SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the DP Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.
Lillian Boyd, Dana Point Times
The Dana Point Planning Commission met in the Dana Point Community Center on Monday, Aug. 26 to consider a coastal development permit for a 51-room hotel at 34482 Green Lantern, overlooking the harbor.
The applicants, Yenny Ng, AIG, and YNG Architects, requested approvals to construct a hotel bordering the Chart House restaurant and Cove Road.
The site is located within the Coastal Development District of the Dana Point Specific Plan (DPSP)/Local Coastal Program (LCP), which is the applicable Local Coastal Program for properties directly above the Orange County Dana Point Harbor. The site lies within the California Coastal Commission appeals area of the Coastal Development District of the DPSP/LCP. In accordance with Implementing Actions Program of the DPSP/LCP, the Orange County Zoning Code (OCZC) is auxiliary to the DPSP, and for any item or issue not included in the DPSP land use regulations, the OCZC shall apply.
According to the agenda item’s background, based on the project’s design and OCZC standards, a Coastal Development Permit is required for the development of a coastal bluff lot and lot merger, and a Conditional Use Permit is necessary for architectural features that exceed the height limit by less than 10 feet.
During discussion, Commissioner Scott McKhann took issue with the canopy height on the rooftop of the hotel.
Commissioner Eric Nelson motioned to approve the CDP, with the condition that the architectural features on the roof exceeding the height limit were denied.
“If coverings are desired by the applicant above the exterior stairwell or access to the roof deck, any improvements must be consistent with the 35-foot height limit,” Nelson added.
McKhann seconded the motion, and the planning commission unanimously approved it.—Lillian Boyd