No’”: “Village Matters” Oct. 13, 2017 column in The Indy by Ann Christoph, a landscape architect and former City Council member.

Last week, the Planning Commission made “No” very clear to the Coast Inn applicants who sought a roof deck and other large additions in the context of a historic restoration to the 1930s hotel. This project sells itself as a historical restoration of a 24-room hotel and liquor store, yet it includes 352 restaurant/bar seats including a 175-seat roof deck, which the original hotel never had. For all these uses the project provides 13 parking spaces, even though the parking demand is 197 spaces.

The forest of umbrellas and heaters on the roof would decidedly detract from the historical character of the restoration and essentially add another level to the already massive building. Roof top additions violate the city’s 36- foot limit.

The commission’s unanimous denial was preceded by their comments regarding the lack of authenticity of the historic restoration; the questionable status of the project as a minor remodel considering the extent of the structural and other modifications needed; misuse of parking credits; the damaging effect of the roof top deck; and the impacts on the neighborhood.

The commissioners were well prepared; their comments were clear and fact-based. Perhaps their analysis has benefitted from previous cases where compromises were struck—trying to accommodated an applicant whose requests turned out to be over reaching. Carefully crafted compromises may be sometimes appropriate, but there are cases where the skills of compromising are wrongly applied.

Permissions to add restaurant seats and roof top dining in other cases have caused severe noise and parking impacts on surrounding neighbors. Umbrellas increase the apparent heights of buildings, and rather than being a subtle festive look, they serve as another form of advertising for the restaurant. Complaints, hearings, over and over, have consumed the energy of the neighbors, planning commission and council.

Another application, for the Drake restaurant and jazz club at the former Tabu Grill near Nyes Place, proposes to expand the restaurant into the space next door, increasing the seating from 56 to 89, and the occupancy to 110.
The restaurant has five parking spaces allocated to it in the rear of the building. The rest of the customers will be valet parked under offices next door in a lot that has 14 spaces, plus room for two motorcycles. There are four additional non-permanent spaces behind the veterinary office. Where will the other customers park? In the fictitious “grandfathered spaces.” Another case of too much in very confined and busy spot.

How will this not affect the neighbors above Hinkle Place? The Planning Commission did not approve the expansion, but the City Council is in the process of approving it pending expanded width on the neighboring driveway.
No one counts the impact of the stress and trouble that the neighbors have to endure to get small concessions in the operation of a restaurant that is too large for its location. Residents should not have to make it their life’s work to keep their neighborhoods as quiet and delightful as they found them.

Rather than being sympathetic and accommodating, the applicant for the Coast Inn seems to view residents as impediments to the projects he wants to build. In his comments in the Indy last week he seemed to want to get even with the objectors to his project rather than find ways to bring about a project that would be compatible.

We should follow the Planning Commission’s lead and say “no” more often. This is not an unfamiliar experience in the development world. It is part of doing business, especially when the development proposal pushes the envelope.

Local resident and real estate consultant John Thomas asks, “While it is so difficult to build a house in Laguna, why does the city seem to over compensate on the business side? Approving projects that are overreaching–beyond what the rules allow. What is the purpose of encouraging ever-increasing commercial intensity in Laguna Beach? In my day job I do financial analysis for developers. They get their proposals turned down all the time and they are used to being turned down all the time. In Laguna Beach we need to just say ‘no’ more often. The most successful developers are those who look at the rules and design reasonable projects.”

Village Laguna’s October 4, 2017, letter to the Planning Commission

Village Laguna and its Board of Directors is concerned about the Coast Inn rehabilitation project because the proposed modifications appear to go beyond what is recommended in the Secretary of Interior Standards (SOIS).  In addition, parking requirements are being reduced as an incentive to make an authentic, compliant rehabilitation.  The proposed work seems to us to be insufficiently based on documented features of the building during the period of significance (1930s to 1940s).  Rather, features are added that are not historical and that negatively impact the community by intensifying the use of the property.

The rooftop improvements, roof deck, and furniture, umbrellas and heaters will be highly visible and are not recommended under the Secretary of Interior’s standards.

Standards for Rehabilitation

The following actions are not recommended in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation:

“Constructing a rooftop addition that is highly visible, which negatively impacts    the character of the historic building, its site, setting or district.” (p. 159)

“Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”  (p. 75)

We question whether the project is a true rehabilitation since so many of the features “which convey its historical, cultural or architectural values” (such as the turrets) will be totally reconstructed.  The definition and standards for reconstruction help to define the criteria for recreating these features.

The historic rehabilitation or reconstruction work should be done in accordance with the definitions of those processes by the Secretary of the Interior.  It should be accurate for the period of significance (1930s–1940s), should not be based on conjecture or combination of features from other eras, including 2017.  E-ratings are only recommended in Ostashay’s report if original and significant character-defining features of the building are restored and rehabilitated in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards.

We are concerned that an E-rating has already been recommended when there are so many discrepancies with the Secretary of Interior Standards.

Please reconsider this project and require an authentic rehabilitation/reconstruction that truly depicts the appearance of the Coast Inn during its defined period of significance and which does not include the impactful rooftop decks.

Sincerely,
Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

Village Laguna Beach’s July 1, 2017,  Letter to Planning Commission

Village Laguna is concerned about the Coast Inn rehabilitation project because the proposed modifications appear to go beyond what is recommended in the Secretary of Interior Standards (SOIS). In addition, parking requirements are being reduced as an incentive to make an authentic, compliant rehabilitation. The proposed work seems to us to be insufficiently based on documented features of the building during the period of significance (which, according to Jan Ostashay’s report, is the 1930s–1940s). Rather, features are added that are not historical and that impact the community by intensifying the use of the property.

The rooftop improvements, roof deck, and furniture, umbrellas, and heaters will be highly visible and are not recommended under the SOIS.

“Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.” (p. 65)

The following actions are not recommended in the SOIS for rehabilitation:

“Constructing a rooftop addition that is highly visible, which negatively impacts the character of the historic building, its site, setting or district.” (p. 159)
“Constructing a highly visible, multi-story rooftop addition on low-rise, one to three story historic buildings that is highly visible, overwhelms the building and negatively impacts the historic district.” (p. 160)
“Constructing a rooftop addition with amenities (such as a raised pool deck with plantings, HVAC equipment or screening) that is highly visible and negatively impacts the historic character of the building.” (p. 160)

We question whether the project is a true rehabilitation, since so many of the features that “convey its historical, cultural or architectural values” (such as the turrets) will be totally reconstructed. The definition and standards for reconstruction help to define the criteria for re-creating these features.

“Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.” (p. 225)

The period of significance is the span of time during which significant events and activities occurred.

The standards for reconstruction include the following:

“Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property.” (p. 226)

“Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture.” (p. 226)

The historic rehabilitation or reconstruction work should be accurate for the period of significance (1930s–1940s) and should not be based on conjecture or the combination of features from other eras, including 2017. An E rating is recommended in Ostashay’s report only if original and significant character-defining features of the building are restored and rehabilitated in a manner consistent with the SOIS.

We are concerned that an E rating has already been recommended when there are so many conflicts with the SOIS.

Please reconsider this project and require an authentic rehabilitation/reconstruction that truly depicts the appearance of the Coast Inn during its defined period of significance and does not include the novel and impactful rooftop deck.

Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

Village Laguna Beach’s December 14, 2016,  Letter to Planning Commission

The Board of Village Laguna supports the historic restoration of this property and the conditions outlined for rehabilitation in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) documents. However, we are concerned that the profile and overall character of the buildings will be so altered by the proposed added elements—rooftop deck and accompanying umbrellas, elevator tower, gazebo—that the historic character of this building will be overwhelmed and inappropriately diminished.  

In our view, the project cannot meet the conditions in the MND with the proposed excessive program and prominent alterations to the character-defining facades. It should be noted that staking of the project was not in place for the Heritage Committee review, and so the changes to the height and mass of the building were not apparent at that stage.

Three restaurants including rooftop dining and a pool and bar area in addition to the hotel exceed what is reasonable to be accommodated on this limited site. While historic restoration allows for parking incentives, providing only 14 parking spaces for all of these high-impact uses is grossly inadequate and will produce unacceptable burdens on a neighborhood that is already lacking in parking because of many other demanding businesses, as well as the beach.

After viewing the impact of roof deck installations at Skyloft and Mozambique, we find that they do not just involve a few tables on the roof—all the appurtenances are a part of making roof deck areas visually like another room on top of buildings that are at or already exceeding the height limit. Umbrellas become an additional roof. They are almost always up, and they serve a dual role of providing shade and advertising the restaurant to the passing public, distracting from the historic character (in the case of Skyloft) and adding to the mass and scale of the building (in the case of Mozambique). Lighted railings are an additional distraction, commercializing the skyline of the buildings and lighting up the night sky. Elevator towers also protrude. 

We urge the Commission to draw the line now and reject this and other rooftop decks and any expansion of those already approved.

We share the neighbors’ concerns about noise, lighting, and parking impacts, and unless this project is appreciably scaled down we agree that further environmental examination in the form of an EIR is warranted. 

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna