MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 2, 2025 @ 6:00 p.m.
San Clemente City Hall Council Chamber
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cosgrove called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente to order at 6:04 p.m. The meeting was offered in person at San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California, 92673, and also via live stream from the City’s YouTube Channel.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Cosgrove led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair Cameron Cosgrove; Chair Pro Tem M. Steven Camp; Vice Chair Gary P. McCaughan, M.D; Barton Crandell; and Karen Prescott-Loeffler
Commissioners Absent: Brent Davis
Staff Present: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
Jessica Gatny, Assistant Planner
Gena Burns, Deputy City Attorney
Tamara Tatich, Recording Secretary
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.
4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/SPECIAL PRESENTATION
None.
5. MINUTES
A. Receive and file Minutes from Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 19, 2025.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCAUGHAN, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER DAVIS ABSENT, Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 2, 2025 Page 2
TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2025.
6. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 24-485, Myhren Residence Addition, 245 Avenida Del Poniente
A request for the Planning Commission to approve a Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 24-527 and Minor Exception Permit (MEP) 24-498 for the demolition of a non-compatible addition at the rear of the structure, and construct a two-story addition to the rear of a non-conforming historic home located at 245 Avenida Del Poniente. The addition includes on the first-floor a living room, enclosed staircase, rear porch; and on the second-floor a main bedroom suite, balcony, and roof deck.
The Planning Commission will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and § 15303 (Class 3: New Construction Or Conversion of Small Structures).
Chair Cosgrove opened the public hearing.
Commissioners Crandell and Prescott-Loeffler disclosed that they visited the Myhren project site.
Assistant Planner Gatny presented a PowerPoint entitled: “Myhren Residence, Cultural Heritage Permit 24-527 / Minor Exception Permit 24-498.” A copy of the presentation is on file in the Planning Division.
Staff outlined the proposed improvements and relevant review criteria:
• Historic Significance & Compliance: The home, built in 1938, is designated as a local historic resource under a Mills Act agreement. The proposed project aligns with the Secretary of Interior Standards and City Design Guidelines. • Project Scope:
o Demolition of a 237 sq. ft. non-compatible addition.
o New construction of a 948 sq. ft. addition, increasing total living space by 60%.
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 2, 2025 Page 3 o Incorporation of traditional Spanish Colonial Revival elements such as rod iron railings, barrel tile roofing, and stucco finishes. o Roof deck screened from public view with a 42-inch stucco parapet wall.
• Design Review Considerations:
o Addressed privacy concerns due to adjacent two-story apartment complex.
o Adjusted roofline to improve aesthetics and match the existing structure.
o Improved west elevation to enhance visual appeal and privacy. • Public & Commission Comments:
o No public opposition; no speaker cards submitted.
o Commissioners acknowledged efforts to maintain historical integrity. o Confirmed that the project no longer requires a MEP, as setbacks are compliant.
o The Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) recommendations were successfully implemented.
Assistant Planner Gatny confirmed with the Commissioners that the only request for approval is the CHP.
There being no questions for staff, Chair Cosgrove called up applicants Christine Lambert, an architect, and owner Brett Myron. Ms. Lambert, who has lived in San Clemente for almost 50 years, highlighted that the goal of the project was to maintain the integrity of the original Ole Hansen home while making necessary additions to accommodate a family with children, including more living space and an additional bathroom. She emphasized the importance of preserving the historic elements of the property.
Mr. Myron expressed their commitment to historic preservation, noting they would not have purchased the house if they weren’t dedicated to maintaining its historic character. He explained that the design decisions aimed to minimize changes to the original structure and focused on maintaining privacy, especially due to a large two-story building on the neighboring property that overlooked their home. He assured that their approach would preserve the home’s integrity while enhancing privacy, and thanked the City for their support in this endeavor.
There being no questions of the applicants, Chair Cosgrove closed the public hearing.
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 2, 2025 Page 4
IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCKHANN, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER DAVIS ABSENT, TO DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUILDINES §15301 (CLASS 1: EXISTING FACILITIES) AND §15303 (CLASS 3: NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES); AND TO APPROVE CULTURAL HERITAGE PERMIT 24-527, MYHREN RESIDENCE ADDITION, 245 AVENIDA DEL PONIENTE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
9. NEW BUSINESS
None.
10. OLD BUSINESS
None.
11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
Commissioner Scott McCann raised two topics for future discussion:
• Possibility of a Minor Grading Permit: Currently, moving more than 50 cubic yards of dirt requires a lengthy grading permit process that takes months if not a year; and that the Engineering staff would support a Minor Grading Permit for cases where the impact is minimal.
City Planner Lightfoot stated that grading permits are managed by Public Works and that if the 50-cubic-yard threshold is codified, changes would require City Council approval. If it's a technical engineering standard, there may be flexibility to modify it; and that staff will review and respond with more information. • Mills Act & Public Benefit Concerns: Commissioner McKhann stated that the Mills Act provides property tax breaks for owners maintaining historic properties and questioned the public benefit in cases where properties are completely obscured by landscaping. He suggested discussing whether visibility or public enjoyment should be a factor in Mills Act agreements.
City Planner Lightfoot Jonathan stated the Mills Act agreements are reviewed every five years, and that the primary goal is preserving structures, but aesthetic considerations (e.g., visibility) could be added to agreements. If public view is not a legal requirement under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the City would need to determine if it has discretion to require it. Commissioner McCaughan stated that some historical property features are the landscaping and that the landscaping component can be added to the agreements. Doing so will protect the historical elements ten years or more.
City Planner Lightfoot will add this topic as a future discussion items so that he can provide an update on Mills Act agreements and he will explore adding landscaping visibility considerations.
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 2, 2025 Page 5 Chair Cosgrove invited Councilmember Victor Cabral to comment on the April 2, 2025 City Council meeting discussion concerning the Design Review Subcommittee (DRSC) and streamlining project workflow. Councilmember Cabral primarily focused on concerns about the efficiency and functionality of the City's DRSC in relation to the Planning Commission. In summary:
• Some community members feel that having both the DRSC and Planning Commission results in duplicative efforts, where applicants have to go through multiple rounds of review.
• Councilmember Cabral emphasized that the City Council is still exploring the issue and has asked Community Development Director (CDD) Adam Atamian to assess the best approach. The goal is to determine if changes are necessary.
• Potential Solutions Discussed by City Council:
o If a project is approved by the DRSC, it might not need further review by the Planning Commission.
o Some applicants with strong experience or community trust might be able to bypass the DRSC step and go directly to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Cabral welcomed feedback from Commissioners, acknowledging that they have more hands-on experience with the process. City Planner Lightfoot added that CDD Atamian will present Findings at a future City Council meeting.
Councilmember Cabral also noted that while he and Councilmember Enmeier supported discussing the issue, the all the Councilmembers have not yet weighed in, and the proposal could be revised or even dropped depending on further input.
Chair Cosgrove address each Commissioner individually to offer their feedback on the comments made by Councilmember Cabral, beginning with Commissioner Crandell with over thirteen years of service as both a Commissioner and DRSC Member. Commissioner Crandell emphasized the distinct roles and benefits of the DRSC compared to the Planning Commission. His key points include:
• Distinct Functions – DRSC and Planning Commission serve different purposes.
DRSC allows applicants to present early-stage project concepts with less detail before fully developing their plans for Planning Commission approval. • Benefit to Applicants – DRSC acts as a milestone checkpoint, helping applicants refine their proposals before investing in more detailed plans, such as grading and landscape plans. This helps avoid wasted effort and ensures a smoother approval process later.
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 2, 2025 Page 6 • Misconceptions About the Process – Complaints about DRSC usually come from applicants who are unfamiliar with the process and haven’t done adequate preparation. Those who follow the steps correctly find it beneficial. • Strategic Advantage – If an applicant gains support from the three DRSC members, they only need to persuade one or two additional Planning Commissioners, increasing their likelihood of approval. • Consequences of Skipping or Failing DRSC – If a project goes straight to the Planning Commission and is denied, applicants face significant setbacks, including a mandatory one-year waiting period before resubmitting the same plan. This makes DRSC a valuable preparatory step.
Chair Cosgrove asked Vice Chair and DRSC Chair M. Steven Camp to follow who expressed strong support for the DRSC based on his experience as an architect and Committee member. His key points included:
• Firsthand Experience – With four years on the DRSC and 35 years as an architect, having worked in multiple cities across California and the U.S., allows a broad perspective on different approval processes. • Efficiency of DRSC – Many cities lack a DRSC process, leading to less efficient approvals. In contrast, San Clemente’s system allows applicants to present projects informally first, helping refine designs before reaching the Planning Commission.
• Value to Applicants – Applicants appreciate the guidance and feedback provided in DRSC, which helps them understand requirements and improve their proposals before formal approval is needed.
• Preserving City Character – Given the unique character of San Clemente, Vice Chair Camp believes having an extra layer of review is beneficial for maintaining quality developments.
• Advocacy for Keeping the Process – While DRSC adds extra work, Vice Chair Camp strongly believes it has a positive impact on both project quality and community development. He warned that removing it would be a great loss for the City.
Chair Cosgrove asked Commissioner and DRSC Alternate Member Scott McKhann to provide feedback who stated that he agreed with Commissioners Crandell and Camp's views on DRSC and stated the following:
• The process used to be more difficult and lengthier when he first served on DRSC.
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 2, 2025 Page 7 • Gave an example of the San Clemente Outlet project, which went through 17 reviews and caused significant delays.
• Recalled Councilmember Knoblock saying it took longer to approve projects in town than winning a World War.
• Currently, the process is much more efficient, with projects typically receiving suggestions for improvements and then moving directly to the Planning Commission.
• Applicants are not obligated to return for a second review, but are encouraged if there are major changes.
• Believes that applicants benefit greatly from the back-and-forth discussions and casual atmosphere with the DRSC, which helps improve their projects compared to the more rigid Planning Commission process, where applicants have limited time for interaction.
Commissioner McKhann asked if DRSC meetings are publicly noticed, and City Planner Lightfoot clarified they aren’t because they’re not public hearings.
Chair Cosgrove stated that when he and the others joined the commission, they were told by the City Council that the Planning Commission should not focus on design. Design should be left to the DRSC; and that the Planning Commission's role is to interpret zoning, general plans, and standards—but not to focus on design. Chair Cosgrove highlighted the following:
• The DRSC works in a collaborative, informal setting to refine project designs and provide feedback, which is then passed to the Planning Commission for approval.
• Chair Cosgrove shared an example from the West Pico Corridor Specific Plan, where he learned about issues with the Los Molinos Brewery project.
The applicants faced a difficult design review process with multiple revisions.
Chair Cosgrove stated that the current system has improved to prevent such delays.
• Chair Cosgrove emphasized that the DRSC provides helpful suggestions and free consultation, helping applicants avoid delays and saving them time and money. He shared an example with the Salty Turf Miniature Golf project where design feedback and collaboration with seasoned local architect Michael Luna led to significant cost savings for the applicant. • Chair Cosgrove noted that some out-of-town architects and designers are unfamiliar with San Clemente’s Design Guidelines, and the DRSC helps educate them to ensure projects are compatible with the City’s aesthetic.
Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 2, 2025 Page 8 • Sometimes the DRSC acts as a buffer between applicants and staff, helping to resolve disagreements and facilitating compromise.
• Chair Cosgrove raised concerns about the increased workload for staff, such as producing more detailed reports, and ten-day noticing requirement; which could be costly and time-consuming.
• Chair Cosgrove acknowledged that the current DRSC benefits from having experienced architects like Commissioners Camp and Crandell, along with his own thorough approach to learning are a great contribution to the process.
City Planner Lightfoot confirmed that the financial and time impacts will be addressed in the City Council staff report, and that the DRSC is a quasi-judicial body, meaning provides informal recommendations. If the DRSC were to become a judicial body that enacts decisions on public hearing projects, it would require public noticing for meetings, and there would be a need for expanded staff reports, including resolutions for each project. This would result in additional considerations for staff time and effort.
Commissioner Prescott-Loeffler offered her opinion that the DRSC aimed for a fresh start when they came together, and they successfully pushed to implementing the Trak-iT upgrades that streamlined the permit process so that the public could follow their project’s progress more efficiently.
A discussion on additional streamlining needs concluded with City Planner Lightfoot’s update on recent improvements, such as consolidating ADU permits into one submittal and allowing electronic deposit account collection through the website.
A. Tentative Future Agenda
City Planner Lightfoot gave a brief update of a retrofit project for the former Krikorean Theater to a new entertainment business called "The Bowl," which will include bowling, arcades, and other attractions; as well as a few alcohol service items that will be on a May, 2025 Meeting Agenda.
City Planner Lightfoot also gave a detailed update on the Miramar building that advised the Commissioners of the progress being made.
B. Administrative Development Permit Report
2. ADJOURNMENT
THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IT WAS
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCKHANN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER, AND CARRIED 6-0, COMMISSIONER DAVIS ABSENT, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:16 P.M. TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD IN-PERSON ON APRIL 16, 2025, AT 6:00 Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 2, 2025 Page 9 P.M., AT THE SAN CLEMENTE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 910 CALLE NEGOCIO, 2
nd FLOOR, SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA.
Respectfully submitted,
Cameron Cosgrove, Chairman
Attest:
Jonathan Lightfoot, Secretary of the Planning Commission