No Bookmarks Exist.
Record. 00:00:05
Yep. 00:00:16
Why not? 00:00:18
All right. I'd like to call to order the September 27th, 2023 meeting. 00:00:20
Of the Historic Resources Committee to order. 00:00:26
And maybe start please with a. 00:00:30
Roll call vote. 00:00:32
Chair will call. 00:00:35
Charenton. 00:00:38
Present. 00:00:39
Remember Beckett? 00:00:41
Present. 00:00:42
Remember Grannis? 00:00:43
Present. 00:00:44
Remember, please. 00:00:45
President. 00:00:46
Over steers. 00:00:47
Absent. 00:00:49
Amber greening. 00:00:50
Yeah. 00:00:51
We have 5. 00:00:53
Out of six Members present with one absence, we do have. 00:00:55
A quorum. 00:00:59
And I hope, Mr. Sears. 00:01:00
Comes. 00:01:02
All right. We'll move to the approval of the agenda. 00:01:04
Do I have a? 00:01:08
Motion to Approve from. 00:01:09
My committee approved the agenda. Thank you second. 00:01:12
Thank you. 00:01:16
And I reviewed the Minutes. 00:01:17
And now we need a roll call. 00:01:21
Vote. 00:01:23
Sorry, could you repeat who who voted for the? 00:01:25
This. 00:01:29
I moved, OK. 00:01:31
Member Grannis. 00:01:40
Yes. 00:01:43
Member, please. 00:01:45
Yes. 00:01:46
Member Greening Member Bickett. 00:01:47
Charenton. 00:01:51
Yes. 00:01:52
With five. 00:01:54
Eyes and. 00:01:55
One absent. 00:01:57
The motion to approve the agenda passes. 00:01:58
Thank you. 00:02:01
Do we have any committee announcements? 00:02:02
None. Do we have any staff announcements. 00:02:07
We do not. 00:02:11
We have none, all right. 00:02:12
And our Council liaison is not present. 00:02:14
So with that I'm going to. 00:02:18
Open to general public comments and just a reminder that. 00:02:20
Public comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of this Committee. 00:02:25
But. 00:02:31
Can only deal with items that are not on the regular agenda. So with that I'll open the public comment and we'll start with. 00:02:32
Anybody in the present audience? 00:02:39
Thank you. 00:02:47
Good afternoon, council women. Nice to see you all today. My name is. Is this you think my voice is on? Yes. OK. 00:02:50
My name is Vincent Tumminello. I live on 17th St. I've been here for 45 years. 00:02:58
Local resident and I'm here with a dire warning for you. 00:03:03
Your committees work in the future is under threat. 00:03:07
The state of California, you may be aware. 00:03:12
The the legislature there. 00:03:15
Which is heavily 1 sided has voted for a housing mandate. 00:03:17
SB-9. 00:03:24
Which insists that Pacific Grove address its lack. 00:03:27
Of necessary housing. 00:03:31
So you may be aware or not, Pacific Grove is required to build 11150 new units or. 00:03:33
Garage conversions into apartments. 00:03:40
Second story. Apartments. Apartment buildings. 00:03:43
And if the city doesn't comply with its prepare prepared housing element? 00:03:46
To show the state where we're going to build these 11150 units. 00:03:53
Then. 00:03:58
We're not qualified to proceed and the state will step in and take over. 00:03:59
Now when the state does that, they're gonna override all the. 00:04:05
Zoning laws. 00:04:08
Setbacks, height requirements and including historic. 00:04:09
Properties. 00:04:15
Someone with a historic property that you may feel is valuable and she'll be maintained. 00:04:16
Should be restored. Should not be allowed to be torn down or added on in an inappropriate way. All of that will be overridden by 00:04:21
the state, whose only concern is the number of new units, not how they look. 00:04:28
Not their historic value and not any other local city ordinances. 00:04:35
Now, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous to you? It does to me. 00:04:39
And I felt that I would come here and speak to you because I know you do valuable work. 00:04:43
I used to be a good friend and neighbour and worked with Francis. Great. Some of you may remember her. 00:04:47
She was a person of value to the community who was very historic preservation. 00:04:52
Oriented. 00:04:57
Also with Rebecca Riddell, she was another local woman who was concerned about the historic. 00:04:58
Atmosphere and architecture and so forth of the city. So I wanna caution you, I wanna recommend the only the only remedy we may 00:05:04
have is two groups. 00:05:09
And you may want to write these down. One is called. 00:05:14
Our neighborhood voices. Ohh you are neighborhood voices. 00:05:17
They have a website. 00:05:21
And the other is called sensible zoning. 00:05:23
So you should visit those two websites and see what these groups are doing. 00:05:26
And Sensible Zoning is a group of four charter cities that are suing the state to stop this ridiculous mandate. 00:05:30
And. 00:05:38
The four cities are all charter cities. Pacific Grove is a charter city, but they haven't joined in. 00:05:39
Maybe you should excrete after you visit these websites. 00:05:45
Maybe you should entreat our City Council and mayor. 00:05:48
And city staff for us to take part in that, because I'm gonna be here another 40 years and some of you will also. 00:05:51
And some people just come and go and they could care less. 00:05:58
I'm concerned please. 00:06:01
Take a look at that. Thank you very much. 00:06:03
Umm. 00:06:18
We do. 00:06:24
I'm gonna allow Miss Gianni. 00:06:27
To talk. 00:06:30
Thank you. 00:06:33
I hope you've all had an opportunity to look at the 400 page draft housing element for the General Plan, which was posted on the 00:06:34
city's website a week ago and sets out where PG will locate new housing, as you just heard to meet the states mandate of. 00:06:42
I thought it was 11125 units over the next eight years. It provides for rezoning the NOAA property at 1352 Lighthouse Ave. 00:06:51
From open space to R4, the highest density density residential zoning in PG, allowing buildings to cover 50% of the property with 00:07:01
30 feet high. 00:07:07
30 feet high to create 84 units of affordable housing with the potential for an additional 36 units of above moderate income 00:07:13
housing. The draft housing document is full of confusing, inaccurate, and contradictory information, and it does not cite the 00:07:22
Municipal Code Rezoning Restriction #2342 O3 O that requires voter approval for rezoning and open space property. 00:07:31
The document also fails to mention that the property is in the coastal zone and any zoning change would require application for a 00:07:41
local Coastal program amendment, which the Coastal Commission would have to review and approve in order for the rezoning to be 00:07:47
carried out, since Coastal Commission staff has strongly advised the government before they sold the property at auction, that 00:07:53
this property is highly sensitive. 00:07:59
Culturally, for its archaeological resources and environmentally as sand dune habitat and it's part of a highly scenic area, 00:08:05
rezoning would not likely receive Coastal Commission approval, the document also states. 00:08:12
At the housing document that the Noah building was constructed in 1985. 00:08:19
Instead of 1952 and that it is not a historic resource. 00:08:24
Apparently no one told the consultants about the building's history, which members of the community have continued to research 00:08:29
since HRC voted unanimously to to initiate adding it to the HRI. 00:08:35
In fact, the RFP approved to be prepared for a historical consultant should be issued very shortly after a few months delay. I 00:08:42
hope you will all consider submitting personal comments on the housing element. 00:08:48
To the Housing Department and the Planning Commission, who will be reviewing the housing plan next week on October 5th and 00:08:55
continuing their review on October 12th. And the City Council will be reviewing it on October October 18th. 00:09:02
I have written to them. 00:09:10
Asking. 00:09:13
I have written to a Housing and and Planning Commission asking that the inappropriate plan to rezone the former Noah property for 00:09:14
residential development. 00:09:19
Be removed from the housing element? 00:09:24
And asking at. 00:09:26
That the former Noah property be removed from the proposed residential site inventory and I hope you. 00:09:28
Would choose to do the same. Thank you. 00:09:35
And then I have Miss Dahmer. 00:09:42
Thank you. 00:09:47
I love to follow Lisa because I don't really have to say much. All I have to do is absolutely agree with what she said and also 00:09:48
say that it's very interesting in this housing element that with our survey and everything else on on. 00:09:57
The, the sites and what the citizens wanted and they said absolutely. 00:10:07
All of us said don't mess with our open space. 00:10:12
And then when that was barred in Driscoll and then they got fired and then Rincon and all of a sudden it shows up of rezoning the 00:10:16
Noah. 00:10:20
Building, Well, yes, as Lisa said, the RFP that the. 00:10:25
City Council subcommittee formulated is coming out very soon to be issued and we will get another opinion on that. 00:10:30
The other thing I wanted to address is. 00:10:41
At. 00:10:44
236 it might. 00:10:45
E-mail box I received. 00:10:48
The errata to this meeting at 3:00. 00:10:51
Which is about a project that's being heard today. 00:10:55
And I think that's cutting it. 00:10:59
Pretty short. 00:11:01
256 for a 336 for a 3:00 meeting. I think that it would be. 00:11:04
Better to have them way sooner. 00:11:11
If you expect. 00:11:14
A proper review. 00:11:16
Thank you very much. 00:11:18
I see no other hands raised. 00:11:28
On the consent agenda. 00:12:36
Item B. 00:12:38
I'm not asking to pull anything, I'm just saying there is no address. 00:12:40
Notice that too should be. 00:12:45
24317 Mile Drive. 00:12:48
Just a correction. 00:12:50
Thanks. 00:12:54
Approve the consent agenda. 00:13:11
I'll second it, yes. 00:13:14
Remember bigot? 00:13:21
Yes. 00:13:24
Remember steers? 00:13:25
Aye. 00:13:27
Number greening. 00:13:28
Number please. 00:13:30
Number Grannis. 00:13:32
Chair Anton. 00:13:34
Six eyes, 0 nays. 00:13:35
The motion passes. 00:13:38
I will be giving this staff report and good afternoon committee members. 00:13:58
Or. 00:14:05
The subject property is approximately 3600 square feet and developed with an existing nonconforming 900 square foot one story 00:14:10
single family dwelling and a 900 square foot non habitable basement. 00:14:16
Existing residence is nonconforming in regard to rear and South side setbacks. The property is located within the cities area of 00:14:22
special biological significance. It is not located in the coastal zone or in an archaeologically sensitive area. Subject property 00:14:28
is listed on the HR I. The phase two historic assessment prepared for the site concluded that the proposed work on the subject 00:14:33
property is consistent. 00:14:39
For sure. 00:14:45
Is consistent with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation with minimal loss of historic materials, so that the remaining 00:14:48
character defining features of the resource. 00:14:52
Will not be obscured, damaged or destroyed. The proposed work would not result in significant change to the listed historic 00:14:57
building. 00:15:00
The proposed project includes remodeling and existing nonconforming 900 square foot, one story single family residence and the 00:15:05
construction. 00:15:09
Of a two-story addition adjacent to the existing residence. 00:15:13
The two-story addition includes a 165 square foot first floor. 00:15:17
821 square foot second story with a rooftop deck and a 291 square foot attached garage. 00:15:22
The applicant also proposes to construct a 459 square foot first floor attached AU and per state law, the AU is ministerially 00:15:29
approved because it meets the state law and Pacific Grove AU ordinance. 00:15:35
And development standards. 00:15:41
The resulting structure will include 2636 square feet spread across two stories and an attached garage. The additions without the 00:15:43
AD would result in. 00:15:48
2177 square feet spread across two stories. 00:15:53
And an attached garage. 00:15:57
The Subject property is located on the east side of 8th St. between Central Ave. and Lighthouse Ave. and the R3 PGR zone. 00:15:59
The property is located in a residential neighborhood and is surrounded by one and two-story houses. The houses immediately 00:16:06
surrounding the subject property are constructed in a variety of materials and styles. 00:16:11
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Committee approve the project to the findings, Conditions of Approval and Section 00:16:17
15301, Class One and Section 15331, Class 31 Categorical exemptions. 00:16:24
For existing facilities and historic restoration rehabilitation. 00:16:31
Respectively. If you have any questions, I'll do my best. 00:16:35
Thank you. 00:16:40
Hold on, there we go. 00:16:46
And what? 00:16:49
With the. 00:16:50
Applicant or the. 00:16:51
Architect like to speak, please. 00:16:53
Good afternoon, committee members and chair Anton. My name is Paul Simpson with JCB Architects. 00:17:03
Umm. 00:17:09
I would like to highlight a few of the points and walk you through the project. 00:17:11
The. 00:17:15
For the historic report, the original houses was built in 1896 and the current owners moved in in 1996. 00:17:16
And I've owned it since 1998. 00:17:26
They've taken pride in care, in maintaining and restoring and updating parts of the existing house. 00:17:30
The existing house, as stated, was only 900 square feet. 00:17:35
Both of the owners. 00:17:39
Work from home and so it is very cramped. 00:17:41
Cramped space with not a lot of space to. 00:17:44
Have. 00:17:48
To entertain a family and friends without being in their workspace. 00:17:50
When they purchased the vacant lot next door. 00:17:55
That afforded them the space and ability to add on and be able to. 00:17:59
Basically have have the space that they. 00:18:06
They want to be able to live comfortably there. 00:18:09
When starting the project, we consulted with the city planners and also with Kent Seavey, the architectural historian. 00:18:12
To make sure we were on the right path for meeting zoning requirements. 00:18:19
Considering the design guidelines and also following the guidelines from the Secretary of Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic 00:18:24
Structures. 00:18:28
We're not asking for any exceptions. We're meeting all the zoning requirements. 00:18:34
We have kept the historic house houses, character characteristics and features. 00:18:40
And minimizing any changes to them, particularly on the street frontage. 00:18:45
The proposed design. 00:18:49
A solution is a split level approach, taking advantage of the natural grade to lower the 2nd. 00:18:51
Story of the two-story edition. 00:18:59
Thereby not overwhelming the existing historic structure. 00:19:01
By doing this the the roof of the. 00:19:06
Two-story addition. 00:19:08
Does not exceed the height of the historic house as it sits on the lot. 00:19:10
Furthermore. 00:19:15
The plans show a glass railing at the roof deck. 00:19:17
Thereby also minimizing the visual effect of the height of the roof as it compares to the existing historic house. 00:19:20
The the addition is set back from the face of the original house. 00:19:30
And the lower elements, the more forward elements are kept lower and the taller elements are kept further back. 00:19:36
From the from the street. 00:19:45
Facade. 00:19:47
The main entry. 00:19:48
Is located at the ground level at the addition. 00:19:52
And in order to draw one's eyes more towards the addition to the main entry. 00:19:55
The existing. 00:20:01
Porch steps. 00:20:03
Are to be reoriented to the side. They're currently in rather poor condition as it as they stand. 00:20:05
There will be reoriented, reoriented towards the side yard. 00:20:13
Thereby making that porch a little more private. 00:20:17
And enlarging it for their enjoyment and use. 00:20:20
But but keeping it consistent with the vernacular of of the area in the house. 00:20:25
The the connecting element between the historic home and the proposed addition is a flat roofed area and the historian. 00:20:32
Called referred to it as a hyphen. 00:20:40
Umm. 00:20:43
Where the. 00:20:45
Historic house has a pitched roof and the addition has a pitched roof. This hyphen separates them. 00:20:46
And further distinguishes the existing from the proposed. 00:20:51
At this hyphen. 00:20:56
The existing. 00:20:58
Historic exterior wall will remain. 00:20:59
And a new structural wall will be built. 00:21:02
Directly adjacent to the to the existing wall. 00:21:06
For the addition. 00:21:10
Thereby maintaining the historic wall so as. 00:21:11
Per the Secretary of Standards recommends, what recommendation is that if at some time in the future the addition were to be 00:21:15
removed? 00:21:19
The historic integrity of that wall would still remain. 00:21:23
The hyphen contains the main stairway. 00:21:30
And the connecting elements between the historic house and the main living space in the kitchen and the new and the new upper 00:21:33
level. 00:21:37
The ground level contains the attached garage and the proposed AU. 00:21:41
Meeting the sitting standards for such a unit. 00:21:46
The plan also provides for the additional uncovered parking in the driveway space. That's provided the current house does not have 00:21:49
a garage. 00:21:53
Or proper parking. 00:21:58
And looking at the forms and materials of the exterior, we are proposing board and bat for the siding of the addition. 00:22:01
That is, this distinguishes the addition from the historic structure, thereby meeting another of the Secretary of Sanders's 00:22:07
guidelines. 00:22:11
Secretary of Interior's guidelines. 00:22:15
Although distinctly different, the board and bat siding is in keeping with the. 00:22:18
With the with the period and other examples within Pacific Grove. 00:22:22
The roof deck is minimized by. 00:22:27
Setting it back from the street. 00:22:30
And from the edge of the building. 00:22:32
We used a parapet. 00:22:34
Roof element. 00:22:35
To tie the addition to the historic structure and keep the overall height down. 00:22:37
The plans for the glass rail on the parapet. 00:22:42
To meet the code required safety standards. 00:22:44
The owners have discussed their project with the immediate neighbors. The neighbor to the rear of this property had had a concern 00:22:47
about the the roof. 00:22:53
Deck railing. 00:22:58
And obstructing a view from. 00:23:00
From a bedroom window, although views are not protected. 00:23:03
The owners are considering an alternative to the glass guardrail, such as cable rail. 00:23:06
That may allow for more transparency through the railing for the neighbors view and enjoyment as a as a courtesy. 00:23:13
The neighbor to the north tried to send an e-mail to the planning department, but unfortunately it didn't go through. I'll read 00:23:21
the e-mail that we received a copy of. 00:23:25
It is from. 00:23:30
Suzanne's sales, sales, sales, sales. 00:23:32
And, she writes, Sandy and Donna have been great neighbors since 1996. 00:23:38
The plans seem to be well thought out with consideration of neighbors. I approve of the proposed plans and that's the neighbor to 00:23:42
the north. 00:23:47
In conclusion, we believe the proposed project not only meets the zoning requirements and design guidelines of the city, there's 00:23:53
also sensitive to preserving the historic house. 00:23:58
Distinguishing the old from the new by using materials and design elements that are common and consistent with the neighborhood. 00:24:03
Neighborhood, character, vernacular, and scale. I'd like to reserve any remaining time to address questions or comments at the 00:24:10
end. 00:24:13
Thank you. 00:24:18
Thank you, Paul. 00:24:19
Umm. 00:24:20
So now I will. 00:24:22
Opened the public comment. 00:24:24
Do we have any? 00:24:27
Present. 00:24:28
I'm Donna Phillips. 00:24:40
And I'm one of the owners at Ruth Hooper's house. 00:24:41
143 8th St. 00:24:44
When I moved to California in 87, it took a very long time to find a house, so I don't take housing lightly at all. I had to live 00:24:47
in campgrounds for a long time. 00:24:51
And now when I finally found a house. 00:24:56
I mean they. 00:24:58
I was very grateful to have it and I always love the look of this area when I moved to Pacific Grove. 00:24:59
It was likely as hard to find a place to rent and when we found this house. 00:25:04
It spoke to me immediately and I fell in love with it. 00:25:08
So I've been carefully taking care of this House since we moved in. 00:25:11
As renters and we just kept begging. 00:25:16
The owner at the time. 00:25:19
If there's any way we could buy it to please let us buy it and we would take good care of it for him because he loved it equally 00:25:21
as well. 00:25:23
So we've done improvements to it as we can, but we've always kept historic look and. 00:25:26
The boards on the inside, the fact that it's all single walled wood construction that actually appeals to us so. 00:25:31
We're very grateful to have worked with Jeannie and Paul on keeping. 00:25:37
The look of the area, because Pacific Grove is where I will be the rest of my life, is where is the things to me. 00:25:41
To walk these neighborhoods and see these homes. 00:25:47
And I really do feel that the addition will be done in a way that will. 00:25:50
You know, elevate Ruth's house. 00:25:54
And hopefully. 00:25:57
You know, keep it for a long time to come. 00:25:59
Keep it strong. 00:26:01
Thank you. 00:26:04
There are other public comment. 00:26:05
Yes, OK Vince Tuminello, Pacific Grove resident. 00:26:11
Is this the direction we're going with historic properties? 00:26:15
I mean the difference between what these people originally purchased. 00:26:19
I would consider that historic. They knew what they were buying. They knew that it was. 00:26:24
1896, I believe it was said. 00:26:28
OK. And this is your responsibility. How many properties in Pacific Grove are we gonna allow these types of proposals? 00:26:31
To be approved. 00:26:39
Does that final, I wanna call it a Mcmansion. 00:26:40
Is that gonna give a historic look? Is that preserving our history? 00:26:44
You know, it's not like you're taking anything away from the present owners. 00:26:49
They knew what they were buying A small little 900 square foot. 00:26:53
Historic home. 00:26:56
On down by the ocean and the 100 block. 00:26:58
And I don't see. I mean, do you see? I'm not gonna ask you to answer me. 00:27:02
But I'm going to ask rhetorically. 00:27:05
To people see that that proposal is gonna preserve the history of a historic home. 00:27:07
Changing the front and whatever the condition is is OK, all great. 00:27:12
I've seen this type of stuff go on for many, many years. Plus there's going to be an Adu. More people, more cars to that 00:27:16
neighborhood. 00:27:20
And this is pretty much a very soft sell of what the state is proposing. Let's fill all the lots as much as we can. Let's make it 00:27:24
as crowded as we can. And where's the historicity? 00:27:30
In this modification, I mean the architect did a nice job. 00:27:37
I think this is all good for the real estate people, for the architects. 00:27:41
For the people who have an older home that they got at a good price, maybe let's call it a low price and now times have changed 00:27:44
and and restrictions have changed and let's go ahead and build a Mcmansion. 00:27:50
And I'm just curious, I'm gonna, I'm interested to see what your relevancy and what your criteria is gonna be in either approving 00:27:56
or disapproving of this. 00:28:01
So I don't want to see the whole town. 00:28:05
Turned into one big jam property and into the next. And the streets all full of parked cars. 00:28:08
And so on and so forth. OK, Thank you very much. 00:28:15
Thank you. 00:28:18
You may. 00:28:25
Funny. 00:28:32
My name is Scott Johnson. I live at 147 8th St. 00:28:33
My objection? 00:28:39
The current. 00:28:41
Opposed project may not be relevant here. Can you speak into the mic please? My objection. 00:28:42
To the current project may not be relevant here because it is not based upon the historicity. 00:28:48
But rather the blockage of my ocean view. 00:28:54
And so if it is not relevant here, please tell me when and where the proper form would be to express my objections. 00:28:57
Position to answer questions that would be a question for city staff would be my recommendation for that. We're under the purview 00:29:09
just to address the property and. 00:29:13
To base it on its merits or not in terms of following the rules of the HRC. 00:29:18
I think that's an answer, but not quite the one I was looking for. 00:29:24
Sorry, this is. I'm sorry, Apologize. You have 3 minutes. You can express your opinion and I already have, and we will listen to 00:29:28
your opinion. No. Will there be an architectural review on this? That's what you're in. That's what we're doing. 00:29:35
Then my objection is relevant. 00:29:43
Because the architecture as designed obscures my near ocean view. 00:29:46
Are you finished? 00:30:06
Thank you. 00:30:09
Is there any other public comment? 00:30:12
Good afternoon. 00:30:23
I'm Sandy Shore and I am one of the owners of 143 8th St. 00:30:24
And umm. 00:30:29
My family moved here in 1969. 00:30:32
And I think the most, the longest I ever stayed at any residence in this community was about three years. 00:30:35
Until I purchased this house. 00:30:43
In 1998, two years after renting it. 00:30:46
And I do. If I sound emotional, I am. 00:30:51
We love this house. 00:30:54
And I have read every John Steinbeck book from cover to back, back, back to cover. 00:30:56
Keeping the integrity of the history of this community is everything to me. 00:31:03
I. 00:31:09
I mean, the Batten Board of itself was so Cannery Row, you know? 00:31:11
Having a home that was built in 1896. 00:31:16
We can feel it. We can feel the spirit of the house. We can. The wood speaks to us. 00:31:21
We love our community. We love being at the end of Rickets Row. 00:31:27
In honor of Doctor Ricketts, of course. 00:31:32
So we would never compromise the history of this community. 00:31:36
The company we've built. 00:31:43
Is based out of Monterey Bay. 00:31:45
We broadcast globally. 00:31:47
We have a jazz radio station with millions of listeners around the world. 00:31:50
Every hour on the hour we say live. 00:31:55
From the Monterey Bay. 00:31:57
And I'm sorry for being emotional. 00:32:02
We waited three years to have this hearing. 00:32:04
Some. 00:32:07
That's when we first met with Jeannie. 00:32:09
And Paul. 00:32:11
And we painstakingly went over this. 00:32:12
You know, we we were so careful. We're so careful about how not to block views. 00:32:16
Mr. Johnson has one of the most beautiful views you can imagine. He lives in a duplex he rents behind us. 00:32:21
We like him. He's our neighbor. 00:32:27
You can see. 00:32:29
Around the Bay. It's wonderful our house will not block his view. 00:32:30
And I think you know, it's not higher than the original house. 00:32:35
Which we did on purpose. 00:32:38
Umm. 00:32:40
We would. 00:32:41
I recognize an accent in the gentleman's voice that was here I was. I'm a fourth generation Californian. 00:32:43
I again love this state and I love this community. 00:32:49
We will not compromise the history. 00:32:52
And we look forward to building and adding on to this lovely little cottage and making it something spectacular so we can have my 00:32:55
family come and visit. 00:32:59
My sister has 13 grandchildren and children. 00:33:04
And. 00:33:07
27 years they've not been able to stay in our house, so we look forward to the holidays now. 00:33:08
Once we built. And I thank you for listening. 00:33:13
Thank you. 00:33:16
You have any virtual public comment? 00:33:20
Yes, we do. 00:33:23
Going to allow Miss Dahmer to speak. 00:33:27
Thank you. 00:33:33
I appreciate the really emotional appeal. 00:33:36
And and the care that went into this. 00:33:40
I do have trouble with the reorientation of the front porch the size. 00:33:44
And the fact that. 00:33:50
That it's one that starts off with. Oh well, if we remove all these things and the integrity is still there. 00:33:54
Well, a few years down the line is when the next historical review is going to be. 00:34:03
Deleting these from the historic list, so I don't know. 00:34:09
Please use your discretion. Thank you very much. 00:34:15
Thank you. 00:34:20
Can we get the timer going please? And then I have Miss Gianni. 00:34:21
Thank you. 00:34:29
I'm I'm also torn about this. 00:34:32
I mean the concept. 00:34:36
You know of keeping the original. 00:34:38
Sounds great. 00:34:42
The drawings on paper look. 00:34:44
Huge. 00:34:47
And. 00:34:49
And. 00:34:50
So it's just. 00:34:51
Very. 00:34:52
Difficult. 00:34:55
Especially considering that the owners. 00:34:56
Sounds like. 00:34:59
Really, really nice people who love this. 00:35:01
Amazing place that we all live. 00:35:03
Umm. 00:35:06
And but yeah, it is supposed to be objective standards and. 00:35:07
So I. 00:35:11
I trust. 00:35:13
You can. You can make a good decision here. Thank you. 00:35:14
Thank you. 00:35:20
I see no other hands raised. 00:35:27
All right. I'll close public comment, bring it back here to the committee. 00:35:29
Or comments? 00:35:34
Who would like to speak? I have a question to ask the owners. 00:35:38
I'm I'm wondering and and also to make sure that I'm clear on our understanding if if this were just one lot versus being on two 00:35:43
lots. 00:35:47
Would there be any differentiation on the size of the the renovation that we'd be allowed to look at that is it's something that 00:35:52
might maybe for probably for the architect to answer? 00:35:57
Because I do know the second lot was added to this. 00:36:02
Sure. Yeah, the lots have been legally merged, so it is technically one lot. 00:36:09
So it is a 60 by 60. 00:36:15
Lot. 00:36:17
And based on the. 00:36:18
So we were going not by. 00:36:21
Two separate lots, but by the legally merged. 00:36:23
Lot of 60 by 60 and looking at the working with the planners and the zoning in terms of what's you know. 00:36:26
What is? What are the parameters allowed in the zoning ordinance? 00:36:34
You know, on a 60 by 60 lot. 00:36:38
Now one comment is about the Adu and that is correct that it it it does. 00:36:41
Incorporating a DU into this, which is. 00:36:46
Besides the garage majority of the 1st. 00:36:50
The the lower level. 00:36:53
Is the Adu so the gentleman that was asking about? 00:36:55
You know, more cars and so on. Actually, I think the AU helps the situation. 00:36:59
Thing with the state housing that you know would be adding an additional housing. 00:37:03
Unit. 00:37:08
To Pacific Grove, which seems to be one of the mandated things from the state. 00:37:09
But yes, it was considered as one lot as it legally is right now. 00:37:13
Does that answer your question? 00:37:18
Any other questions? One there may be just don't go away. 00:37:20
All right, other comments. 00:37:25
We must have some. 00:37:28
I have one comment which is in regards to reconfiguring the front door area and I think that that. 00:37:31
Just sort of ruins the historic integrity of the front of the house. It may not be. 00:37:40
Really attractive the way it is now, but that's the way it's always been, so I have a problem with reorienting the front porch 00:37:46
area on the front of the house. 00:37:50
I also feel the same way about. 00:38:09
The front of the house and the door, but I'm also just concerned. I I did go and I. 00:38:12
Stood there and I. 00:38:16
It just seemed that it's going to be overwhelming. It is a lot of house. 00:38:18
And you people do take wonderful care of. I was great to see your home because it it's very nice. But I I I just. 00:38:25
It's just too much, I feel. 00:38:36
It's just too much and I think it would overwhelm. 00:38:39
The beautiful little cottage. 00:38:43
There's a beautiful little cottage. 00:38:49
And I am very much persuaded by the fact that they've kept most of it intact. I really like that. 00:38:52
Umm. 00:38:59
It's sort of like 2 separate houses. 00:39:01
Next to each other, they don't. 00:39:04
Visually connect, but we've approved things like that before successfully. 00:39:07
And I I like it. I'm in favor of it. 00:39:13
Other comments. 00:39:19
I. 00:39:20
I live in an 800 square foot house. 00:39:21
And I know and I got it approved down to. 00:39:24
Do some renovations and I was told that the most I could go up would be to have my house be 14160 square feet. 00:39:28
And I understand that now we're to consider this as two lots. However. 00:39:35
When the original owners had this house, it was one lot. 00:39:40
So if we're considering the historic. 00:39:43
And we're putting the emphasis on the historic property. It was the property that was the 60 by 60 lot which I'm very familiar 00:39:47
with. So the. 00:39:51
The fact that it is now 2 lots and the empty lot was bought so that could add to I'm still persuaded to. 00:39:55
Make this smaller rather than bigger, just to fill the empty space that wasn't there when this house was there. 00:40:01
I. 00:40:08
I just. 00:40:09
That's my concern about keeping things in the same lot size. The postage stamp is the postage stamp. The house is on the postage 00:40:10
stamp just because you buy another postage stamp and make it OK. 00:40:16
It's still. It's a little too big for me. And I appreciate all the value that you have. I do. I have the same love for my house. I 00:40:21
mean, I do. 00:40:25
And I'm so happy that you're here and you're doing what you're doing. 00:40:31
It's just to think of it. 00:40:34
Almost 2 1/2 times as big as the original house when I can only go up to 1400 at an 800 square foot house. 00:40:36
Just doesn't really seem that that's the size it should be. That's my feeling. 00:40:42
One other comment that I have about the massing the Secretary of Interior standards does say that the new work. 00:40:51
That the massing is to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 00:40:57
And I feel that this is just. 00:41:02
Very, very large and doesn't really meet that standard. 00:41:04
Let us do you have comment? 00:41:11
No. 00:41:13
Very difficult because. 00:41:14
Including an Adu. 00:41:17
Of course, adds another five 3500 square feet. 00:41:19
Whereas if you didn't have. 00:41:25
You know you don't have that AD you. You would have a a much smaller building that wouldn't be a. 00:41:27
Problem. And I know the AD we we don't count, we don't, but it just makes the building. 00:41:31
Look more. 00:41:37
Massive. 00:41:38
Just having that extra space used as an AD U. 00:41:39
And I know it's. 00:41:43
You know, it's what people want and it's what we are mandated to do. 00:41:44
So I think that's where probably it. 00:41:49
It looks more overwhelming because of that Adu. 00:41:52
Umm. 00:41:56
I think it's been very well. 00:41:57
Designed. 00:41:59
And I'm, you know, apart from the the front porch, I think. 00:42:00
The way you've kept the. 00:42:04
Properties separate is. 00:42:05
Is very good. I I think that's a great. 00:42:07
Great plan. 00:42:11
I'm. 00:42:14
Sort of. 00:42:16
In between. 00:42:17
You know, and I'm glad that the the second one. 00:42:18
Building doesn't. 00:42:22
Isn't higher or above. 00:42:23
The original building. I think that's important too. 00:42:25
So. 00:42:29
I'm not going to say it's. 00:42:31
Over messed but. 00:42:32
Perhaps. 00:42:34
There's just this. 00:42:35
I can only. 00:42:37
Listen to what the rest of the committee says. 00:42:38
Yeah. 00:42:40
Say something, make comments, certainly go ahead. In terms of the massing, I think that. 00:42:41
Mr. Steers, kind of. 00:42:47
Hit it on on the nose in terms of how we were approaching it is. 00:42:50
Really as almost like 2 buildings and that hyphen which can see the. 00:42:54
Called that little middle area. 00:42:58
Is set back. 00:43:01
At least 12 the the upper wall. I think it's like 12 feet back from the. 00:43:03
From all the main house. 00:43:07
And that hyphen was yes, it's the connecting piece between the two. 00:43:09
But it was meant to really recess and have the two volumes the historic house. 00:43:13
And the addition. 00:43:19
Really appear almost as. 00:43:21
Separate units as if you would have two houses. 00:43:24
Each on of 30 by 60 lot. 00:43:27
And so that hyphen is the connecting piece and it was kept further back. 00:43:31
And a flat roof. 00:43:36
As a as a separating element between the between the two that have the the pitch roofs. 00:43:39
I think the. 00:43:47
The fact that it has the Adu, by the way, is. 00:43:48
Helps the city. 00:43:52
In a very small way, but helps the city achieve its. 00:43:55
Obligations to the state which is. 00:43:59
Twisting our arms and forcing us to cram all this stuff into a city where it doesn't belong anyway. 00:44:01
But. 00:44:07
They have to do it. 00:44:09
The. 00:44:14
If this were two lots instead of 1. 00:44:15
Somebody would buy that lot and they'd build a house there. That's what's happening. 00:44:20
Let's see that it's that big of a deal. 00:44:25
Go ahead. 00:44:28
I just had a question on the project data sheet. It says the existing condition. The building height is 22 feet 3 inches and the 00:44:30
proposed condition is 24 feet 6 inches. 00:44:35
Though you're saying that they're the same and from looking at the drawings it does look higher to me that maybe the roof deck but 00:44:40
the the glass railing is is higher but the the solid surface of the roof. 00:44:47
If you look at the side elevation on that page there. 00:44:54
It's like just just slightly above the the peak of the existing roof and that's the glass railing. Well, look at the West 00:45:00
elevation, it shows the peak of the roof is right at the top of the rail of the roof deck. So I've assumed that that's where the 00:45:04
roof. 00:45:09
Right. So when I say that the, the roof is not any higher. 00:45:14
It's. I mean that. 00:45:18
Peak is, yeah. 00:45:20
Yeah, right there at the top. So it's. 00:45:24
Uh. 00:45:27
A little bit higher, you're right. Yeah, that just that peak, but the majority of the glass railing, the rest of the roof is. 00:45:28
Is down and the glass reeling is then making up that. 00:45:34
That other height up to the required height. 00:45:37
You mentioned something about the, I think the back staircase that. 00:45:41
You could do something a little different to. 00:45:45
Is this with the view? Yeah, it wasn't the staircase, it was just that that upper railing. 00:45:48
And the the owner was concerned because the flagging goes all the way to the top of the. 00:45:53
Of the guardrail. 00:45:59
But the upper, you know, 16 inches of that is, is the glass. Hmm. And so they're thinking it was gonna be, you know, solid all the 00:46:01
way up. 00:46:05
So they were asking in terms of. 00:46:10
If instead of the glass if we use cable rail or something else to? 00:46:12
You know have. 00:46:16
You know they they have a spectacular view looking straight out, but they were just hoping to out of their bedroom window. 00:46:18
To keep their little. 00:46:23
Their little peak. So the owners are willing to consider like a cable rail or something like that instead of the glass. 00:46:26
Something that would be, you know, light and. 00:46:33
Not add to the you know to the mass of the building. 00:46:36
I mean, I looked at the story polls. 00:46:42
Several times. 00:46:44
And they they really do look. 00:46:46
They look higher than what it looks like in the drawing. 00:46:48
To me and and maybe. 00:46:51
I I don't know if they always get the angles correct, but. 00:46:54
Umm. 00:46:58
It it did look. 00:46:59
Pretty big, and considering that it's on a bit of a slope too, so that the whole thing could be a little bit lower seems to me. 00:47:00
Unless you have really high ceilings, which I'm I'm not. I forget what ceiling high we do have the the garage and the and the AU 00:47:09
is basically right at grade. I mean without. 00:47:14
You know, digging down subterranean. 00:47:20
Ohh, it's it's right at grade. 00:47:23
Well, what's your pleasure here folks? And. 00:47:29
Just just to add, part of the the connection was the. 00:47:32
Floor levels that the the main. 00:47:36
The main living space that connects to the to the historic house. 00:47:38
Is just only slightly higher than the historic house. 00:47:44
You know with with the garage in 80 below. 00:47:47
So. 00:47:49
You know, they wanted to maintain a, you know, fairly close relationship between the house and the the existing house and the 00:47:52
addition in terms of those floor levels. 00:47:56
That are, you know, fair fairly close a couple of feet. 00:48:00
So it's not like we're adding a, you know? 00:48:05
2nd floor on top of the existing house in terms of high. 00:48:07
So we've really tried to. 00:48:12
To keep it down, but keep the volumes inside of also, you know. 00:48:13
Nice as well. 00:48:18
What is the reason you're changing the front part of the cottage? The porch part? The door? Well, part of it was the fact that the 00:48:21
the owner spent considerable time and effort. 00:48:26
Designing and building the the front wall that if you notice the. 00:48:33
Still in the very artistic wall and the gates. 00:48:37
And they really want to maintain those. But. 00:48:40
We wanted to but. 00:48:44
Where the front door is now is really going to be part of their kind of more private space. 00:48:45
And so with the front, the main door being in the addition. 00:48:51
We wanted to be able to steer people to the main door. 00:48:55
So they don't just, you know, walk up to the. 00:48:59
Existing stairs as the. 00:49:03
You know front door, so the main front door is in the addition. 00:49:05
Now and so by. 00:49:08
Returning the stair. 00:49:11
It. 00:49:13
Orients people because they didn't want to move the gates, because their gates and walls are in place. They wanted to keep those. 00:49:15
It orients people to go towards the entry instead of. 00:49:22
To the. 00:49:26
The old porch. 00:49:28
And they wanted to also have a Porsche to be able to sit out. 00:49:30
Outside on that, on that portion. 00:49:33
As well. 00:49:36
And which currently, obviously it's too small to do that. 00:49:38
So. 00:49:41
And talking about TCV. 00:49:43
You know design? Is it a way to? 00:49:45
There's lots of examples in Pacific Grove of that type of front porch orientation. 00:49:49
That spans. 00:49:55
You know. 00:49:57
Half 3/4 of the front elevation. 00:49:58
There's lots of examples of that type of. 00:50:00
Of. 00:50:03
You know, vernacular in Pacific Grove. 00:50:05
And so. 00:50:07
Building it in a similar fashion, similar design. 00:50:10
Kent was OK with it. 00:50:13
So we proceeded. 00:50:15
We did have a another house that had that situation of the different orientation. 00:50:16
And the owner did keep it at the original. 00:50:21
Orientation is shown, so we did have that before and the comment was made by Mr. Steers. 00:50:23
That you know what would be the big deal? If we had the empty lot and we built. We just have another house there. However, because 00:50:28
I've researched this, if my house, for instance, was to burn down more than 25%, I would have to enlarge my setbacks. 00:50:33
Instead of the six feet that I currently have. 00:50:40
To standards that would meet the fire departments approval. So I think I don't know if it's a 10 foot or 12 foot side setback that 00:50:42
would have to be allowed that would look more open. 00:50:47
Than having a massive building like this. 00:50:52
And for me, the Adu is over the top. It's like asking for cake and ice cream too. 00:50:55
And. 00:51:00
I could see if the property did not include the Adu, but to say all of this mass and the Adu which is allowable for me is over the 00:51:01
top. 00:51:04
So I absolutely can't say I. 00:51:09
I approve with this because a new house would make it look more wide open with a 12 foot side set back on both sides. 00:51:11
Correct me if I'm wrong, 60 by 60 a lot side set back is 6 feet to five. Not the older standards, but if my house because I know I 00:51:21
have a six foot set back and three feet one side, 3 feet on the other side and if I have more than 25, anybody who has a small 00:51:26
House of current historic house, if you haven't you have to have a larger set back to make sure that the fire equipment can get 00:51:31
in. 00:51:37
That's what my. 00:51:43
That isn't that. That's. 00:51:45
That is not accurate. No. The setbacks on the zoning are or the setbacks. 00:51:47
That's not what my insurer said. I'll have to check that. 00:51:52
But that may be the case with your insurer. 00:51:55
But not when it comes to building a property, or what the what a municipality sets for their zoning. 00:51:58
The insurance company may have their own requirements for your home and for their what they will ensure. 00:52:03
But that's not. 00:52:09
The requirements for the city to set those. 00:52:11
Wow, it seems like the two should be aligned, because how can you get insurance? And insurance is a deal. Not for here. OK, it's 00:52:14
insurance. 00:52:17
But we all need it, and they're going away. 00:52:22
How to get insured? OK, another issue for another time. 00:52:27
Well, we need to make a decision here, folks. 00:52:34
So, Jennifer, yeah, I would just like to say that for one thing, I think right now I know there's a gate at the front that leads 00:52:36
you to the front door. And I think if you're going to change the front of the house like that. 00:52:42
Why is it even on the HR? I I mean you. You're not supposed to be able to change the visual aspects from the street of a historic 00:52:48
structure. 00:52:52
So I don't think that that should be allowed. 00:52:56
And I have to agree that I although I understand adding the Adu, you know people are doing that and it's it's accepted, but 00:52:59
without the Adu this would be so would be much smaller and much more acceptable to me. 00:53:05
I sort of feel sometimes like our charge is to try and keep the character of Pacific Grove as it is and if we keep. 00:53:11
Letting these new structures. 00:53:18
Be built. 00:53:20
You know what's going to happen over time is my concern. That's all. 00:53:22
Feel their large. 00:53:30
Properties in that neighborhood. 00:53:31
That are. 00:53:34
Of equal height and. 00:53:35
Umm. 00:53:37
Ground coverage is this proposed project. 00:53:38
If you look in, there's some very large houses around. 00:53:42
And so I don't think it's out of place. 00:53:45
Regarding size. 00:53:48
I walked all around. 00:53:50
The streets and there are some very large houses. 00:53:52
I think being on this like a dividing it is separate houses. If it was built separately it probably would have been approved. 00:53:55
On a single lot. Umm, So my feeling is that. 00:54:03
I would approve the plans as is. 00:54:08
If if I if I may, actually the house behind is significantly large. 00:54:15
As well. 00:54:20
And. 00:54:21
The neighborhood is different because it does have the apartments. 00:54:22
Directly to the South, which is very large building. 00:54:28
It has. 00:54:31
Two churches that are, you know, right in that same neighborhood. Again, large. 00:54:32
Large buildings. 00:54:37
So that the the scale around the property. 00:54:40
Is as you said. 00:54:44
Of. 00:54:45
Quite a number of of larger. 00:54:46
Larger buildings rather as residential or. 00:54:48
Churches or. 00:54:51
And so on, but it is. 00:54:52
In keeping in the scale. 00:54:56
We felt. 00:54:57
And please, nobody is else's well really talked about the changing of the front and I just I that's one thing I really have a 00:54:59
problem with is changing the the face of the house. 00:55:04
No, I I said that too. And I feel the same way. I think if you start, I mean, you're not supposed to be fiddling with the front of 00:55:11
the house. I mean, that's supposed to. That's part of the character of the house. 00:55:16
And we've turned so many places down that have wanted to do put a porch or something like that. So I would not, under those 00:55:20
conditions, to be able to vote for it. 00:55:25
And I point out something that we miss all the time. 00:55:31
This is an R3 PGR zone. 00:55:35
So the city has already zoned it. 00:55:39
As. 00:55:42
Allowing it to be bigger than an R1, than a single family house. It's not a single family house. Doesn't have to be. The city 00:55:44
didn't want it to be. 00:55:49
It's supposed to be bigger. 00:55:54
The height limits are a little bit higher, the setbacks are a little less. 00:55:57
The square footages are a little bit larger on a lot like this. 00:56:01
And it's what they bought when they paid for the. 00:56:06
Property. 00:56:09
So some of this. 00:56:11
Some of the comments about the size of the house I think are. 00:56:13
A little bit out of place maybe. 00:56:20
It does not preclude. It does not take away from the front of the house not meeting historic standards of what we're currently 00:56:24
tasked to do that you must agree on. 00:56:29
At the front of the house is being changed. 00:56:34
And we have not approved that on many, in many cases, many circumstances. 00:56:36
You don't have to approve it now. 00:56:42
OK. 00:56:43
Ohh, that. Thank you. Thank you. That's all. Just to say that I concur with my other committee members that the front of the House 00:56:46
at the very least. 00:56:49
Should not be changed. 00:56:53
That can be a condition of the approval. 00:56:57
That could be a condition. 00:57:00
Somehow, visually though, I think the the new design is more appealing. 00:57:03
Is is the door placement moving or just the so it's just the porch, correct? So it's not gonna the house stays the same in that 00:57:09
area? 00:57:13
A porch can be removed or not. 00:57:18
So I I think the door and the windows remain. 00:57:20
Correct the current stairs. 00:57:25
Invite you to go up to that door, and now they don't want you to go up to that door. So something needs to be changed, but it 00:57:28
could be. 00:57:31
Yes. 00:57:35
Umm. 00:57:39
Question I have when I look at the story polls and and look at the height of the ribbon or whatever you call it. 00:57:39
Is that the height of including the the viewpoint and the the glass perimeter of the IT is so really the house is going to be 00:57:46
somewhat lower than the way it kind of looks right there. 00:57:52
In terms of the solid roof, yes, yeah, solid roof would be lower than what those sort of holds. 00:57:58
OK. 00:58:03
Well. 00:58:07
Rick, do you want to make a motion? 00:58:08
I would move that we approve the project as. 00:58:11
Presented. 00:58:15
I expect that. 00:58:17
Maybe some of you want to add a few conditions to that. Is that so? 00:58:19
I would I would add a condition that that that all. 00:58:24
Here be made to. 00:58:28
Help with the neighbors viewpoint as far as the staircase and and the railings. 00:58:33
But I think you heard us say that. 00:58:38
And I think we want to do that. 00:58:41
Do we have a second? No changes made to the front? 00:58:44
That is my question that isn't. 00:58:47
But that's not what I said, just I wanted to have that clarity. 00:58:49
I think it should be a condition that the front of the house original house has not changed. 00:58:56
Well. 00:59:01
I think it needs to be changed at least a little bit to prevent people from wanting It's It's the porch though. It's not the house 00:59:04
is gonna change, it's just through the chair. There's a motion made. Is there a second? 00:59:09
But we're still working on the motion here. It's being modified. 00:59:16
So far, the motion is to accept the project and to mitigate the. 00:59:21
The back staircase. 00:59:26
Do we have a second to the motion? 00:59:29
I second. 00:59:31
Thank you. 00:59:32
Can we have a? 00:59:34
Roll call vote please. 00:59:36
Member Steers. 00:59:40
Aye. 00:59:42
Member Greening. 00:59:43
Member, please. 00:59:46
Member Grannis. 00:59:48
Remember Beckett? 00:59:51
No. 00:59:52
Member Anton. 00:59:53
Aye. 00:59:55
Three eyes, 3 nays. 00:59:58
It is tied and that means I believe. 01:00:00
Per our. 01:00:04
Guidelines that the motion fails. 01:00:06
Like that correctly. Let me look that up. 01:00:09
Sounds right. 01:00:12
Yes. 01:00:13
Yeah, the motion fails. 01:00:15
So added. 01:00:18
A condition on that. 01:00:20
To. 01:00:23
Preserve the character of the front entrance. 01:00:25
More carefully. 01:00:29
I I think. 01:00:31
Will you make that in the form of a motion, please? 01:00:32
The I think the owners would be willing to entertain. 01:00:36
Something along those lines of. 01:00:41
The front end modifying the front entry, if that would mean. 01:00:44
Yeah, I think the model. I think you're right, the front entry needs to be modified but in a. 01:00:47
In a smaller or less intrusive manner, and I don't know how to say that. 01:01:00
Motion. 01:01:04
Umm. 01:01:06
Let the roof over the door. 01:01:09
Remain pretty much as it is and not extend all the way to the end of the porch. The porch itself is extending. 01:01:12
To the left. 01:01:20
Maybe we should just leave the porch alone. 01:01:23
But. 01:01:27
That's quite the motion, Rick. 01:01:31
How about how about thinking it through? The steroid needs to not go down to the sidewalk. That's what really has to happen. Or 01:01:35
something else? 01:01:40
Needs to be in front of the stairway, like a gate or a wall or something. Let me ask our staff person, could we approve the 01:01:45
project? 01:01:49
And request that the design of the front. 01:01:53
Porch. 01:01:57
Come back to us. 01:01:59
Next month. 01:02:00
If we. 01:02:02
That proved the concept of the project with that stipulation that we come back with. 01:02:03
With a design that we can approve. 01:02:08
Well, or you could have. We have done this in the past subcommittee. 01:02:12
Comes and reviews the new design. 01:02:17
Subcommittee. 01:02:24
Of this group. 01:02:25
That that would be two people. 01:02:26
Like to see what we're approving before we approve it. We've run into this before. 01:02:29
That we approve. 01:02:33
You know, it just starts to lead a precedent and I just that's not OK with me that that something gets approved before it. But the 01:02:34
audience, no, no audience, sorry. One one option would be just we continue this to the next meeting and the architect bringing 01:02:40
forward. 01:02:45
A new design of the front. 01:02:52
OK. 01:02:55
Make a comment. 01:02:56
The third. 01:02:59
The other option is to. 01:03:01
Approve the project with the porch being the same, and if they choose to come later with a new project, being the front porch. 01:03:05
That could be also done. So you could say yeah, yeah, keep it suggesting. 01:03:13
Or continue the whole project. I hate to do that, but the front porch could be on this. We have to say this in front of the. 01:03:19
The audience. We can't have discussion amongst ourselves. 01:03:26
My my question is, this is always been my I have a historic house, of course. 01:03:29
And it's always been my understanding that I cannot alter. 01:03:34
The view of my house from the street. I could not put a front porch on my house, period. So I don't understand why this is such a 01:03:37
big question because it's my understanding that that's sort of the rule. 01:03:43
Actually, no it's not. I'll let the staff, I'll let staff answer that. But I do have a you need to when when making any findings 01:03:50
for anything, we need to go to the code and and the findings required architectural and general appearance of the completed 01:03:56
project compatible, compatible with the neighborhood. 01:04:02
The project will neither be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the city nor impair the desirability of 01:04:09
investment or occupation in the neighborhood. 01:04:13
The Committee has been guided by and has been made reference to, applicable provisions of the architectural review guidelines in 01:04:18
making its determinations. 01:04:21
Additional findings are exterior alterations by structure on the historic resources inventories consistent with the Secretary of 01:04:26
Interior Standards, and I do have to point out. 01:04:30
That a phase two report by historian was provided for that and that's. 01:04:35
What they go by. 01:04:40
So those are the findings for the Secretary of Interior. 01:04:42
And and unless you have something opposite of that, and that's for the rehabilitation of historic buildings, because there are 01:04:46
different standards for the Secretary of Interior. 01:04:50
And that the exterior alterations of any structure on the Historic Resources Inventory complies with the appendices. 01:04:54
One through four of the Pacific Grove Architectural Review Guidelines, so. 01:05:01
This is an architectural review committee. 01:05:05
And your findings for what you do moving forward? 01:05:08
Need to meet what our zoning requires you of the of the committee. 01:05:13
So. 01:05:18
Well, my only, you know the Secretary of Interior Standards does state the historic character of the property will be retained and 01:05:20
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alterations of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the 01:05:24
property will be avoided. 01:05:29
Will. 01:05:40
This staff person, what do you recommend? 01:05:43
Well, just we did have a qualified historian. 01:05:45
And say that this project does meet the Secretary of Interior standards for historic home so. 01:05:49
And we did have discussions with Kent about that front porch and. 01:05:55
Then pretty good, but. 01:05:59
Besides. 01:06:01
That point the owners just said that part of the reason for the whole porch thing is. 01:06:02
The way the wind comes or whatever with that existing porch cover. 01:06:08
It blows, It comes off that roof, blows it against the door, and they can't even open the door because the swells swells up. 01:06:12
And gets causing problems. 01:06:19
When they have a storm and that was part of the. 01:06:22
Desire to increase the roof coverage at that front. 01:06:25
Or if there was a logical thing besides just. 01:06:29
Willy nilly changing it. 01:06:32
Well. 01:06:38
Not quite sure how to proceed here and. 01:06:40
And I think staff suggested perhaps the subcommittee for the. 01:06:43
Which would be a subcommittee, if I remember correctly, via subcommittee of members of this board. Mm-hmm. Should we just just 01:06:48
resolve the front porch? 01:06:52
Is it just people are making decisions without us really having a vote? This is. 01:06:57
Doesn't feel we're not right making a decision here. We're going and you may be part of the subcommittee. 01:07:02
Yes, you can ask to be part of the subcommittee. 01:07:07
So is that your best recommendation from our staff people? 01:07:11
Do you want? 01:07:16
But but I'm still I'm confused as to whether we. 01:07:17
Support the whole project with that. 01:07:20
Stipulation or whether we continue the whole thing and. 01:07:23
I'm not quite sure how to proceed here it it might be simplest at this point since you are in support of the project other than 01:07:28
the porch, just to continue it and. 01:07:32
The architect has heard you and we'll come back with a redesign and hopefully we won't need to discuss it for as long because 01:07:37
we'll we'll focus on the porch because you seem to be OK with. 01:07:44
The rest of it well and I think to to be really sure that what the rules are. 01:07:51
Because it sounds like we're not quite. 01:07:56
So with that. 01:07:59
And we have a vote to continue. 01:08:01
To a time uncertain, but that gives you a month. 01:08:04
Ohh. 01:08:07
And we have a. 01:08:09
Second it. 01:08:10
Able to continue. 01:08:11
2nd. 01:08:14
Roll call vote please. 01:08:15
Member Bickett. 01:08:19
Yes. 01:08:20
Remember steers? 01:08:22
Aye. 01:08:23
Number greening. 01:08:24
Member, please. 01:08:26
Number Grannis. 01:08:28
And Chair Anton. 01:08:31
Aye. 01:08:32
Unanimous vote the motion to continue. 01:08:33
And you said to a date. Uncertain. 01:08:37
Passes. 01:08:40
Thank you. 01:08:43
OK. 01:08:46
We're on to the next one, which is 111 10th St. and do we have a staff report? 01:08:47
We do. 01:08:56
Give me one moment, please. 01:08:57
I'd first like to address the the errata that was added, if you remember. 01:09:08
This is a continued item from from last meeting. 01:09:14
And when the agenda report was transferred from. 01:09:17
1. 01:09:21
Meeting to the next so for the way that our. 01:09:23
Program works to do these things. 01:09:27
The original. 01:09:30
That needed to be corrected. 01:09:31
Moved over. 01:09:34
And so. 01:09:35
At the last minute and we like to correct. 01:09:37
Anything that we find at the last minute, we did find that there was a correction that we felt important for you to have. 01:09:40
And it had to do with that AU in the original one that had said that there was an AU that's going to be created. There is not an 01:09:47
AU being created to this. 01:09:51
So that errata is basically the same errata that came. 01:09:55
From the last report. 01:09:59
Just correcting that, it's a single that's going from an AU to a single family home. 01:10:01
Similar to know that. 01:10:06
Ohh yeah. 01:10:09
Sorry. 01:10:11
OK. 01:10:14
Umm. 01:10:15
This is 111 10th St. again the item that was continued from from last. 01:10:17
Meeting the subject property is located on the northeast corner of 10th and Pearl streets and is zoned. 01:10:22
R3 PGR. 01:10:28
The 3600 square foot lot has an existing 1117 square foot two-story single family dwelling. 01:10:30
With a 398 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit. 01:10:37
The single family dwelling unit and carriage port were constructed in 1926 and the date where the garage was enlarged and 01:10:41
converted to an 8 U could not be determined. 01:10:46
The property is located in the coastal zone and Archaeologically sensitive area in the city's area of special biological 01:10:53
significance. The property is also listed on the city's Historic Resources Inventory and PER. 01:10:58
Pacific Grove Municipal Code PGMC. 01:11:05
23.90. 01:11:08
.200 Cultural Resources of Phase Two Historic Assessment. 01:11:10
Prepared. 01:11:16
For the property by Qualified historian concluded the potential impact of the proposed development would be nominal to the 01:11:17
historic resource. 01:11:20
The applicant proposes the major remodel of an existing 1117 square foot two-story single family dwelling. 01:11:25
With that 398 square foot existing accessory dwelling unit. 01:11:32
The applicant proposes to connect the main level of the single family dwelling to the existing detached AU with a new 304 square 01:11:36
foot first floor addition. 01:11:40
The existing AD would be converted to both. 01:11:46
New primary living space and an attached 185 square foot garage. 01:11:49
A new 276 square foot second floor addition will be added to the existing rear second floor. 01:11:55
The proposed project includes a new 403 square foot driveway and a new 324 square foot wooden deck, which is only 24 inches above 01:12:01
grade. 01:12:06
The proposed project would result in the construction of a 2096 square foot, two-story single family dwelling with 185 square foot 01:12:12
attached garage. 01:12:16
And no tree removal is proposed. 01:12:21
On August 23rd, our last HRC meeting, the applicant presented this project and then at that time the. 01:12:24
HRC identified the following concerns. 01:12:32
One is that the roof height of the proposed addition was taller than the existing structure and should be reduced. 01:12:35
To the masking of the proposed additions appear overwhelming and did not blend well with neighborhood conditions. And three, the 01:12:41
proposed additions did not show substantial differentiation between the new work from the existing and therefore did not meet the 01:12:46
Secretary of Interior's guidelines for rehabilitation. 01:12:51
In response to these concerns, the applicant submitted revised plans that detail a reduced building height of the proposed 01:12:57
additions to be no taller than the existing structure. Let me. 01:13:02
Check out. 01:13:13
This is on page 8. 01:13:15
Six O and six. 01:13:17
As you can see, this is these are the areas that were reduced. 01:13:21
They provided a mass study with 3D perspectives and a mass study field analysis. 01:13:27
Which? 01:13:35
This is the mass study. 01:13:39
And the mass study field analysis. And there are new detail, new window details on the South elevation of the 2nd floor hallway. 01:13:42
And new window details. 01:13:50
6. 01:13:53
These were the. 01:14:02
Windows. 01:14:03
The staff recommends HRC recommend approval of the proposed architectural permit to the Planning Commission, the subject to the 01:14:06
findings, conditions of approval and the sequel Class One, Class 31 categorical exemptions for existing facilities and historic 01:14:11
restoration rehabilitation. 01:14:16
Thank you. 01:14:22
All right, thank you. And I believe our the designer is present. 01:14:23
You'd like to speak. 01:14:27
Good afternoon, Claudia Ortiz and representing Craig and Lynn Harlan Collins on this project. 01:14:40
The. 01:14:48
Planner. There are really good job describing the changes and modifications we made to the project I believe. 01:14:49
And I'll go over them again, but I believe we addressed the concerns that were brought up at the previous hearing and. 01:14:55
I can start by saying that you know we did reduce the height of the addition by 1 foot 3 inches, so it brought it lower than the 01:15:01
existing. 01:15:05
Ridge or peak of the existing structure. 01:15:09
We also modify the windows on the South elevation. There was a concern with the neighbor. 01:15:13
With privacy. So we modify that window with an obscure glass and raise it to a transom window. 01:15:18
We also address the issue with the. 01:15:24
Fabric of the of the structure. We changed the siding and noted. 01:15:27
And clarify the the changes to the siding, noting what the existing looks like and what the proposed is going to look like to 01:15:32
differentiate. 01:15:36
The existing historic fabric versus the proposed the new fabric. 01:15:40
And also the trim around the windows is also noted here to show the difference between both historic and the proposed. 01:15:44
So we we addressed all those issues. 01:15:53
In regards to differentiating the histories, the historic portion of the building versus the new. 01:15:58
We also addressed the issue with the privacy. 01:16:04
That one of the neighbors brought up and also the issue with the height. 01:16:07
So that two, the way I see it, there was 2 main concerns. One of them has two parts, which is the 2 neighbors, one immediately to 01:16:12
the rear. 01:16:16
Concerned about the privacy and I believe we address that issue. 01:16:20
With a window that we modified. 01:16:23
And there was another neighbor to the southeast. 01:16:25
Of our property. 01:16:28
The percentage some concerns, however, I don't see. 01:16:31
The impact there and I and and. 01:16:34
There's no immediate. 01:16:39
Bulk or masks proposed immediately to their building. There's no shadows being casted to their patios and structure. There's no 01:16:41
privacy issues. 01:16:46
From our addition to. 01:16:51
That property. 01:16:53
So I don't see legitimate concerns from that specific neighbour, although they did bring up the issue with the addition, but 01:16:55
again. 01:16:58
We don't see. 01:17:03
A concern with that? 01:17:04
And the second part of the concern was the the mass in bulk. 01:17:06
So what what what I did is I went back to the neighborhood and. 01:17:10
Drove around, analyze all the properties again in the neighborhood and in the context of the neighborhood and. 01:17:14
Similarly to what was presented on the previous project. 01:17:21
You know most of the buildings surrounding this this site. 01:17:24
Are massive two-story. 01:17:27
Victorian style, Craftsman style structures and typically these buildings tend to be two stories massive. 01:17:30
Square in nature. 01:17:38
High pitches and so on. 01:17:41
So there's already a a precedence with. 01:17:43
Big, massive, bulky structures. Most of them also. 01:17:46
Have the facade. 01:17:51
Right up against the the sidewalk. So there there are two-story elements on the street. 01:17:53
And the reason why I'm bringing this up is because. 01:17:58
This will. 01:18:03
And and in reference to the issue with the Balkan Mass. 01:18:04
Our addition. 01:18:08
And I I illustrated on the analysis that we did the three-dimensional one and also the. 01:18:09
That the site analysis. 01:18:16
The addition is. 01:18:18
It's technically reads as a separate structure. 01:18:20
In in the I don't know if he can bring up and and and bring the the 3D. 01:18:23
Drawings here. 01:18:28
But as if you're if you're walking on the street, on the sidewalk and looking at the building. 01:18:30
Most of it is blocked by the immediate neighboring properties. You would have to be practically right in front of the the 01:18:35
building. 01:18:39
To notice the addition and even. 01:18:43
At that point, the addition reads as a as a separate structure. 01:18:46
Technically, leaving the historic building intact, you can't even tell that the historic structure was touched at all. 01:18:51
And. 01:18:58
So the. 01:19:00
Any impacts? 01:19:01
That you would. 01:19:03
You know, typically absurd. Observed from other similar projects, it's not. 01:19:05
The case here. 01:19:11
The case here is one that leaves the existing historic structure as is. 01:19:12
In addition, feels subordinate. 01:19:17
To the historic building. 01:19:19
And from it and then I have a different angles. 01:19:22
From different perspectives. 01:19:24
One from the neighbour to the southeast I just mentioned above on item and. 01:19:27
On the illustration #1. 01:19:33
And you can see how far away the building is. There's no impacts to that neighbor. 01:19:35
In fact, she has a building. 01:19:39
Next door. 01:19:42
That has a two-story element. 01:19:43
Like, literally right next to her. That's more of an impact. 01:19:45
Than what we're proposing. 01:19:48
And then on the north, on the item number 2 here, the Northeast. 01:19:50
Perspective. You can barely see the addition. 01:19:54
Between the buildings. 01:19:57
And you gotta take into account that there's trees on the on the street with the canopies that are not shown in here. 01:19:59
And also. 01:20:05
Perspective #3. 01:20:07
Looking back at the property, you can barely see the addition. Again, the addition feels. 01:20:09
Subordinate. 01:20:14
It's smaller, a lot smaller than the the existing structure and I think I brought this. 01:20:15
Up earlier at the previous hearing that the addition was not going to look massive. 01:20:22
Because you're looking at it from one perspective on paper. 01:20:26
Versus when you're in the street, you're looking at it from a perspective, so the addition being further back. 01:20:29
Looks smaller, which is the case? 01:20:34
Illustrated over here. 01:20:36
And. 01:20:38
As you can see on four and five. 01:20:39
#4 you again? 01:20:43
The addition is minimal. 01:20:45
Non invasive and a number of. 01:20:46
I don't see a number here, but #5 I believe you can't even see the addition. 01:20:49
So standing directly in front of the building. 01:20:52
You can't even tell there was an addition to the property, so I supported this. 01:20:55
These diagrams with also. 01:21:00
Photorealistic. 01:21:03
Superimpose. 01:21:05
To. 01:21:09
To support my my point here, and from that perspective, it it's it's exactly identical. 01:21:09
So my point is that concern with mass and bulk is. 01:21:15
Very minimal. 01:21:19
And again, the structure itself is in keeping with the. 01:21:21
Neighboring properties in the context of the neighborhood with the Victorian and. 01:21:25
In a crafting style, homes in apartment complex in the neighborhood that are massive and. 01:21:30
And and and bulky. 01:21:35
Although that is not the scenario with our project because we still read the historic. 01:21:37
You know, 1 1/2 story building. 01:21:41
So we're maintaining that aspect from the street that's not changing unlike other projects that I've seen approved. 01:21:43
I also submitted a letter. 01:21:49
I don't know if we can bring that up or if we can put it in here, but I. 01:21:51
Did a study of previous projects that were approved by the city. 01:21:54
And the additions were? 01:21:59
Significant and massive and and I'm not saying that. 01:22:01
We're going to piggyback off of them, but I just want to prove a point that what what we're proposing here is not. 01:22:05
Something that hasn't been approved before. 01:22:10
By this committee, it's not something that the city has not accepted before. 01:22:13
We're not reinventing the wheel. 01:22:18
And we're not. 01:22:19
Shoving a concept here. 01:22:21
There is out of character with with the city. 01:22:24
Overall 01:22:27
architectural style and with what's been approved in the past. 01:22:28
So if we can continue moving this page up so you can see, you know if there's a way to move. 01:22:32
To the actual. 01:22:38
As you can see, and then. 01:22:39
You can see how. 01:22:41
You have one story buildings. 01:22:42
And even though a case was brought up on my project that made my addition was taller than the existing. 01:22:44
Other projects have additions that are. 01:22:51
Well above. 01:22:54
The existing historic building. 01:22:55
And not just in one case, but in other cases as well. 01:22:57
And very. 01:23:00
Intrusive and massive additions. Additions that. 01:23:02
Really alter the fabric of the historic building significantly. 01:23:06
Ours barely touches the very small footprint of it. 01:23:11
Umm. 01:23:14
Some are additions that are visible from the street. 01:23:15
Which on Sequoia? 01:23:18
I I think it's not acceptable but. 01:23:20
In any event. 01:23:23
Those were approved. 01:23:24
So. 01:23:25
The point that I'm trying to make is and I hope you see it my way. 01:23:27
We have a project that from the street, from the public view, looks very minimal. 01:23:31
Additionally, it's very minimal, non invasive. 01:23:36
It's in, it's in. 01:23:38
Keeping with the surrounding properties, it does not cost. 01:23:40
Any significant issues to the neighboring properties, shadows, views and so on? 01:23:44
And we corrected the issues with the height that you brought up and the the privacy that was brought up and I think I demonstrated 01:23:49
here. 01:23:53
That our mass is not. 01:23:58
As. 01:24:00
Originally predicted it's very minimal and I believe. 01:24:01
Well. 01:24:06
You know and I'm running overtime here, I apologize, I just wanted to make sure that. 01:24:07
My point gets across that we're what we're proposing here. 01:24:11
Physically, from the street, what you see is very minimal. 01:24:14
So if there's any questions, I'll be more than happy to. There will, but I need to open the public comment. Sure. So OK. 01:24:18
And I will do that now. 01:24:23
And it looks like. 01:24:25
Nobody in the audience won't speak on this, but do we have any virtual? 01:24:27
Speakers. 01:24:31
I'm gonna guess we have. Miss Gianni's hand is raised. 01:24:33
Hi. 01:24:39
Thank you my my first concern is. 01:24:40
That. 01:24:44
What? 01:24:46
I hope that you will approve. 01:24:47
Is what's right for this. 01:24:49
For this small unique. 01:24:51
House. 01:24:54
And. 01:24:57
Not this. This. 01:24:59
Not be swayed by poor decisions that may have been made. 01:25:02
On on other houses, I certainly wouldn't want you to be. 01:25:06
Continuing a practice of. 01:25:12
Poor decisions. 01:25:14
Umm. 01:25:16
So. 01:25:17
Anyway. 01:25:19
To me. 01:25:20
I have trouble still with this, but my main concern. 01:25:21
Again, is archaeology because since. 01:25:26
I I mean. 01:25:29
I spoke last time because the. 01:25:31
The fact that the archaeologist did not find archaeological. 01:25:34
Artifacts. 01:25:40
Does not mean there should not be. There doesn't need to be tribal monitoring since that meeting, the last meeting. 01:25:41
The. 01:25:51
The. 01:25:53
Planning Commission finally had presented to them. 01:25:54
After you're waiting and waiting a. 01:25:58
A draft. 01:26:02
Archaeological resource. 01:26:03
And tribal monitoring protocol. 01:26:06
And they didn't have time to review it in full, but but since due to the late hour they they had the presentation. 01:26:08
And I've analyzed that thing. 01:26:17
I forget how many pages it is, but I did 19 pages of comments. 01:26:21
To analyze it. 01:26:26
Because. 01:26:28
Yes, there are a lot of issues with inconsistency, but one point. 01:26:30
That it made. 01:26:36
I think relatively clearly was that. 01:26:38
Umm. 01:26:42
That when you're in an archaeologically sensitive area like the coastal zone. 01:26:43
Or the cities archaeological zone. 01:26:49
Then you're you need. 01:26:52
To have meaningful. 01:26:55
Consultation with tribal leaders who've asked for it. 01:26:57
And if they want monitoring then there should be monitoring. 01:27:01
Umm. 01:27:06
So otherwise it's just like. 01:27:07
Any other place in town that is not in an archaeologically sensitive area if you're using the. 01:27:09
Inadvertent, standard, inadvertent discovery language. 01:27:16
It's not acknowledging that the coastal zone. 01:27:22
Is an archaeologically sensitive area and as I pointed out last time and in a letter to you. 01:27:26
The city has a map that shows that there is a designated archaeological site very close to this property. 01:27:32
So please, if you would request our tribal monitoring, that would be most appropriate. Thank you. 01:27:41
Thank you. 01:27:49
Sorry, I have Miss Dahmer. 01:27:54
Thank you, Laurel. 01:27:57
Of course I agree with Lisa on all of that, but I can add here that. 01:27:59
This is a unique little house. The roof line from all angles and the protrusion out the side. The fact that they are taking away 01:28:05
in a DU. 01:28:11
And the thing that you are. 01:28:17
To approve something our. 01:28:19
Architecturally and historically. 01:28:22
Needs to fit, each side is different and the context and this. 01:28:26
Addition. 01:28:32
Overwhelms and incorporates so much. 01:28:34
This, this poor, beautiful little cottage is lost. 01:28:39
From looking at it many angles and I really. 01:28:46
I understand that he touts all these others. 01:28:51
I mean his his point, his point. His point definitely said that other things have been done to other properties, but it should be 01:28:55
site specific and this one overwhelms. 01:29:01
Thank you very much. 01:29:09
Thank you. 01:29:11
Dale Ellis. 01:29:16
Good afternoon. 01:29:25
Are you able to hear me? 01:29:27
Hello. 01:29:32
We hear you. 01:29:34
Will you hear me? Thank you. 01:29:35
Would it be possible to have the screen please? 01:29:37
Have Mr. Queen. 01:29:44
You wish to speak to the designer? 01:29:47
I don't understand. We don't have this public comment. This is just time for you to to make your comment and not speak with the 01:29:50
designer. No, I understand, but I have some documents I would like to show. 01:29:55
You you can't share documents from home. 01:30:02
My name is Dale Ellis. I'm here on behalf of the. 01:30:07
Rudolphs who lived next door, they. 01:30:11
Spoke before. 01:30:14
I'm going to go quickly here. 01:30:19
The. 01:30:20
Architect presented in their revisions of mass studies. 01:30:23
Unfortunately, they are taken from vantages other than. 01:30:29
Those from the impact on the people closest to them, that is, there is no. 01:30:34
Bought the lot study. 01:30:40
Or description of how or showing of how they would the neighbors are going to be. 01:30:42
Impacted by the mass of this House. 01:30:47
The. 01:30:51
Study does not show A. 01:30:52
Any of the Windows or other administration that might be involved. 01:30:55
Again, those would potentially impact. 01:31:00
Umm. 01:31:03
There are some significant concerns as to how. 01:31:06
The exemptions for Sequa are being handled. 01:31:10
The exemptions generally for. 01:31:14
No Finding Friends find actual words here, so I'm not guessing at it. 01:31:20
The exemption for. 01:31:25
It's not showing up. 01:31:30
In the. 01:31:34
For the the additions and and what we call. 01:31:37
Minor alterations of existing structures. 01:31:40
The key consideration is whether or not the project involves negligible or no expansion of youths. 01:31:45
And most importantly, the IT is modified by the area. 01:31:52
The project located in is not environmentally sensitive well. 01:31:56
You have here an area that is clearly environmentally sensitive. 01:32:00
By the fact that it's historical, there are archaeological sites and it's in the cities. 01:32:04
Area of biological significance. 01:32:11
So that exemption does not. 01:32:13
Work in this particular case. 01:32:16
And the other exemption about restoration, rehabilitation, historic structure, that's not the project you have in front of you. 01:32:19
What you have is a major addition. 01:32:26
Not the restoration, rehabilitation. 01:32:30
One other one last comment the. 01:32:34
Mr. Ortiz Made a. 01:32:38
Substantial point of the precedent of other applications. Mr. Ellis, you've commented comment time is up. OK, thank you. 01:32:40
OK. Thank you. 01:32:50
I see no other hands raised. 01:32:54
Alright, I'll close public comment. 01:32:55
And bring it back to the committee. 01:32:58
Or comments? 01:33:01
Would like to begin. 01:33:03
I want to address the. 01:33:06
Mr. Mendoza's report, where he actually says all excavation in such an archaeologically and historically sensitive region will 01:33:09
require. 01:33:14
Archaeological monitoring. 01:33:19
Et cetera, so. 01:33:21
His his report actually states that. So I I think that's. 01:33:22
Going to be required. 01:33:27
Other comments please. 01:33:29
Yes, I was looking at the page and Turnbull. 01:33:33
To see. And I saw it was the house is actually eligible for the California register. 01:33:37
And I don't have the, I don't have the information or I don't know. 01:33:45
What the actual? 01:33:51
Additional coverage can be for this property. 01:33:53
Umm. 01:33:57
It's. 01:33:59
You know, looking at it. 01:34:01
I don't know if there's you can add 100% of the original. 01:34:03
Size of the building or it's 50%? 01:34:07
And that's something I really don't know, but I did notice that it's different from the other properties we've dealt with. 01:34:10
Because it is eligible. 01:34:16
For the. 01:34:18
For the California Register. 01:34:20
So I don't know if we can do anything about this, but I'm just. 01:34:22
Trying to deal with the lack of information here. 01:34:26
Regarding size. 01:34:30
Of the addition. 01:34:32
Is this something that our staff people have a? 01:34:35
Comment on. 01:34:39
She. 01:34:41
She's asking about. 01:34:42
It's it's because it's on the it's eligible for the California Register which. 01:34:50
Obviously has different. 01:34:56
It's in the page and Turnbull report. In the page in Turnbull report. 01:34:58
And what does? What do they? 01:35:03
Where they have different allowances for additions and on page nine of the state has different allowances. Is that what what 01:35:05
you're mentioning? 01:35:09
We don't know. We yes, We don't know. 01:35:14
So I'm just. 01:35:17
I'm just asking, allowances wouldn't be. 01:35:18
Because something is. 01:35:23
Eligible. 01:35:25
That. 01:35:27
I guess what you're asking or possibly if I'm hearing you right, maybe if you did add square footage, would it? 01:35:28
Eliminate from the state. 01:35:34
Well, I believe if you add too much it eliminates it. 01:35:36
Yeah, we would have to discuss that with Page and Turnbull or the OR the historians that are more familiar with the state 01:35:39
historic. 01:35:43
Completed phase two important usually addresses all decision. 01:35:48
Right. Let's keep it. Let's keep it up here. 01:35:52
Yeah. 01:35:56
No. 01:36:02
Ohh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, no that that was my my one concern. The other question I did have for the architect was the you're 01:36:03
putting like a a larger wood siding the same as the shingle. 01:36:09
But it's a larger size. 01:36:15
OK. Thank you. 01:36:17
I just had a I was a little confused by the packet that came because. 01:36:23
On the drawing, none of the drawings had new dates put on them, which I found to be a little bit confusing. They're still I'll 01:36:30
delete dated in July and but then the project data sheet is dated. 01:36:36
September 14th, 2023 and on that the building height is remaining 22 feet two inches. 01:36:42
And the existing condition is 21 foot 7 inches so. 01:36:49
I don't know whether the drawing is correct or the project data sheet is correct. 01:36:54
It would also be helpful in future. 01:36:59
To have changes annotated. 01:37:02
Either by a cloud or a circle or something, because it's very hard to see actually what had been changed in this packet, if if 01:37:06
anything had been changed. 01:37:10
This. 01:37:18
120 pages. That's a rough estimate, but it's about 120 pages, not including the drawings. 01:37:18
And we had what? 01:37:27
Three or four days to look through this and everything else. 01:37:29
And the extra rod. 01:37:33
That's going crazy with your comments, please. 01:37:35
That's one of my comments. 01:37:38
It's hard to pour over this stuff. 01:37:42
And come to any sort of a decision when you've got all this? 01:37:46
I don't know. 01:37:50
But one thing that bothered me is that they list of. 01:37:53
Character defining features. 01:38:00
Included. 01:38:05
The sloping roof. 01:38:08
Of the existing house, but it did not include. 01:38:10
The fact that the fascia. 01:38:13
Line. 01:38:16
On the existing house, the historic house is lower than normal. It's probably probably the. 01:38:17
Plate height was 7 feet instead of. 01:38:25
8 feet or whatever it was. Whatever. 01:38:27
Was considered to be. 01:38:30
I mean, I can't go inside the house and measure these things, but it was low and I really think that's a major feature. 01:38:32
Of the character of the existing house and it was not addressed at all. 01:38:42
In the additions to it. 01:38:49
You know, there's no reason why not. 01:38:52
Couldn't we drop the plate height? 01:38:57
On the. 01:39:00
You know the you can't slope the roof any more than. 01:39:03
What it already is because we've got the height limits. 01:39:08
But the plate heights could be lower and the facial lines could be running right along the tops of the windows and doors. 01:39:12
And the addition and it would go a long way towards making the addition. 01:39:19
Compatible. 01:39:25
And in character with the historic house. 01:39:27
And I think that's important. 01:39:31
Other than that. 01:39:34
I would like to say that once again. 01:39:37
This is an M3 zone. 01:39:40
Not an M1 zone, all the houses above it. 01:39:43
Going up the hill or M1 or R1, Excuse me. 01:39:46
They're zoned for single family residential. 01:39:51
But this is an R3 zone. 01:39:54
And the houses along Ocean View, you know, right across the street from the beach or the rather there are a lot of apartments and 01:39:58
bigger things along there. 01:40:02
Are. 01:40:07
R3. 01:40:08
And it's true. And this one is R3 as well and it. 01:40:10
Really does. 01:40:13
Fit into the way the. 01:40:15
City wanted the neighborhood to be structured so. 01:40:17
Be careful about comments about. 01:40:22
The large size of this thing. 01:40:25
Are they relevant or are they not? 01:40:29
I really don't have a much to say at this point because I am a little confused about. There is so much stuff to go through and. 01:40:38
I I love this little house, and I really think it's probably the only one. 01:40:47
In Pacific Grove that looks like this. When we first time I went by it, I thought, Oh my gosh. 01:40:51
And I am concerned. 01:40:57
Umm. 01:40:59
My biggest concern now is adding. 01:41:00
Adding on to where we're going to lose the house, the little cottage. 01:41:03
Before voting on this, I think the point was brought up and I would like to know the answer to Paige and Turnbull's comment about 01:41:09
being eligible for the California Register. I think that's a very valid question and I'd like to know that answer before we make a 01:41:14
decision on it. That's my own personal. 01:41:19
Decision and comment. Additionally, just as a matter of record, I did not think it was appropriate. 01:41:25
To put up past decisions of the HRC as a way of leveraging this property in terms of our vote, I thought that was not well called 01:41:30
for. 01:41:34
And I would certainly hope that it's not done again because it did not make me feel that we were discussing the property, but we 01:41:39
were looking at other decisions from other committees that many of these people are not. We're not. 01:41:45
On that decision or other properties that have come before us, we're relatively a new committee. I've been on it for years, but 01:41:52
not everybody has. 01:41:55
And to spend time and. 01:41:58
And screen time looking at properties that had other decisions made did not seem appropriate to me as a matter of. 01:42:00
Fact. 01:42:07
One of my concerns was about the massing, which we've sort of talked about. 01:42:12
I I'm just. I guess it bothers me the the hallway that's kind of. 01:42:17
It just gives me a funny. 01:42:23
Feeling that there's just this long hallway between the two structures. Having said that. 01:42:26
It does differentiate. 01:42:31
The original building from the new which which I think is important. 01:42:33
I went back after I read this and I knew that you thored the height which I. 01:42:37
Applaud, but I went back to look at the story polls to see if I. 01:42:42
Had a different thought. 01:42:47
And that they're kind of falling apart and not giving a very clear view. 01:42:48
Of of the new height level. Nor does it show some of the size because they're. 01:42:54
Falling apart? 01:43:01
Or not there in the 1st place, I've not sure. 01:43:02
Because I know they've been there quite a while. 01:43:05
Umm. 01:43:07
I didn't. 01:43:09
When when I look at the page here that that where you've. 01:43:11
Fitted it in. 01:43:16
Again, I like the fact that you don't see any of this from the front. I think that's good. 01:43:17
But when you look at it from the driveway side, then it's sort of overwhelming too. 01:43:21
And I don't know how accurate that is as far as relative to the house itself, but. 01:43:27
Umm. 01:43:33
I. 01:43:36
Let's see, what else was I saying? 01:43:37
There was a concern by one of the neighbors again that that the viewpoint from their side wasn't shown. 01:43:40
And I believe they were referring to. 01:43:46
That other page. 01:43:49
And frankly, this page. 01:43:51
I find very confusing. 01:43:54
This page here. 01:43:57
Because there's so much blank spot and I'm not sure what's even there, so I didn't find that helpful. 01:43:59
I thought the other the other viewpoint is much better Where? 01:44:05
You know where you fitted it in with the actual photograph. 01:44:08
So. 01:44:13
Umm. 01:44:15
Other comments or questions or do you? 01:44:17
Anybody have questions for the designer? Yes, Jennifer, I would just like to. 01:44:20
I find the there's a little dotted line on one of these drawings that's dated July 17th, 2023 that supposedly shows that the roof 01:44:26
lines gone down, but then on the project data sheet which was revised set September 14th, 2023. 01:44:33
It's still 2022 feet two inches, so I would like that. 01:44:41
Either the project data sheet needs to be corrected. 01:44:45
Or the drawing needs something needs to These need to be In Sync with each other. 01:44:48
And it would be a good idea if we do receive more drawings, to have a current date on them, because I did find this very confusing 01:44:52
that everything's dated in July. I didn't know what I was looking at, so that's all I have to say about it. 01:44:58
Where are we here? 01:45:09
It's always very difficult. 01:45:18
I mean, times are changing. We have to accept that. I know that. 01:45:21
Umm. 01:45:26
Further comments. 01:45:28
Well, I'm still not sure about the 2nd floor breezeway. I know that the designer was saying that it it, you know, kept the new 01:45:29
part of the addition sort of separate from the original house. But it certainly would reduce that massiveness if they just had the 01:45:36
staircase going from the first floor up to that instead of having that breezeway going across. 01:45:42
Yeah. 01:45:49
Yes, please. 01:45:53
So. 01:45:56
If I can start in regards to the archaeological. 01:45:57
It is an archaeological sensitive site, but we don't need to have a a tribal. 01:46:02
Monitoring on the property we can. 01:46:09
Off to have some monitoring that doesn't have to be specific to tribal monitoring. This is not the first project we worked on that 01:46:11