Design Review Subcommittee Regular Meeting Minutes March 27, 2024 Page 1
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
MARCH 27, 2024
Subcommittee Members Present: Chair M. Steven Camp; Vice Chair Cameron Cosgrove; Committee Member Bart Crandell
Subcommittee Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner; John Ciampa, Contract Planner
1. MINUTES
A. Review and file minutes of the Design Review Subcommittee meeting March 13, 2024
2. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
A. Public Hearing Project 23-262, Hotel Clemente and Loretta’s Restaurant (Ciampa)
A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Development Permit (DP) and a Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) to establish a 28-room boutique hotel and specialty restaurant with the sale of on-site full-service alcohol, and amplified music at 225- 229 Avenida Del Mar and 232-234 Avenida Granada.
Contract Planner John Ciampa summarized the staff report and provided a presentation on the project.
The applicant’s representatives provided a presentation on the project and responses to the City-initiated peer review of the applicant’s Historic Resource Assessment Report (HRAR), which was performed by GPA Consulting. The applicant’s responses included the following:
• The project is a balance of economics and historic preservation. • The 1980’s addition is not historically significant, but is not required to be removed; acknowledged that there has been public interest in removal of the addition.
• Emphasized that the project is being evaluated under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
o The Standards for Restoration would support removing the front noncontributing addition is appropriate, but not required under Rehabilitation. • Disagreed with GPAs assessment that there was inadequate differentiation of roof form and massing and showed 3D rendering to illustrate differences in roof design and configuration, rafters vs. corbels, railings, and windows.
Design Review Subcommittee Regular Meeting Minutes March 27, 2024 Page 2 • Emphasized articulation; central step back is similar to Antoinette building. • Zero lot line development was envisioned by Ole Hanson on Del Mar; the historic property anticipated this with no fenestration on the east elevation. • The historic resource is a two-story structure and the project is also two stories and only a few feet taller.
• The proposed modification to the 1980s addition changed and lowered the roof design to open view to historic balcony; modified the stucco wall to be hybrid with railing to reduce massing.
• All of the original character defining features of the historic resource would be reintroduced.
The DRSC directed questions to GPA which included the following:
• Does GPA agree with the responses from the applicant in regard the peer review of the HRAR?
o GPA agreed that the majority of comments are technical in nature and the 3D rendering was beneficial in clarifying differentiating details of the project with the historic resource. The key differentiating features were the corbels and roof design.
• Did GPA believe the clarifications on the project design elements and the proposed modifications to the 1980s addition result in compliance with Standard 9?
o GPAs assessment of the applicant’s presentation in response to the peer review and proposed modifications resulted in improvements to the project and brought it closer to compliance with Standard 9. GPA still have some concerns about massing relationship; reduction of the shed addition would be beneficial.
o GPA expressed the need for a more thorough analysis of the new information and modifications proposed.
o Scaling back the 1980s addition by pulling it in from the right side and front would be a significant improvement and make the historic resource more visible.
Members of the public made the following comments or questions either individually or as a group:
• Much improved; more could be done. Agree with scaling back the 1980’s addition. The new addition should always be subordinate to the historic building.
• Raised concerns with the project’s need for parking waivers. • The 1980’s shed roof impacts this historic resource and needs to be removed.
• The proposed elevator tower is too large at 10’ taller than historic building. • The project must address parking.
Design Review Subcommittee Regular Meeting Minutes March 27, 2024 Page 3 • The project would add value to the downtown and help bring people into the other businesses.
• The 1980 addition mimics the Antoinette building (rafter tails, etc.) and should be differentiated and pulled back.
The Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) discussed the project, and made the following comments either individually or as a group:
• The project design meets the applicant’s program.
• One significant feature to the historic resource was the original setback since it was originally a residential feature.
• The shed element is a poor addition.
• The construction necessary to drop the 1980s addition’s floor four feet to align with the new building would result in the reconstruction of much of the noncontributing addition.
• The 1980’s addition was approved by the City and built. • Residential properties are reviewed with strict scrutiny for any additions/ modifications at the front of the property.
• Not concerned that the project is larger in scale than the historic resource, noting that both buildings are two stories.
• Pulling in the 1980s addition would be beneficial to the historic resource, but a lounge is a critical component to the hotel. The reduction in the space could be modified to be an indoor/outdoor area to still be an amenity to the hotel. • Reiterated importance of landscaping.
• The Planning Commission will review the parking.
The applicant was appreciative of the feedback received on the project and agreed to reduce the footprint of the 1980s addition and revise that portion of the project.
The Subcommittee recommended that if the parking study results in modifications to the site or architectural design the project should come back to DRSC. It was also recommended that the 1980s addition footprint be reduced along the front and right side to open the view to the historic resource.
B. Miramar Event Center and Restaurants: Applicant Initiated Modifications to Bowling Alley / Food Hall Elevations (PHP 24-123) (Lightfoot) Request for amendment to Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 16-376, Miramar Event Center and Restaurants, to modify the roof plans and associated placement of mechanical units on the barrel roof of the historic bowling alley building. The entitlements were approved by the Planning Commission on June 7, 2017 via resolution PC 17-017 The building is addressed as 150 W. Avenida Pico.
City Planner Jonathan Lightfoot summarized the staff report and noted that due to the significance of the property, staff required an additional review by a qualified Design Review Subcommittee Regular Meeting Minutes March 27, 2024 Page 4 historic preservation professional (GPA Consulting) to analyze whether the proposed changes would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The applicant’s representative, architect Brad Swaggerty of Architects Local, explained the construction issues resulting from the prior approved plans that indicated all venting would be oriented towards Avenida Deshecha. Primarily, significant amounts of ducting would need to cross the interior ceiling space, resulting in a very industrial aesthetic that detracts from the historic trusses. He noted that the vents proposed for use on the El Camino Real elevation would be smaller than traditional restaurant venting and that the fan would be interior to the building resulting in reduced exterior noise. He clarified that the building code requires established distances above roofline for vents and required separation between vents; the proposed design complies with those requirements. He also clarified that the hoods and vents are required to be serviced and maintained every six months.
Chair Camp opened the item for public comment.
Members of the public made the following comments or questions either individually or as a group:
• Opined that the exterior of historic properties is the most significant feature because the majority of people will view these properties from the sidewalk or roadway.
• Expressed concern that the number of vents create more of an industrial look. • Expressed concern at the size of the vents.
• A representative from the neighboring Casino San Clemente expressed that they would like the Committee and applicant to consider ways to minimize noise and odor that would affect their venue operations. • Questioned whether all food stalls need to have a hood for cooking. • Expressed frustration at the delays in construction of the project.
The Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) discussed the project, and made the following comments either individually or as a group:
• Acknowledged that the use as a food hall was previously approved by the City and the Coastal Commission.
• Agreed that the modification improves the feel of the interior space and better frames the historic trusses.
• The vents should be clustered in a rhythm to the extent possible as opposed to being placed in a scattered, haphazard fashion.
• The applicant should regularly monitor the condition of the roof to ensure that no grease or other stains are impacting the barrel roof.
The DRSC requested that GPA Consulting summarize their findings. Audrey Von Ahrens from GPA provided the following comments:
Design Review Subcommittee Regular Meeting Minutes March 27, 2024 Page 5 • Acknowledged that there is a tradeoff of improving the interior space, which results in additional penetrations to the exterior.
• However, noted that the penetrations are on a secondary elevation, not visible from the primary (northwest) elevation.
• Stated that the revision does comply with Standard 9. No historic materials or features would be destroyed and the configuration of the ducting along the perimeter walls would be more compatible with historic building in terms of scale and proportion by preserving the interior spatial relationship of the open ceiling with exposed bow trusses and barrel-vaulted ceiling form that characterize the property.
• Stated that the revised project appears to comply with Standard 10. The interior ductwork and roof vents would not impact the essential form and integrity of the historical resource. If they were removed in the future, the bow trusses and barrel-vaulted ceiling could be returned to their historic appearance with minimal repair.
The Subcommittee recommended that the City Planner approve the requested amendment, with a recommendation that the vents be clustered as much as possible and that a condition be added to require that any roof stains be remediated promptly by the property owner.
3. NEW BUSINESS
None
4. OLD BUSINESS
None
5. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned to the April 10, 2024 DRSC meeting at 3:00 p.m., San Clemente City Hall, First Floor Community Room, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
M. Steven Camp, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner