Planners Reject Historic Inn Makeover

8
657

The Laguna Beach Planning Commission voted unanimously against a proposed $10 million renovation of the historic Coast Inn and the adjacent Coast Liquor store after a lengthy public hearing Wednesday, Oct. 4, where testimony weighed against the project by three to one.

In an interview the following day, owner Chris Dornin expressed surprise and disappointment at the decision, which is only an advisory recommendation. The plan will receive a final hearing before the City Council at an undetermined later date because the ‘30s era hotel is considered an “E” rated historic structure.

The Coast Inn with story poles showing proposed renovations.
Poles indicate a proposed cupola on the  Coast Inn at Mountain Street and coast Highway.

In the meantime, Dornin said he applied this week for a city business license to reopen the legendary Boom Boom Room nightclub with live entertainment and drag shows and is seeking a permanent liquor license. “The reality is we can open the business tomorrow,” said Dornin, and operate without any of the 54 stipulations proposed for granting a conditional use permit for the makeover.

The regulations would close bars and restaurants before 2 a.m., restrict hours of trash pick-up, cap occupancy and forgive typically required parking under credits for historical preservation. Planner Martina Caron recommended approval of the project with conditions, which she said was consistent with other historical projects in town.

“We were willing to accept them,” Dornin said. “It’s 10 times worse to not approve the project.” Currently, Dornin said the fire department set occupancy at the 24-room hotel and nightclub at 597, while occupancy of the proposed renovation, with guests, a lobby bar, rooftop bar and deck and ocean-front restaurant, was capped at 329 seats.

Dornin contended that this week’s decision effectively nearly doubles the neighborhood impact compared to the proposed project. “If we’re not going to get the benefit, we’re better off the way it is. We’re going to open up as is.”

Nevertheless, Dornin isn’t ready to drop the makeover and will pursue a different outcome before the City Council. He is hopeful elected officials will give greater weight to the 2015 findings of the city Heritage Committee, which upgraded the Coast Inn’s historical rating, thus allowing for intensifying the land use.

Those findings received a skeptical rebuke from Planning Commission members this week.

“This is a mash-up, a cut and paste approach to historical preservation,” said commission chair Susan McLintock Whitin at the conclusion of two hours of public testimony.

The ocean side of the Coast Inn.
The ocean side of the Coast Inn.

“Today, there has not been a rigorous historical comparison as to what’s being preserved,” she said, pointing out contradictions in architectural details on the proposed Coast Inn plans compared to the Mediterranean Revival style on a 1935 postcard illustration of the hotel.

Whitin also criticized city policies that allow “grandfathered” parking exemptions as a trade off to developers for restoring historic structures. She called the practice a “misuse of the historic credit system.”

Archival images of the Coast Inn.
Archival images of the Coast Inn.

Commission member Ken Sadler raised a different question. Because of rooftop improvements that would require internal structural reinforcing throughout the building, Sadler could not see how the project can escape the status of a major remodel, which would trigger meeting new building-code construction standards.

“That in my opinion is the stake through the heart of this project,” said Sadler. “I don’t buy it.”

That point also troubled commission member Roger McErlane. He was equally troubled by the proposed rooftop bar, both because it lacked historical authenticity and due to conflicts with federal Secretary of the Interior historical preservation standards.

coast inn_mirrored 2Commission member Anne Johnson said she regretted not pushing for an environmental impact report to assess the project when it was initially heard last December. By Johnson’s count, with the hearing testimony of 38 people and letters from another 45, the project set a new record for controversy.

Among the contrarians supporting the renovation was Mike Boone, a member of the city’s Heritage Committee, who spoke on his own behalf. He urged commission members to not lose sight of what historical preservation tradeoffs have already achieved. “It’s bordering on miraculous,” Boone said. “So many legacy buildings are still here. It’s because Laguna chose to preserve its DNA,” he said. “Help those trying to preserve historic projects,” he urged.

His opinion on preservation reflected the views of most commentators, who welcomed restoration of a long neglected structure. But renovation did not trump gripes, which ranged from a lack of facilities for the handicapped to a rooftop cupola that would violate the town’s height limits.

Prior to the hearing, Leah Sklar and Terry Meurer, two neighbors in close proximity to the hotel on one-way Gaviota Street, went further by independently hiring noise and traffic consultants and a lawyer. A report by traffic engineer Sandipan Bhattacharjee, a principal of Transolutions in Tustin, described the Coast Inn traffic analysis as having “unrealistic assumptions” and “errors” and relying on “incorrect methodologies.”

“It’s not a real flattering review,” commission member McErlane pointed out.

Time will tell if Dornin receives one more to his liking.

Firebrand Media LLC wants comments that advance the discussion, and we need your help to accomplish this mission. Debate and disagreement are welcomed on our platforms but do it with respect. We won't censor comments we disagree with. Viewpoints from across the political spectrum are welcome here. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, our community is not obliged to host all comments shared on its website or social media pages, including:

  • Hate speech that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic slurs, or calls for violence against a particular type of person.
  • Obscenity and excessive cursing.
  • Libelous language, whether or not the writer knows what they're saying is false.
We require users to provide their true full name, including first and last names, as a condition for comments. We reserve the right to change this policy based on future developments.

Scroll down to comment on this post.

8 COMMENTS

  1. I remember how STRICT the City was on the inew Owner’s of Billy Harper’s Grandmother’s house (oldest house in Laguna in Pearl Street & Ocean Avenue) when they were renovating their Historical Property. The Cicy needs to adhere to policy and procedures in maintaining actual historical significance-— otherwise, what’s the point?

  2. I remember how STRICT the City was on the new Owner’s of Billy Harper’s Grandmother’s pink and white house (oldest house in Laguna on Pearl Street & Ocean Avenue) when they were renovating that Historical Property. Likewise, the City needs to adhere to policies and procedures in granting Historical Status of such properties. A myriad of tax incentives exist for “responsible” Owners from the City and State —and even more exist (20% tax credit) for income-producing buildings, from the Federal Government. Clearly, this renovation plan neither adheres to, nor complies with the scope and intention of being a “Historical” Landmark.

  3. Apparently the LBPC would rather see a vacant, run down “historic structure” that a restored business which would bring new tax revenue and jobs to our town! Of course, we cannot even reach agreement about beautifying the entrance to town from Laguna Canyon Road. Typical of the “petty bureaucrats” who run things around here!

  4. I will need to reread this because I cannot understand opposition to bringing back the Boom Boom room, even if just as a parody of itself.

  5. A lifetime Laguna Beach resident wants to restore this dilapidated eyesore to its former glory, while beautifying his town, adding to the tax base and spending massive amounts of his time/money/energy/risk in doing so. The city’s Heritage Committee gives it a thumbs up and says it’s “bordering on miraculous” in terms of historical preservation trade-offs. The “petty bureaucrats” shut it down repeatedly. Unbelievable.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here