No Bookmarks Exist.
Good evening, it's 6:00 PM. I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission for Thursday, May 9th. Let it 00:00:09
let the record show that all commissioners are are present. 00:00:14
And can we go to approval of the agenda? Does the staff have any suggested changes to the agenda? 00:00:22
Anyone on the Commission have any suggested changes? 00:00:30
Could we have a motion to approve the agenda, please? I move to approve the agenda and a second. 00:00:34
All in favor, please say Aye aye opposed. And that was Commissioner Nozzinski and the second was Commissioner Sawyer. 00:00:41
Now we're on to Commission and staff announcements and. 00:00:55
We usually start with the Commission and before we start, I will just mention. 00:00:59
That the city is insisting that we move to action minutes and they're trying to keep our minutes as as simple as possible. 00:01:05
And one of the things that is going to happen in the future is for announcements. They're just going to mention that we made an 00:01:14
announcement, Don Murphy made an announcement. That's what will be in the minutes if you believe that your announcement somehow. 00:01:21
Is important enough that it should be in the minutes for forever. Please say that when you make your you make your announcement. 00:01:30
Otherwise it'll you know it'll live on the video for the, I think the three years that the city retains it, but after that that no 00:01:37
one would know what you said. So with that long and perhaps unnecessary introduction, are there any staff announcements? 00:01:44
I'm sorry, City. Sorry, Commissioner Renaissance. 00:01:53
Well, that was easy, seeing none. Are there any staff announcements? Director. Bond? 00:01:58
There are, thank you very much, Chair Murphy and Commissioners. I do have three staff announcements. Most of you probably are 00:02:03
already aware that the ATC hotel project was heard by the Coastal Commission last month. On April 11th the Coastal Commission did 00:02:12
approve approve a reduced size project. 00:02:20
There is still a pending sequel lawsuit, so So staff isn't going to go into the particulars of what the Coastal Commission. 00:02:30
Approved or what any next steps are, but I just wanted you to be aware that it finally, after several years, was heard by the 00:02:38
Coastal Commission and approved. 00:02:43
The second item I. 00:02:49
As you recall, earlier this year, maybe even late last year, the Commission forwarded 3 resolutions of intent. 00:02:51
For some proposed zoning text amendments, and those were heard by the City Council at their May 1st meeting. I was there and and 00:03:01
Chair Murphy was also there for that meeting. 00:03:06
The council was very much appreciative of the work that the commissioners have put into those proposed zoning text amendments and 00:03:14
asked if staff could find a way to at least try to advance some of that work forward as opposed. 00:03:23
To to keeping it on hold. And So what we've decided is. 00:03:33
The definitions and and cleanup amendments that the Commissioners have proposed. 00:03:40
Staff is going to go through those with Rincon, our consultant for the housing element update and that entire package of work. 00:03:48
That will include some zoning text amendments and so we're going to look at rolling in some of the work that that you've done into 00:03:56
that zoning. 00:04:01
A package of zoning code amendments. So as you'll recall, I think some of the work you did on definitions pertaining to things 00:04:06
like height. 00:04:11
Yards, setbacks. And that's exactly the work that we'll be doing to develop what's called objective development standards that we 00:04:16
need to have per state law. So we're going to be able to dovetail some of your work into that package. 00:04:25
And then third. 00:04:35
Chair Murphy had asked me if we could get a brief update to you on SV9. There was a a court case out of Southern California 00:04:38
recently and I know there have been a lot of questions and dialogue around that. 00:04:44
I believe we do have somebody from the city manager's office that that is going to give just a brief update. 00:04:52
But I also wanted to let you know that the city attorney has an agenda item on the on their May 15th agenda which is next week. So 00:05:01
there will be a staff report and and possibly a presentation at council as well. So if if you're OK chair, we do have the. 00:05:11
Uh, gentleman from the City Attorney's office that is available to give a brief update on SV9. Yes, I'd appreciate that. OK. 00:05:23
Good evening. Can you hear me? 00:05:31
Great. My name is Ephraim Margolin, but everyone calls me EPI. I'm pitching sitting in tonight for Erica Vega, so I'll just give 00:05:36
you a quick update on the the case as mentioned. So as you're aware SB-9 which became effective in 2022 added sections to the 00:05:44
government code that required cities to ministerially approve lot splits and duplexes in single family residential zones, 00:05:51
essentially with the addition of ADUS allowing up to 4 dwelling units on a property. 00:05:59
So SB-9 was recently challenged by 5 charter cities in Southern California. These were Torrance, Delmar, Carson, Redondo Beach, 00:06:07
and Whittier. The city has alleged that the application of SB92 charter cities violated the constitution. A trial court issued a 00:06:14
decision siding with the charter cities. I think it's crucial here to point out that the decision only applies to those five 00:06:21
charter cities. I. 00:06:28
The court ruled that SB-9 violated the Constitution because it wasn't reasonably related to its stated purpose of ensuring 00:06:37
affordable housing. 00:06:41
So what's, you know, the court kind of just said that the the law was about increasing the supply of housing, which the state 00:06:47
legislature has used to. 00:06:52
To. 00:06:59
Thank you. Are there any questions from Commissioners? 00:07:43
And and just just to round that out, I wanted to let you all know that the city has not received any lot split applications under 00:07:48
SB-9. So we've not received any or processed any. Thank you. And so that concludes the staff announcements. Thank you. 00:07:57
I see, Councilman. 00:08:08
Coletti, do you have announcements for us tonight? 00:08:10
Thank you, Chair. I I just a few just to kind of reinforce what a Director Bond mentioned as regards to Council's discussion on 00:08:13
the three resolutions that were forwarded to us. I again want to thank you and acknowledge the interesting. 00:08:22
Suggestions and we did have a, we did have a very good debate on it and I think we we did, we did our due diligence in pursuing 00:08:32
the recommendations that you forwarded to us and as the Director mentioned, we will be following up. 00:08:38
With some of the recommendations at a later date. Thank you and have a good meeting. 00:08:45
Thank you. 00:08:51
Now it's time for general public comment and comments must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city and to the 00:08:54
Planning Commission and they should not be on items that are on on our agenda tonight. 00:09:01
And we'll limit the comments to 3 minutes and the Commission will not take any action tonight on any, any comment. Is there anyone 00:09:08
in the room who wishes to make a public comment? 00:09:13
Seeing none is, are there any zoomers wishing to make a public comment? 00:09:21
It's like we do not have any hands raised. 00:09:34
Well, that's a that's a first. I'm disappointed. 00:09:37
It's moving to written general, public comment. These are comments that we received in writing since the last meeting that did not 00:09:42
speak to an agenda item. Were there any of those? I. 00:09:48
Director Vaughn or planner Campbell. 00:09:56
No, Chair Murphy. I don't believe we have any written public comment that didn't pertain to items on the agenda. The only one I 00:10:02
remember, and it was a copy and I cannot remember if it came just to me, to the entire Commission. It was some Tony Ciani and was 00:10:09
a copy of A. 00:10:15
I guess a complaint he made to the code compliance officer having to do with parklets and the coastal zone. 00:10:22
And again I. 00:10:30
I'm not, if I may, that that being a code compliance case, that's not it wasn't. 00:10:32
Directed toward It wasn't meant to be public comment, It was just you guys were you were copied on it, but Uber received thank 00:10:39
you. Yes, there was one other communication that I recall. 00:10:45
Oh, that's that's correct. Thank you. 00:10:52
It was just too, too small, relatively small corrections. Again, I think those those were to the Council. 00:11:05
I believe that correct with the CC to the Planning Commission. 00:11:12
They were written directly to. 00:11:17
Thank you. 00:11:20
Now it's time for our consent agenda, These items, Commissioner Duzynski. 00:11:22
I, I think it's OK. Why don't we go ahead with the the public comment. 00:11:32
We have Inga Lorenzen, Dahmer. 00:11:38
Thank you. I want to remind all of you to turn on your microphones and speak into them please. Thank you very much. 00:11:42
Thank you. 00:11:52
That seems to be. I think that's it. We'll move now to the consent agenda. These are routine and non controversial matters that we 00:12:01
usually vote on without any discussion. 00:12:06
Does the staff wish to remove an item from the consent agenda? 00:12:12
No, Sir. 00:12:17
We do have two items, minutes from January 11 and minutes from February 15, anyone on the Commission wishing to remove an item. 00:12:18
Any member of the public wishing to remove an item. 00:12:27
We have no one raising their hands. Well see none. Could we have a motion to approve the consent agenda, please? 00:12:38
Commissioner Sawyer, I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda. 00:12:44
2nd. 00:12:49
Commissioner Swagger. 00:12:50
Yeah, all in favor. Aye, All opposed. It's seven O with Commissioner Sawyer and Commissioner Swagger. 00:12:52
Now it's time for a public hearing. Our first hearing is an architectural permit and the coastal development permit for property 00:13:05
at 107 14th St. 00:13:09
We'll follow this process for this this hearing and all the hearings tonight we'll hear from the staff. 00:13:15
Then we'll hear from the applicant. Then we'll and. 00:13:20
The then public comment and then questions and discussion by the Commission. 00:13:25
And I think, Mr. Sidor, this is your project. 00:13:32
Yes, chair. 00:13:37
Hey, good evening, Sharon Murphy and Commission members. 00:14:21
The project is located at 107 14th St. and involves the redevelopment of a property listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. 00:14:25
Project site is an interior lot located near the intersection of 14th St. and Ocean View Blvd. In an area consisting of moving to 00:14:36
large sized one and two-story residences in the Pacific Grove Retreat residential neighborhood and our three PGR zoning district. 00:14:45
The 18120 square foot parcel is currently developed with an 11108 square foot, one story single family residence. 00:14:54
Those development would include demolition of a rare addition comprising 770 square feet of the existing residents and 00:15:06
construction of a 1078 square foot two-story addition resulting in a 14116 square foot, two-story single family residence. As 00:15:13
shown at the top. The existing structure is non conforming with regard to building coverage, site coverage and side and rear 00:15:20
setbacks. 00:15:28
As proposed in the lower view, the project will correct these non conforming features and bring the property into compliance with 00:15:35
all applicable development regulations. 00:15:40
And these elevations show the existing and proposed view from 14th St. 00:15:47
And the phase two historic assessment prepared for the property concluded the proposed development would be consistent with the 00:15:56
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings and a phase one archaeological assessment prepared 00:16:04
for the project by qualified archaeologists recommended pre construction sensitivity training and archaeological monitoring during 00:16:12
ground disturbing activities. On March 27th the HRC Historic Resources Committee reviewed the project. 00:16:19
And recommended the Planning Commission approved the project with the addition of conditions of approval to require tribal 00:16:27
monitoring and wood railing on the rear deck, which the owner agreed to at the HRC hearing. So condition numbers 8910 and 11 have 00:16:36
been added to address training and monitoring as well as inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, and condition #12 has been 00:16:44
added to require wood railing as proposed. The project is categorically exempt per sequel guidelines sections. 00:16:53
15301 existing facilities and 15331 historical resource restoration and rehabilitation. 00:17:02
Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the architectural permit and coastal development permit subject to the 00:17:11
findings, conditions of approval and class one and class 31 categorical exemptions. And this concludes staff presentation and I'm 00:17:18
available for questions and the applicant is also available for questions. And before we have the applicant, any commissioners 00:17:24
have ex parte communication that should be disclosed. 00:17:31
Seeing none, I'll invite the applicant. 00:17:39
Commissioner Sawyer, I had a conversation with Mr. Davis and he's a retired contractor and I just was asking for further 00:17:41
clarification in regards to lateral walls. Thank you. 00:17:49
Any other ex parte communication on this project, I'd invite the applicant to speak to us. 00:17:59
Welcome. 00:18:12
And you have 10 minutes. 00:18:13
Tucker, my wife and I are proposing this project as our downsizing retirement home. We have lived here for the past 18 years, have 00:18:21
4 kids that we've raised in PG, two of which are now off to college and we're down to two. So we're 5050% home and my mom lives on 00:18:29
19th, not far from there. So it's kind of a perfect spot. 00:18:38
That we worked with our neighbors to sort of accommodate any issues that they had up front that is reflected in the design we 00:18:47
talked about with their historical resource committee's. 00:18:53
Yeah, so. 00:19:02
We love the house from its character and historical perspective. That's why we you know we I'm not changing anything in the front, 00:19:04
but with four kids that potentially will come back to visit, adding the 300 and some square feet is is pretty big for our family 00:19:11
sort of usage over the coming years. 00:19:17
Yeah, that's all I have, unless you have any questions. 00:19:26
We we may have questions later, but not right now. Thank you very much. Thank you. 00:19:29
And I remember the public wishing to speak on this project. 00:19:37
Seeing no one in the room, is there anyone? 00:19:42
Mr. Campbell on Zoom, who wishes to talk to us about this project. 00:19:47
I do not see any hands raised. 00:19:52
Wait a few seconds. 00:19:55
Well, I don't see anyone either. So the public hearing part will be over. 00:20:03
Time for questions for staff or the applicant. 00:20:08
Mr. Schwagen, thank you. 00:20:15
I just had a couple of questions. 00:20:18
Again. 00:20:20
I'm coming back to the same issues that I had with a project a few weeks ago, the historic project and the secretary. 00:20:22
I'm I have a similar question to to one that I had on a project a few weeks ago. And again, I am the new kid on the block and so 00:20:31
I'm I'm. 00:20:36
Being educated as well. But I've I've spent some time with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic 00:20:41
properties and there's specifically the guidelines for rehabilitation and. 00:20:47
The Secretary of Interior standards are pretty clear that that certain things that are not recommended under the Secretary 00:20:56
standards are considered inconsistent and things that are recommended are considered consistent. And I guess the issue here swing 00:21:05
pivots on the question of whether the proposed addition is subordinate to the historic structure. 00:21:15
And the standards are pretty clear that construction. 00:21:25
The construction of a new addition that is as large or larger than the historic building. 00:21:34
Is not recommended. And here we have a case where the historic structure by my count is 338 square feet. That is the original the 00:21:42
total existing square footage of 1108 minus the 770 that will be. 00:21:49
Demolished leaves the existing historic structure of 338 square feet and the addition itself would be 1078 square feet so and it 00:21:58
would tower above the historic structure so. 00:22:06
You know, you have an addition that's three times as large as a historic structure towers above it. How? How could that be 00:22:17
considered subordinate and therefore consistent with the Secretary of Standards? Just throwing the question out there, because 00:22:22
that's my my only concern about this project. 00:22:27
Is that for staff or for the applicant? Well, I'd like to hear from staff. 00:22:34
And the applicant if he has anything to augment it with. 00:22:42
Thank you. 00:22:46
Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Swagger, So staff as part of the application package for this project received a phase two historic 00:22:47
assessment for the property and the historian for the project did conclude that the project as proposed and designed would be 00:22:56
consistent with the standards for rehabilitation and. 00:23:05
Staff relied upon the. 00:23:19
Recommendation and the conclusion of that report from the historian, as well as the recommendation from the Historic Resources 00:23:24
Committee. 00:23:28
Just a follow up. Thank you. 00:23:36
I guess my question is the the. 00:23:39
The historians report doesn't really address that issue and it it just conclusory makes the statement that it's consistent and I 00:23:44
think in the future we should we should ask a little more of the historian in their reports that they provide some discussion of 00:23:52
the specific issues that are in the. 00:24:00
In the Secretary of Interior standards, especially when this is, I think, a pretty pivotal issue with respect to this project. 00:24:09
So that's just a suggestion for the future. 00:24:19
Thank you. 00:24:22
Mr. Sawyer. 00:24:24
My concern has to do with the. 00:24:27
Definition of demolition. 00:24:31
And when you go into. 00:24:34
The. 00:24:38
Definitions that are part of the historic resources part of our code and 2376.02 partial demolition means that if there are 00:24:40
changes that are more than 50% of the total lateral length of the exterior walls. 00:24:49
And by Mr. Moores calculations, we're going to have 61% of the lateral walls demolished. 00:24:59
I really have a problem with that. I look at this basically as new construction and demolition and very little to do with the 00:25:10
historic resource. There's not much left of it. When you're you're done. There's only, as Mr. Swigert pointed out, there's only 00:25:20
338 square feet left of the really of the historic property. So my question is, is this a demolition? 00:25:30
Or what is it? Because it is definitely according to the definition, it's definitely more than what's acceptable. 00:25:40
Then I also am wondering why we were given these plans when 23 point 90.06 asked for clear depiction of all existing conditions, 00:25:50
which it did show, but also clear depiction of all proposed development. And on it we see nothing in regards to exterior lighting 00:25:59
or landscaping. We have loose pavers, dirt and loose brick referred to. 00:26:09
And it doesn't fit that criteria. This is supposed to be. 00:26:19
This is for council development permit and it's kind of a step up and I didn't see any of that. And what do they plan to do with 00:26:24
the leaning fence in the back? I mean, I really feel that we have not been given enough information. I also would have loved to 00:26:31
have seen some details about what windows they were going to be using. What kind of outdoor pavers or sidewalk are they going to 00:26:38
be using? Are they pervious or impervious? 00:26:45
And it would have been nice to see more board and bat in detail for the new versus the old. Yes, I can get a ruler and I can 00:26:53
measure, but usually when we're giving these, we have that detail given to us. And so I have to say I was pretty disappointed with 00:26:59
these plans. 00:27:05
I do have further concerns, but I'll address those a little bit later. Thank you. 00:27:12
Maybe Mr. Cedar if he would tackle the demolition issue. 00:27:18
Yes, Chair Murphy and Commissioner Sawyer or Vice Chair Sawyer, the. 00:27:23
Rear edition which is considered non historic will be fully demolished. The front original residence. 00:27:31
Off of 14th St. will be retained and that is the historic portion of the structure. 00:27:43
Per the phase two historic assessment. 00:27:53
In a case like that, with so much of the existing building being demolished. 00:27:57
Do we need a demolition permit? 00:28:03
Well, the demolition permit would come through the building permit phase that's that's not that would not come through us. No. OK. 00:28:10
Thank you. 00:28:14
And did the applicant wish to respond to some of the questions about the plants? 00:28:20
Thank you, yes, Commissioner Swagger. 00:28:26
Just one additional question for the applicant and that is I'm curious whether anything is going to be done to reinforce, 00:28:30
stabilize the historic structure itself. Will there be reinforcement in the walls? Will there be any rebuilding of the historical 00:28:36
structure S the front part? 00:28:42
Thank you. Sure. Let me let me sort of frame the three different points. So I think the one I can sort of. 00:28:49
Be consistent with the Planning Commission on and explaining Mr. CV's perspective on Mr. CVS, the historian. As far as I know, 00:28:59
he's the only historian here. We were given his name and no other names. He was great, his view and it's pretty obvious when you 00:29:07
look at the inside of the place that the back part was added on probably sometime in the 60s or 70s and then even a third sort of 00:29:15
addition, probably in the 80s or 90s, given the dating of the electrical and that kind of stuff. 00:29:22
So. 00:29:32
Part of our plans were to have access to both sides in the back of the house as a family, we wanted some kind of back patio or 00:29:34
yard. So we can't even to your point, we couldn't really do anything without going to the neighbor on the back fence because you 00:29:41
can't it's right on the the house. So that was sort of part of the demo of the the structure was sort of to narrow it so that 00:29:49
there's room between US and especially our. 00:29:56
Let me get this direction wrong. Our South side neighbor, so Mr. Mrs. Rose gets our runoff into their house because the roof goes 00:30:04
right to the the lot line and that was one of their concerns. If we could fix that, that would be great for them. 00:30:12
The terms of the landscaping, I can hold on one second. 00:30:23
Were you anxious to say something, Mr. Cedar? 00:30:36
I'll wait until the applicant or owner is finished. Thank you Chair. I have a packet here but only have two because my color 00:30:41
printer wasn't up to snuff. Can I hand these to you and so to them you give them to staff? 00:30:48
Those are pictures of the three houses that we've lived in and renovated here in PG over the last 18 years and kind of gives you a 00:31:01
sense of the landscaping, what we plan typical papers in our mind within, you know, crazy cowstone paper. And in terms of 00:31:09
landscaping, right now there's flowers in front of the the porch. 00:31:17
That would be the really only soft scaping available to the house just because the yards is not very big. So we keep some soft 00:31:27
scape there with consistent with the flowers that are kind of there already. But part of our retirement plan is to downsize on our 00:31:35
landscaping. Right now we have about an acre that we take care of, I take care of. So that was another sort of consideration for 00:31:43
us choosing this property initially. And then the third question, remind me. 00:31:50
Mr. Swagger. 00:31:58
Structure. Umm. 00:31:59
Right, Yeah. 00:32:03
Yeah. So concurrently, there's no foundation under the front part of the house. So no perimeter foundation. It's the wood is 00:32:05
sitting on dirt. So we actually, a structural engineer is coming on Friday. And my understanding is we couldn't go to structural 00:32:11
plans until we had like historical review sort of approval. That took a couple weeks to get the structure on the engineer out to 00:32:17
take a look at that and see what we're going to have to do because right now the front structure is about 7 inches lower in the 00:32:23
back. 00:32:29
Over like a 15 foot span than the front. So my expectation is we're gonna have to level that floor and put in you know probably a 00:32:36
perimeter foundation under under it. 00:32:42
Did you have further any further questions while the applicant is here? 00:32:52
One follow up on that point. 00:32:59
If you're leveling something that has a 15, would you say a 15 inch drop front to rear or a 7/7 inch drop across 15 feet front to 00:33:01
rear? That's right. 00:33:05
What impact will that have on the walls of the building, the roof of the building? Is that going to weaken the structure at all or 00:33:12
the hope is it's going to strengthen it? 00:33:16
The currently the structure has been there for 100 and. 00:33:22
50 years. So we don't expect obviously the damage in any way. You know again the curb appeal of the structure is largely reason 00:33:28
why we bought the place for that porch and this sort of curve appeal of the cottage style house so. 00:33:35
To answer your question, you know the goal is to make it better so that last another 150 years. That's the goal. 00:33:44
Thank you very much. Sure. 00:33:53
Mr. Cedar. 00:33:55
Director Vaughn. 00:33:58
Yes, Chair Murphy, So. 00:34:00
The implementation plan, a landscape plan is not required in all circumstances and in this case staff determined that a landscape 00:34:04
plan would not be required. A landscape plan is required. 00:34:12
Implementation Plan code section under Scenic Resources when. 00:34:23
The property site or the site is in a designated Scenic view area. 00:34:29
And this property is not in a designated scenic view area. 00:34:35
Thank you, Commissioner Sawyer. 00:34:42
That's my feeling. Thank you. 00:35:19
Commissioner Cedar, could you put up on the screen the plans that a 4.1 the the elevations? 00:35:24
And we all, you know, we all have them in our packet. 00:35:46
And Mr. Chair, if I may, while he's getting the plan sets up on the screen, I wanted to touch on a few things. First of all, the 00:35:50
Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment for historic homes. We kind of discussed this, I think, at the March meeting. 00:35:57
But for those of us that have worked in historic preservation, it's a bit of an inside joke that they're called standards, but 00:36:03
they're really guidelines. 00:36:10
And when you contact the State Historic Preservation Officer. 00:36:18
And and run a scenario by them of whether or not something may be or may not be consistent with the Secretary of Interior 00:36:24
standards. They almost always will defer back to the city to to know its neighborhoods and and. 00:36:32
To make the determination. 00:36:41
I myself have worked in historic preservation for about 16 years. I've managed historic preservation programs in four cities. 00:36:45
We do rely heavily on our qualified historians that provide the Phase 2 reports to determine whether or not a proposed project is 00:36:53
consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. 00:36:59
I think that the key thing to keep in mind while there are sets of recommendations that you know one treatment or certain work is 00:37:07
not recommended and different types of work are. Every historic building is unique in its own right and you have to develop a plan 00:37:16
for restoration or rehabilitation based on that individual building. So while something may or may not. 00:37:25
Meet all of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. 00:37:35
We look at it overall. 00:37:41
In terms of will the treatment that's being proposed help to keep the property in use because that keeps properties maintained and 00:37:45
from from being degraded or deteriorated from that being in use? And then also overall, will it help to ensure the ongoing 00:37:53
longevity of the historic resource. So it it it's. 00:38:02
It would be nice if there were some hard and fast rules that we could point to and say yes this and no that, but there is some 00:38:11
flexibility that comes into play with rehabilitation of historic structures. 00:38:17
The other thing I wanted to touch on in terms of things like structural engineering. 00:38:24
Site engineering that will all come into play when an applicant applies for building permits. 00:38:31
We certainly want to or do work with applicants to ensure when they're working on historic homes that they are stabilized during 00:38:36
during construction. 00:38:42
So I I just want to make sure that everybody understands that those things happen in the building permit stage and may not come 00:38:49
forward as part of a planning entitlement. 00:38:55
Thank you, Mr. Cedar, that. 00:39:02
I was hoping for. 00:39:05
A 4.1. 00:39:06
Which is just called elevations. 00:39:11
Yeah, that's it. 00:39:15
And. 00:39:17
I. 00:39:21
You know, I have little expertise in historic umm. 00:39:23
Historic planning, but my understanding is that there are standards and there are guidelines. 00:39:27
And certainly. 00:39:33
You know, everything you said, Director Vaughn, you know, applies to the guidelines. And I guess my impression was that the 00:39:35
standards. 00:39:38
We're not as loosey goosey as the guidelines and the standards should be should be followed and and I guess when I look at these 00:39:44
this plants that the addition. 00:39:49
The new construction clearly dominates the historic it towers over it it. It becomes the. 00:39:56
It becomes really what you see when you look at the property and and I guess my question is, is is that OK? And and I'm asking it 00:40:05
as a question but I I I didn't think it was. 00:40:10
Certainly the answer is it can be, there's, there's flexibility in there. And so in terms of something like this there there's 00:40:18
differentiation that can be made. 00:40:24
Even though the proposed addition is 2 stories and the historic building is one story, Pacific Grove has approved a lot of 00:40:32
projects just like this where a two-story component pushed to the back so that you still at the sidewalk level. When you're 00:40:39
walking by, you see the one story original facade of the home. 00:40:47
But there are other things that can come into play in terms of changes in the siding, the whether it's horizontal or vertical 00:40:56
siding, you can change the width so that it's differentiated from the original. 00:41:03
You can also. 00:41:13
So there there are different things that you can do to ensure that. 00:41:19
To ensure that the the new addition is differentiated and clearly identifiable from the historic property. 00:41:26
You know it, it's it. It really is a judgment call. It really is a judgment call when when we look at some of our historic 00:41:37
properties here in the city, they are very small. 00:41:42
And whether or not they can be utilized for modern day living. 00:41:48
Again, it gets back to it's better to keep them in use and do some modifications to allow families to continue to live in them for 00:41:55
the next 50 or 100 years as opposed to having them sit vacant. But Long story short, there is flexibility. It is a bit of a 00:42:03
judgment call and the City of Pacific Grove I've seen. 00:42:10
Dozens and dozens of these types of additions where it's a two-story addition on the back of a one story historic home that the 00:42:18
HRC has recommended approval on and that the historians have said. 00:42:24
Are consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Again, thank you. 00:42:32
Other questions or comments from. 00:42:38
Commissioners Vice Chair Sawyer. 00:42:42
Respectfully, I disagree with some of what you said. It is OK to question local historians, especially since we only had one. 00:42:45
That he gave his opinion, which is fine. My concern is on a 4.1 is when you look at the proposed W elevation, it's very difficult 00:42:56
to sort of suss out which is new and which is old. That new looks pretty much like the old. With the exception of the Borden 00:43:06
Batten. The roof structure is pretty much the same and I would like to see more. 00:43:16
Of a change so that it's not so. 00:43:26
It's mimicking it, so that's a lot. And then. 00:43:30
I just have a problem with the fact that it overpowers the the new and I have seen very well done second story additions to little 00:43:37
historic houses that are. 00:43:43
Complementary and I just don't feel that this one is. Thank you. 00:43:51
Other other questions or comments from Commissioners Commissioner Frederickson. 00:43:57
I tend to disagree with some of the comments I've heard. I'm prepared to move ahead with this project. 00:44:03
Other other comments, Commissioner Kubica? 00:44:10
I read the proposal and maybe I missed something, but when I went out and did a site visit, it seemed like the historical 00:44:15
structure needs quite a bit of work. I'm assuming that work is going to be done on it. 00:44:21
I mean, it seems like there's a lot of rotten wood on the front and on the sides and underneath the eaves, so I'm assuming that's 00:44:28
going to be rehabilitated and. 00:44:33
Is that a question? That's a question, Yes, please. Please. 00:44:39
Answer your questions. Yes, the wood rod is not nearly as bad as it would seem. So that's a good thing. The floors are in great 00:44:49
condition according to our. 00:44:55
Shoemaker floors who came home and respected those a couple weeks ago. So we're going to preserve all of that. I'd say the, the 00:45:04
biggest issue is the windows. So the windows are going to have to be carefully removed and rehabilitated individually so that 00:45:10
they're not in terrible condition. But that's probably the biggest job outside of the the structural perimeter which again was 00:45:16
sort of a. 00:45:22
You know I'm a homeowner, I don't do this for a living but I was told that was sort of the sequential. Once we get through here 00:45:29
then we go to structural and building. But to answer your question the the words in better condition than it would appear which is 00:45:36
a good thing especially the siding and yeah the the the windows is really the the biggest issue. 00:45:42
And one of the comment to. 00:45:50
Mrs. Sawyer, Vice Chairman Sawyer. When I talked to Mr. CD about the historical review and I just had a lot of questions about 00:45:53
what that kind of everything you're asking here and his view on the the elevation, we're actually under height by about two feet 00:46:00
or something like that. We kept the roof as low as we possibly could. 00:46:07
And from the sidewalk you don't see sort of the huge unless you're in between. 00:46:16
The two houses, right. And that's really the only time that you see and that was sort of in his opinion, a big part of his view of 00:46:23
the structure. We also, we made this roof line similar so that our neighbors could preserve their views of the Bay. That was a 00:46:29
consideration we had for them. We're probably going to be their neighbors for hopefully another 20 or 25 years. So we want to make 00:46:36
sure that we were. 00:46:42
Making, you know, not taken away from their property at all. 00:46:49
Thank you. And while the applicant is here, any other questions for the applicant right now? 00:46:54
Seeing none. Thank you very much. 00:47:00
Commissioner Frederickson, I think he's ready to. 00:47:03
I just wanted to add one more comment. It was a very good question about the rod and siding and that's one of the things that 00:47:06
staff and building officials will work with the applicant on. It's very important with historic properties to try to retain as 00:47:14
much of the existing materials as we can. So we work very closely to identify areas where and you've probably heard the term to 00:47:22
deteriorated to repair when it comes to things like window sills or siding. 00:47:30
So we work closely with the applicants when they're in the building permit stage to identify those portions of siding that are too 00:47:39
deteriorated to repair and that can be removed and and and patched back in. But it's not a wholesale removal of exterior siding 00:47:47
just because a piece here or a piece there may be deteriorated. But that's something that staff works directly with the building 00:47:54
official and with applicants. 00:48:02
When it comes to historic properties. 00:48:10
We may be ready for motion unless there are other comments from the Commission. 00:48:13
Commissioner Frederickson, you've indicated perhaps willingness to make a motion. 00:48:20
I will. Am I on? 00:48:26
My little light is not working. 00:48:28
I think you're OK. I'm OK though, OK? 00:48:31
Yes, I move that. We approve that. We approve the architectural permit for this project. 00:48:35
I don't think there are findings. Well, there are. There's also a coastal development permit and the coastal development permit 00:48:41
and there are. 00:48:45
There's facts and findings and conditions of approval and page 19. 00:48:51
Of our packet. 00:48:59
All listed under the recommendation on page 19. 00:49:10
Not on mine. 00:49:22
Under recommendations. 00:49:25
Draft approval begins on Page 3. 00:49:30
Yeah, yeah. 00:49:42
OK, I can amend my motion to say that I move that we approve the architectural permit subject to the. 00:49:50
The Facts findings. 00:50:00
Listed on the packet. 00:50:04
And furthermore, to approve the coastal development permit. 00:50:08
Subject to the conditions of approval as listed on page 36. 00:50:14
Is that complete enough? And I think we have to acknowledge the secret exemption. My goodness, I'm sorry. 00:50:21
It is. There's someone prepared to 2nd the motion. 00:50:30
I'll second. 00:50:34
Commissioner Davidson, further discussion on the motion. 00:50:37
Should we do this with roll call or could I just ask? Right, It's up to you Chair. OK. 00:50:44
Let's do a roll call please, Mr. Campbell. 00:50:51
Commissioner Frederickson Aye. 00:50:56
Commissioner Davidson, Aye. 00:50:59
Commissioner Krupika. 00:51:01
Chair Murphy. 00:51:04
Aye. 00:51:07
Commissioner Modzinski, aye. 00:51:09
Vice Chair Sawyer. 00:51:11
Commissioner Swigert. 00:51:14
With that six eyes and one no, the motion passes. Thank you. 00:51:17
Sorry, Chair, I was given an inclination. I obviously wasn't ready. 00:51:24
Engines were good. 00:51:32
We're moving on. 00:51:35
To Agenda 8B, and this is a coastal development permit for temporary installation of physical measures in the coastal zone. 00:51:40
And it's. 00:51:49
Has a categorical exemption from Sequa. 00:51:51
In the recommendation from staff is that we approve this coastal development permit subject to the findings conditions of approval 00:51:55
in the secret exemption. 00:51:59
And before we start, does anyone have an ex parte communication or any link to this project that they should disclose? 00:52:06
Maybe I'm going too far. 00:52:15
I'm a big fan of black oystercatcher, so I might need to recruit myself. 00:52:22
You're being a fan of black oyster catches. Will not interfere with your bill. I'm, I trust with your ability to make a a fair 00:52:27
decision. 00:52:31
I was going to disclose that I'm a docent at Point Lobos and the docent core there is collaborating with the Black Oyster Catcher 00:52:39
Project, but I haven't been involved in that in any any way. 00:52:46
Mr. Sidor, I think this is for you. 00:52:54
Good evening again, Sharon, Murphy and commissioners Jordan. The Commission will consider a coastal development permit to allow 00:53:13
the temporary installation of physical measures in the coastal zone. 00:53:19
And the project involves. 00:53:25
The temporary installation of protective measures at multiple potential locations along the City's shoreline in support of the 00:53:29
Black Oyster Catcher Protection Protocol Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pacific Grove and the Monterey Audubon 00:53:36
Society and approved by the City Council on October 4th, 2023. 00:53:43
The protocols purpose is to help protect the Black Oyster Catcher, a bird of conservation concern and a year round resident along 00:53:51
the coastline of the city. 00:53:56
Excuse me? 00:54:03
As presented, the MOU is consistent with the applicable LUP policies, including several of which address the black oyster catcher. 00:54:06
Physical measures may include signs, traffic, a frames, ropes, rods, Cape and cable, wooden snow fencing, lattice fencing and 00:54:16
other measures as deemed appropriate by the city, the Monterey Audubon Society and a designated subject matter expert. 00:54:24
Each breeding season, the parties will follow a general procedure outlined in the MOU regarding installation and removal of the 00:54:33
temporary physical measures. 00:54:38
Prior to the breeding season, the parties will discuss and agree to anticipated protective measures and locations, and for the 00:54:44
NOU, the subject matter expert will install and remove the measures and inform the other parties of the actions taken or if 00:54:50
assistance is needed. The breeding season generally occurs from approximately April to September and measures may or may not 00:54:57
remain installed during this entire period. 00:55:03
As noted in the agenda report, identifying specific locations in advance where measures may be placed or installed is not possible 00:55:12
because only a variable number of territories, and in some cases, depending on the season, possibly no territories, may actually 00:55:19
require physical protection to maximize maximize successful breeding opportunities. 00:55:26
Therefore, staff recommends Commission approach. 00:55:37
Improve the Coastal Development Permit subject to the Findings, Conditions of Approval and a Class 8 Categorical Exemption per 00:55:40
SEQUA Guidelines Section 15308 for actions by Regulatory Agencies for protection of the environment. And this concludes staff 00:55:47
Presentation and staff is available for any questions and the applicant, George First from Public Works, is also available for 00:55:53
questions. 00:56:00
Are there any further presentations about this project? 00:56:09
I don't believe Mr. First has a presentation. However, he is available for questions. Is the city in fact the applicant? 00:56:15
Yes. OK, great. Thank you. The public works department. Yeah, let's go to public comment. Is there anyone in the room who wishes 00:56:24
to make a comment? 00:56:28
I think I see Audubon's environmental advocate. 00:56:34
Yes, hello. My name is Amanda Priest. I'm from the Monterey Audubon Society. I just thank you all so much for your service. And I 00:56:40
wanted to encourage the Commission to issue the five year coastal development permit for our temporary installation of physical 00:56:46
measures in the coastal zone as described in our Black Oyster Catcher Memorandum of Understanding. 00:56:52
As we summarize, the Black Oyster Catcher is a non migratory shore bird only lives in the rocky inner tidal habitat on the West 00:57:00
Coast. They can only nest, you know, above the high tide line on the rocks can't. They're not down in the water. 00:57:05
And utilizes the extensive experience of our subject matter expert, Rick Hanks. He's been our Oystercatcher Monitoring project 00:57:41
coordinator for at least 12 years, possibly more. 00:57:47
I've been involved about 8 years myself while working for California State Parks. I had the opportunity to work with Rick a lot 00:57:53
and kind of test out and develop those temporary measures that best reduce disturbance to these nesting birds along our coastline. 00:57:59
And although each site is different, we have an assortment of signage and symbolic fencing like you saw in the presentation. These 00:58:05
different strategies that are available to us that we tested out and can employ as needed if a nest is built in a very busy 00:58:11
location. 00:58:17
Right now and we could look at 1:00. So thanks very much. Thank you. 00:59:05
Anyone else in the room wishing to speak? 00:59:10
I see hands raised on Zoom, Mr. Campbell. 00:59:15
We have Vicki Pierce. 00:59:19
Thank you. I'm Vicki Pierce. I'm a president of Pacific Grove and the luckiest person on earth to be here, along with all the 00:59:24
other people who are living here. I want to thank Amanda. I want to thank the staff of the Commission for recommending approval of 00:59:33
this MOU. It's been in the works for a long time, many people with expertise and experience with the ocean. 00:59:41
Oyster catchers have contributed to formulating it. It's much more complicated than protecting the harbor seals, for instance, 00:59:50
because as Amanda said, their nesting is unpredictable. They sometimes move the nests. I've been watching one pair that has used 00:59:59
the same nest for more than a decade and they're back on it this season, getting ready to to lay eggs again. I think they're 01:00:07
tremendous asset to the city, and I'm couldn't be more pleased that this motion is going forward. 01:00:16
And I hope you will all vote yes. 01:00:25
Thank you. 01:00:28
Thank you. 01:00:30
We have Inga, Laurence, and Dahmer. 01:00:33
You you gave me the unmute button. This is Lisa Chiani. Oh, I apologize. We have Lisa Gianni. OK, thank you. Thank you. I've been 01:00:39
a monitor for the Central Coast Black Oyster Catcher Project for nine years now. And so I I strongly urge you to to approve this 01:00:48
CDP. It the the. 01:00:56
Protection protocol has been developed by leadership of the California Central Coast Black Oyster Catcher Project in collaboration 01:01:06
with Monterey Audubon, based on many years of experience in the field, including on state parks land. 01:01:12
And the BLM lands of the California Coastal National Monument, where wildlife protection is part of their mission. 01:01:19
The protocol was developed to be consistent with the policies protecting employees. That's black oyster catchers in the LCP land 01:02:03
use plant including BIO 7, BIO 12 and BIO 13 which which I sent to you today. And boy protections could involve seasonal and 01:02:11
temporary restriction of public access to a limited area of the coast with barriers and science to protect to protect the nest and 01:02:19
forging and forging area for chicks. So that's why is CDP is needed. 01:02:27
The proposed CDP is similar to the one for harbor seals, as Amanda mentioned, for their seasonal fencing, which is good for five 01:02:36
years at a time and renewable. The difference with employee protections is that these birds do not nest in colonies. 01:02:43
As the seals are in colonies, there are approximately 15 nesting territories along PG's entire coastline with variation in the 01:02:51
nest sites within the territories. So there are a lot of factors to take into account to provide the best protection. Having this 01:02:58
carefully developed protection protocol in place will be an important step forward in protecting these fascinating and charismatic 01:03:06
shore birds. I hope if you haven't seen one, you will go search one out. 01:03:13
And will be any of us will be happy to help you. Please please approve this CDP. Thank you. 01:03:20
Thank you. 01:03:28
We have Inga Lorenzen, Dahmer. 01:03:32
Thank you, Chair and Commissioner. I'm really pleased. I will echo the two previous speakers that this has finally come to your 01:03:37
attention and they will finally get some protection I hope. And even though we didn't see the presentation of the different 01:03:47
barriers, I have seen the presentation before beautification, naturalization, but there wasn't any presentation as such on that. 01:03:57
But I think that the black oyster catchers are quintessentially Pacific Grove, quirky and unpredictable. And here we are. Let's 01:04:07
protect them. Thank you very much. 01:04:15
Thank you. 01:04:24
We have Kim. 01:04:30
Thank you. I don't think you need any more reasons really to to do this. But I will add one in that I do document a lot of the 01:04:36
black oyster catcher behavior when I'm watching the harbor seals at Hopkins Beach, and I have often had visitors who come and ask 01:04:44
why. There are not signs telling them to avoid areas because they really don't want to hurt the wildlife, but a lot of times they 01:04:51
don't know, and particularly with the black oyster catchers. 01:04:59
You may not be aware where those nests are and start climbing around on some of the rocks and accidentally disturb one or really 01:05:07
step on the eggs which has happened in the past. So this is a benefit for both the visitors who want to see them and also not 01:05:16
injure them and of course the birds themselves. So I hope that you approve this. Thank you. 01:05:25
Thank you. 01:05:36
I see no other hands raised. 01:05:40
I don't either. Let's declare the public. 01:05:42
Or the hearing over. 01:05:45
Questions. Comments from the Commission. 01:05:47
Vice Chair Sawyer. 01:05:52
I'm ready to move ahead with a motion if. 01:05:54
I have a question. Sorry, Commissioner Nozzinski. Thank you, Chairman Murphy. I guess my question is the implementation of this. I 01:05:58
don't know if this is appropriate at this time, but how? How will this be implemented? Who's going to be the champion? Who's going 01:06:04
to be determining factor? How's, how's it going to be determined to who knows what, where and when? 01:06:10
Yes, Commissioner Nazinski, that implementation of determining when and where physical measures and what type of physical measures 01:06:19
would need to be placed, It would be determined on a seasonal or annual basis. 01:06:28
By the city representative. 01:06:37
The Environmental program Manager, Mr. 1st and the. 01:06:42
Designated subject matter expert who is identified in the MOU and as well as a representative from the Monterey Audubon Society. 01:06:48
Thank you. 01:07:00
Other Commissioner Frederickson, thank you, Chair. 01:07:02
I guess my questions were more to the area of process. We seem we have a collaborative effort on the part of a group containing 01:07:06
all of the interested parties, but who actually makes a decision? Who decides what type of structure? What type is going to be put 01:07:14
up? Who decides what kind of protection is going to be put up, What size that protect protection will be? 01:07:21
Those are processing issues, but I think they're important to a lot of us what this is going to look like. 01:07:30
Commissioner Frederickson, that those decisions would be made by that group of three individuals, the city representative, the 01:07:38
Monterey Audubon Society Rep and the subject matter expert designated in the MU. So it would not be an individual decision, it 01:07:45
would be a group decision. 01:07:51
Follow on, Yes, please. Is there, I have no experience where this has been done is there We obviously have some areas of high 01:07:59
traffic, high foot traffic along the shoreline. I'm not sure how you, how we arrive at these decisions. 01:08:09
But the group meets and decides. There are certain we know where the nests are, right, I suppose. 01:08:22
We're protecting specific nests here rather than areas, is that correct? 01:08:32
Correct. That's Staffs understanding, Commissioner Frederickson. 01:08:38
For the MOU, if you could give me just a moment, I'll look up the. 01:08:44
General procedure So each year before April first, the three representatives will discuss what, when and where protective measures 01:08:52
may be anticipated. 01:08:57
For the upcoming black oyster catcher breeding season along the city's coastline, and this is on page five of the Mou. And I'm 01:09:02
sorry, I'm not sure what page it is on the agenda packet. 01:09:09
It's under. 01:09:17
99. 01:09:21
And and to perhaps streamline it a little bit and Mr. Sedor can correct me if I'm wrong, so the the MOU, the Memorandum, 01:09:27
Memorandum of Understanding has already been adopted by the City Council. 01:09:33
We're now here tonight with a coastal development permit and it's my understanding that the third phase after this would be for 01:09:41
this group of three individuals to get together and put together an implementation plan. 01:09:50
And I imagine that would be on an annual basis or on a seasonal basis because they would want to see if there are any changing 01:10:00
conditions season to season or year to year. That would require more protective measures, less protective measures, putting more 01:10:07
measures out where there's high traffic areas. But I believe that the the group of three people that Mister Sidor mentioned will 01:10:14
probably be putting together. 01:10:21
And implementation plan like I said either seasonally or annually, is that accurate and and is it right that it's, it's our public 01:10:29
works department that's actually going to be providing the signs and fencing and installing them is, is that correct? 01:10:37
Well, Chair Murphy, according to the MOU, the subject matter expert would actually be installing and removing the the measures, 01:10:46
the physical measures. 01:10:51
The city's public works department. Mr. First is the environmental program director or manager for the city. 01:10:57
And so he would be involved in. 01:11:06
Implementing the MOU on an annual basis. 01:11:10
And we're late for this season, but if if we approve this tonight and appeal period passes and do you know if they would attempt 01:11:16
these protective measures for the rest of this season? 01:11:22
Excuse me. I'm going to defer that question to Mr. First. It's still fairly early in the season, so. 01:11:33
You may have a better answer for that. 01:11:42
Hello Commission members, thank you for considering this item and having me. And the answer is yes. The plan would be to implement 01:11:45
the protective measures this season and just one thing I wanted to add was that. 01:11:52
The the annual pre breeding meeting amongst the three representatives would be followed by kind of regular check insurance through 01:12:00
the season that would adjust the, you know necessary procedures as needed. 01:12:08
So the the, the plant that any physical barricades or protective measures would be used to protect specific known nesting sites or 01:12:16
instances of new nesting sites. And by the nature of the, you know the territorial nature of these birds were not there would 01:12:24
never be, it would be very unlikely to have you know a whole string of nests in you know that you know are next to each other in 01:12:31
the same area. So it it was by the by the territorial nature of them. 01:12:39
It would be two, you know, a pair of birds nesting in one spot, and then a pair of birds nesting in another territory. So the 01:12:47
protective measures would be very unlikely to block kind of coastal access along a long stretch. It would be kind of this isolated 01:12:53
area where they're actually nesting. 01:12:59
If I could ask, do you know how many nesting sites there are active this year so far? 01:13:07
I think it's still early in the season and as far as I know there haven't. There hasn't been any egg laying or an actual nesting. 01:13:13
But I think the the Audubon representative would be better equipped to answer this. But my understanding is approximately 15 01:13:20
sites. But of those 15 sites, I think we would only expect one, maybe two to require protective measures. 01:13:28
And in the past where this is you know been desired has mostly been along the the southern part of Berwick Park where the. 01:13:36
Where the kind of rocky outcroppings along Berwick Park and then also near the seal fencing areas along the recreation trail. 01:13:46
But that's not to say that in the future there could be other areas of nesting that would require protection. 01:14:00
And and I'll ask you to but Mr. Siebel could could weigh in and. 01:14:08
We're looking at a five year permit, but in the MO the MOU proposes a a review every three years and as part of the review I I 01:14:12
think it could be a decision made not not to go ahead in future years. 01:14:20
Does it make more sense for us to look at a three-year permit here rather than the five? 01:14:29
That would be. 01:14:42
At the discretion of the Planning Commission, we could certainly or the Planning Commission could certainly approve a three-year 01:14:44
or or a five year permit. 01:14:49
The the intent of the five year permit is to allow the parties involved with the MO U. 01:14:54
Sufficient time to evaluate the various measures and identify which are more successful and before coming forward again for a new 01:15:04
permit. 01:15:10
It it seems from the MOU that they plan to do that after three years, which is why I I asked. 01:15:18
Yeah. And I I don't believe that they need to be aligned. This is the coastal development permit. So approving A5 year coastal 01:15:26
development permit would not preclude any sort of annual or three-year check in between the parties and and potentially back with 01:15:31
the City Council. 01:15:37
Other comments? Questions. Motion? 01:15:45
Commissioner Swagger comment and I guess I'll, I'll make a motion as well. I would move well my comment first of all is that the 01:15:49
MOU does provide for the termination of the MOU upon agreement of the parties. 01:15:57
Mutual consent of all the parties are through written notification from one party to the other parties at least 90 days prior to 01:16:06
termination. So I would propose that the condition be modified from a five year permit to a five year permit or the termination of 01:16:12
the MOU, whichever occurs sooner. 01:16:18
So I would move that we approve the the CDP for this project with that modification. 01:16:27
And subject to the findings and conditions. Subject to the findings and conditions. 01:16:37
And the secret and the sequel exemption. 01:16:41
So moved, Is there a second for that motion? 01:16:45
Commissioner Vaughn, I'm sorry, Director Vaughn, do you have any issue with a CDP with a an end date that as described? 01:16:50
No, I think that that change in language would be fine. So if if the city, if the if the parties terminated the MOU, then the CDP 01:17:02
would also terminate at that time. 01:17:08
Questions for the discussion. 01:17:17
Could we have eyes for all in favor of the motion? 01:17:22
I think. 01:17:28
All of all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion passes 70. Commissioner Swaggart and Commissioner Frederickson as 01:17:32
the second. 01:17:37
And we're at our last public hearing, it's an architectural permit, a variance and a coastal development permit for property at. 01:17:54
201st St. and also 113 2nd St. 01:18:02
And staff recommends that we approve the permits. 01:18:07
And subject to the findings and conditions of approval and we acknowledge the Categorical Exemption and before we start, is there 01:18:10
anyone who should make an ex parte communication disclosure? 01:18:15
Vice Chair Sawyer I had a discussion with Scott Hall in regards to what constitutes permeable. 01:18:22
Conditions as far as like sidewalks and pavers and driveways, just because I didn't quite understand what it was. So thank you. 01:18:33
Mr. Fredrickson and I had a conversation with the architect concerning setbacks, Second Avenue 2nd St. in particular. 01:18:44
Any other? 01:18:53
Planner Campbell, I believe this is your project. Yes Sir. Thank you Chair Murphy and Planning Commissioners. I am presenting a 01:18:59
project located 201st St. Architectural Permit and variance 230156 and Coastal Development Permit 230156. Just as a note, I wanted 01:19:07
to let you know that noticing the story polls did go up story polls on February 29th, they were verified by staff April 24th. 01:19:15
Notice of public hearing was posted and postcards were mailed out within 300 foot radius. 01:19:23
And on April 25th, the notice of public hearing was published in the Monterey County Weekly. And Joe, could you move ahead a 01:19:32
couple of slides? I'd like to just make a note on the story polls because we did have a question concerning those. 01:19:38
As you can see in the slide, the existing two-story house and accessory structures cover a large portion of the lot where the 01:19:46
single family residence is proposed to be built. So due to these constraints, staff met with the applicant and it and it was shown 01:19:54
that it's difficult to show accurately to depict the outline of the proposed building and so staff determined that it wasn't 01:20:02
feasible to do a full story poll. So the goal was to get massing to show where the massing was. 01:20:10
So the you can see that on the Central Ave. side, story polls were up there. 01:20:19
They're on the 2nd St. you have the two accessory structures, so we couldn't exactly have them install story poles there. In 01:20:27
addition to that, the story Poll Policy does allow for, and we were already doing it, extended posting. So the the policy says you 01:20:34
can do a newspaper ad or a larger. 01:20:41
Mailing, which we're already at the extent of our mailing at 300 feet and we had done a a posting. So we did the best that we 01:20:50
could to make sure that the public and the Commission were able to at least identify the massing of this project. So I just wanted 01:20:56
to to make a note of that for you. 01:21:01
Next slide please. 01:21:10
The existing site, it's 8448 square feet, have an irregularly shaped corner lot, and is currently developed with an existing 01:21:12
two-story single family residence, a detached garage, and an Adu totaling approximately 3710 square feet. It's in the R3 PGR 01:21:19
zoning district, the coastal zone and archaeologically sensitive area. 01:21:27
On February 26th, the Historic Resources Committee, and that's 2020. Sorry of 2020. 01:21:38
And this was based on the HRI update survey that was prepared by Beijing Turnbull. They went to the HRC to have the property was 01:21:43
on the HR and they had it removed. HRC determined based on that report that there was no historic significance and so it was 01:21:50
removed from the HRI. 01:21:57
Being in the archaeological zone, a phase one assessment was prepared for the project. The assessment found that the property has 01:22:05
undergone moderate to substantial ground disturbance dating back to 1932 and that records search of the property did not result in 01:22:11
known archaeological resources or site indicators of such resources. 01:22:18
However, there was a recommendation that conditions be placed on the permit and those that are that cultural and tribal resource 01:22:25
sensitivity training for construction personnel and for inadvertent cultural resource discovery. 01:22:31
On March 12, 2024, the Architectural Review Board voted 3023. Ayes was one absent and one vacancy to recommend the Planning 01:22:39
Commission approve the architectural permit as proposed. 01:22:46
The proposed project is to demolish the existing 3 structures and remove all site improvements on the property and it's the 01:22:55
construction of a new 3255 square foot single story single family residence with an attached garage. The project would also 01:23:03
include two covered open porches at the east elevation that open onto a new 564 square foot side yard paper patio. 01:23:12
The applicant also proposes to reorient the new house so that the new front facade, garage and driveway wood front 2nd St. and 01:23:22
that's where we get the other address, the 113 2nd St. that keeps popping up. The proposed project would bring the existing non 01:23:29
conforming setbacks along 2nd St. which are currently zero to four, closer to conformance and would also reduce the building 01:23:37
height, would reduce gross floor area by 455 square feet. 01:23:44
And reduce site coverage by 210 square feet. 01:23:51
And then if you can move those slides forward, Joe. Thank you. Just one more. 01:23:58
And this is just the 2nd St. elevation showing the the design considerations of the proposed project. Next slide please. 01:24:04
Requested Permits Architectural permit is required for the construction of the new single family residence. 01:24:16
There is also. 01:24:22
A request for a variance and for properties zoned R3 PGR within the coastal zone. The minimum front yard set back is 8 feet. The 01:24:25
applicant is requesting A variance for the use of the front yard setbacks for property zone R3 PGR outside of the coastal zone, 01:24:32
and that front set back may be reduced to four feet for up to 50% of the front building facade. This is meant to allow for massing 01:24:40
changes along the front building facades and contribute to the unique character of the Pacific Grove Retreat. 01:24:47
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Architectural permit and variance 23-0156 and Coastal Development Permit 01:24:56
23-0156, subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval and class 3 categorical exemptions for new construction. And 01:25:04
that's one single family residence for a small structure in a residential zone. I'm here for any questions. Thank you. Is the 01:25:11
applicant here? 01:25:18
I think I know the answer. 01:25:27
Welcome. 01:25:30
Jeannie Byrne, architect for the project. 01:25:35
Did you have questions for? 01:25:39
Planner or no, I think we're going first to you and then the public, and then we'll have questions. 01:25:41
So that was an excellent staff report. Thank you very much Aaron. I think it covered most of the basics. 01:25:47
So we we designed the project to meet the guidelines for the retreat, and I'm sure most of you are familiar with that. The 01:25:56
architectural design is a contemporary classroom style with board and bat siding. The elevations actually reflect the shape of the 01:26:04
original tent structures, which were the beginning of development in the retreat. 01:26:11
As noted, This site is irregular as it has St. frontage on three sides including a curve, and so we fortunately were able to move 01:26:21
the entrance in the garage to 2nd St. because there is no safe or actual any accessible entrance on 1st and the curve and central. 01:26:33
So the. 01:26:50
Current existing front entry is from First St. which actually nobody can really use because you can't park there. It's a red zone 01:26:52
and it's the access to Central. 01:26:57
The current driveway is at the corner of Central and 2nd St. which is really dangerous when you're trying to back out of there on 01:27:04
that curve. So fortunately we had the option to move the address to 2nd St. and do the front entry in the garage there. 01:27:13
And just as a note, the. 01:27:23
Mailman stopped one of the neighbors and said, you know we don't have a record of 200 1st St. 01:27:27
That is not in the. 01:27:34
U.S. Postal database OK. 01:27:38
So maybe we're correcting that as well with 113 2nd St. 01:27:42
So. 01:27:48
The kind of main issue here is the 4 foot set back at the front. 01:27:50
The proposed proposed front set back meets the design standards for the retreat, which allows 4 feet for 50%. Ours is 4 feet for 01:27:56
18 feet, which is 26% of the building frontage. 01:28:04
And the level is 50%, then it goes back to 8 feet for the open porch and the actual front entry building is is back at 12 feet. 01:28:13
Again, the four foot set back is allowed in the retreat as a way to meet the character defining areas of the retreat. As you all 01:28:26
know, the retreat doesn't have a standard set back anywhere, goes everywhere from zero to 15 feet and everything in between. 01:28:35
So even though the LCP states development quote shall be consistent with maintaining the current scale and character of the 01:28:45
Pacific Grove retreat. 01:28:51
End Quote When the Coastal staff rewrote the LCP, they missed this important feature of the retreat. So I think the staff report 01:28:58
covered most of the issues of the size were under the height, under the lot coverage. And if you have any questions I'm happy to 01:29:07
answer them or I'll save time for comments. 01:29:15
Fair enough. And I think we'll hold our questions until after we hear from the public, but we'll probably have questions. OK. 01:29:24
Thank you. 01:29:27
Anyone in the room wishing to speak to the project. 01:29:31
Anyone in our online audience? 01:29:36
We have Inga Lorenzen, Dahmer. 01:29:41
Thank you, Chair and commissioners, we've seen a large number of variance applications, especially in the coastal loan come 01:29:46
through in the last couple of years, mostly in order to get a larger or taller bigger house added onto. 01:29:55
It seems our newer hire staff seems to view this as normal procedure at this point, and may even be advising applicants that it's 01:30:06
fairly. 01:30:11
Standard procedure. 01:30:16
Variances should never be made regular, but reserved for exceptional circumstances. Certainly the complete demolishment of all 01:30:19
buildings and improvements on a lot no matter what its shape, do not warrant a non conforming set back variance in order to 01:30:29
rebuild. It's such a terrible precedent that our zoning and LCP are to be flaunted. 01:30:39
And not adhered to. 01:30:49
Words such as closer to conformance and reducing the degree of non conformance should never be used as a justification for a 01:30:55
variance on a new build. 01:31:02
I don't believe the Commissioners can honestly make a finding of exceptional circumstances or that the granting of the variance is 01:31:11
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner. 01:31:18
They can certainly build a bigger enough house. I would say please send it back redesign that's compliant with our. 01:31:27
Standards we've already had. 01:31:38
A previous variance appealed to council and that got a redesign, so I would just appreciate if variances were not made. 01:31:42
Normal and especially on a complete rebuild. Thank you very much. Thank you. 01:31:55
We have Tom Aikman. 01:32:08
I thank you. 01:32:16
We're calling in. We sent an e-mail about this. We're not particularly concerned about the removal of this house or the 01:32:18
replacement of the house, anything like that. We're asking for simply. 01:32:24
A special condition. 01:32:32
Are we on here? 01:32:35
Yes, we're just asking for a special condition to be put on the timing of the noisiest work here. We think that's probably going 01:32:36
to be the demolition of what there. We think that's probably going to be about a two week process. We would ask that you condition 01:32:44
to not allow that demolition during the harbor seal popping season. 01:32:52
The harbor seals pup about 400 feet away from this site that along Ocean View Blvd. The two major beaches, one over at Hopkins and 01:33:01
one at 5th Street, are the major popping beaches for the harbor seals of the Monterey Bay. 01:33:10
The we do have some. 01:33:20
There are some codes that speak to this and some local. 01:33:24
Coastal program provisions, Without getting into all the legality of it, it's just a common decency thing. If they could do the 01:33:29
two week demolition project or whatever time it's going to be the other than February through the end of May, it would spare a lot 01:33:37
of agony for the Harbor Schools down on the street. I don't know that we have a. 01:33:44
Well, that's our request that we do that we I think you all know what happened two years ago when the city did some just typical 01:33:53
road work down alongside the harbor seals. During that time it was disastrous. It drove away 20% of our harbor seals and they've 01:34:00
never come back it caused about. 01:34:07
Exactly a third of our pregnant harbor seals. It stressed about so much they had miscarriages and lost their pups that year. 01:34:16
This, well, we're not getting into the past. 01:34:24
All It was such a disaster that that Noah did a national report on what that kind of construction noise that close to Harvest 01:34:30
Hills can do to a popping season. 01:34:36
It has been adopted by Noah. 01:34:43
If you followed the ATC process, you know there are California Coast Commission followed the standards pretty closely, this time 01:34:48
under some pretty strict restrictions on. 01:34:54
Development down there. So we were just asking as a courtesy if you would put a special condition. It's easy enough to plan the 01:35:01
demolition around the puppy season if you do that. In this case, we'd appreciate it. 01:35:09
And that's our request. Thank you. Thank you. 01:35:17
How's that? 01:35:25
I see no other hands raised. The public hearing part is. 01:35:26
Is over. 01:35:30
Time for questions for staff and or the architect. 01:35:32
Any question, Commissioner, Swagger. 01:35:39
Yes, I have a couple of questions. First of all, for staff, we're going to lose an Adu with this project. I think it's a great 01:35:42
project. I like the project except for a couple of issues that I'll address in my comments and questions here. We're going to lose 01:35:49
an Adu. Is there anything in our city ordinances or general plan that protect the preservation of ADUS in light of the fact that 01:35:56
we've got the housing element update? Are we going to have to add another unit to the numbers that the state gave us? 01:36:04
Hey we're we're we're kind of going both ways on this here and I just would like to hear Staffs comments on, on whether we should 01:36:11
be protecting or whether we're required to protect Adus. The answer is no. They're on private property, they're the caveat to 01:36:17
those. And so I think what you're referring to is if we when it comes to our arena numbers, the no net loss law and that no net 01:36:24
loss is actually. 01:36:30
About the site's inventory. So we the arena numbers that we designate for our for our sites. If we were to lose one of those 01:36:36
during that cycle of the housing element, then we would have to show somewhere else in the city that we can. 01:36:44
Provide for that. We don't have to make it up, but we have to have it provided for this being on a private property also, we're in 01:36:54
the fifth cycle. 01:36:59
4th 4th cycle. 01:37:06
We're working on. 01:37:07
Working at six, yeah, we're so we're in the 5th and there were a small number. This is not part of the site's inventory, so 01:37:09
there's no requirement to replace this. There are, however, state requirements that if there is someone living there, there is the 01:37:14
accommodation that needs to be. 01:37:19
Found for the, for that, for that tenant. But as far as protecting Adus, no. And they don't count against this. They don't. You 01:37:27
know, there's no and there there's no law that can that allows us to stop someone from. 01:37:35
Removing Adus. Thank you. My second question is what are this? Are there city requirements on a project of this nature for 01:37:43
installing gutters and sidewalks? I mean, there's gutters around this, but there's sidewalks on the curved side that goes to 1st 01:37:51
St. and around to Central, but there's no sidewalk along 2nd Street. Are there any requirements in the city that that development 01:37:59
of this nature install sidewalks to to bring it up to city standards? 01:38:07
These typically go through the for public works and building. When it comes to requirement for sidewalks, Joe, do you have 01:38:17
something to. 01:38:21
Go ahead, please. It's Bert. 01:38:30
Because 2nd St. doesn't have sidewalks on that side of the street. We were not putting sidewalks there, but we are redoing the 01:38:34
driveway cut and the sidewalks all on Central. 01:38:41
Can I make a couple of comments? The Adu as it's been referred to now was actually an illegal rental unit, which is the city for 01:38:50
years tried to get rid of and now? 01:38:56
Suddenly, they're renamed. 01:39:04
And the variance is only because Coastal Commission staff missed the fact that there were already design standards for the 01:39:08
retreat. So the retreat has always had this ability to do the four foot set back, but suddenly it has become a variance, 01:39:15
inadvertently so. 01:39:22
And I think we talked to the planners about the distance away from the seals. I. 01:39:31
Beach and I don't remember it. It was determined that it was far enough away that it would. They didn't consider it an issue, but. 01:39:40
Thank you. 01:39:49
Yes, further question before you miss Murray would would the applicant? 01:39:51
Consent or agree to the condition that Mister Aikman proposed of not doing the demolition during that February to May period? 01:39:56
Well, I'd have to talk to them, but. 01:40:02
You know. 01:40:08
I don't remember if the planner. 01:40:12
Reviewed that distance previously, Yes I. 01:40:14
I believe within the city's adopted codes it refers to Ocean View Blvd. only from a noise perspective. This particular site I I 01:40:19
think was mentioned in the presentation is over 400 feet away from Ocean View Blvd. frontage and not within any sort of line of 01:40:29
sight where noise would travel, so from a city. 01:40:38
Code standpoint, we don't have anything on which to base that type of condition. 01:40:49
But I would say that just based on building permit issues, et cetera, et cetera, they will probably be out of that time frame 01:40:56
anyway. 01:41:00
So I. 01:41:07
I actually don't anticipate it will be a problem and they have already talked about how they would access the property and it will 01:41:08
literally be off central, it won't be ocean view. 01:41:12
Other questions for the applicants since she's here, Commissioner Kubica. 01:41:18
I thought several years ago there was a discussion that if there was an improvement of the property, a building permit. 01:41:24
Where property was increased, it would cost to improve the property by more than $50,000. I thought that that. I believe it came 01:41:34
to the City Council and. 01:41:39
Going from memory here that sidewalks had to be installed. 01:41:45
I think that goes area by area because there are certain areas in Pacific Grove that sidewalks were deliberately not installed 01:41:50
like the beach track. And in the past if we have a street that either is interrupted with a tree or is not contiguous sidewalk to 01:41:59
to adjacent properties, we have not had to do that and and if I may, yes please. 01:42:09
And thank you. 01:42:19
The we do. There's nothing in zoning that that requires this. So during our plan check reviews. 01:42:21
Most of our building projects go both to they'll have public works. Often I see Joyce Halaby's name attached to something when it 01:42:29
comes to building and going through that building process they may discover that it's required with the building department will 01:42:37
identify that as part of those improvements, not the planning department. Would Would we have the discretion to add that as a 01:42:44
condition if we wish to? I do not see anywhere in the zoning that would be the Nexus for that. 01:42:52
Since your purview is titled 23, there's nothing that I'm aware of that's in the in the zoning for for that I I don't think we 01:43:01
would want to apply that condition on a site and then find out later that it's not required per the codes or per any sort of 01:43:08
streets or sidewalks master plan that the public works department has. So I would I would rely on through the building permit 01:43:15
process it'll be plan checked. 01:43:22
And at that time, it'll determine whether or not the site or the street requires sidewalks. Thank you. Other questions for the 01:43:30
applicant. I have just some general comments and questions. Did you commissioner? 01:43:37
Thank you, Miss Burn. 01:43:45
Go ahead, Commissioner Sage. Thank you. 01:43:50
And my question goes to the variance. 01:43:57
It appears to me that the implementation program in in section. 01:44:01
I guess it's 239180 C or excuse me, D. 01:44:12
It says yeah, it says pretty clearly that in no case shall front setbacks be less than 8 feet. And so I don't think the CIP and 01:44:20
the coastal zone and regardless of what the practice has been in the past and again I'm I'm as an excellent use lawyer. I'm rule 01:44:27
bound. I look at, I look at the what the rules say and it appears to me that there's nothing in the CIP in the in the 01:44:35
implementation program and the zoning provisions that are certified by the by the Coastal Commission. 01:44:42
That allows for the requested variance here. Secondly, even if that were permissible under the implementation program or plan, the 01:44:50
standard for granting A variance is rather high and. 01:44:59
And it's the finding that would have to be made would be that the that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions 01:45:11
applying to the land, buildings or use referred to in the application that don't apply generally be that the granting of the 01:45:18
variance is necessary for the preservation adjournment of a substantial property rights of the petitioner. 01:45:26
That's a pretty high standard and I think it it requires almost to the point of you would deprive the owner of all economically 01:45:35
viable use of their property if you don't grant the variance. That's there are court cases in the past that that have said that. 01:45:43
And and I know that that they're they're they're liberally granted, but I'm not sure that we can make the finding that the 01:45:52
granting of the variance is necessary in this case. I guess the question that I would have then for staff or the applicant is 01:45:59
whether there's any design that you can come up with that would that would eliminate the need for that variance and what that 01:46:05
would do to the overall project? That would be my question. 01:46:12
Please. 01:46:21
Because of the odd configuration of the site, which is on a curve, we ended up with a 12 foot set back all the way on central and 01:46:23
around to 1st. So even though part of it should have been a side yard and part of it should have been a rear yard, we ended up 01:46:30
with the rear yard set back. 01:46:37
Everywhere. 01:46:46
So the building is literally at the rear yard set back, which seems like the critical area because there's a site issue as far as 01:46:46
coming up 1st St. 01:46:53
So actually I would say yes, it is necessary in order to put the house in that location with this excessive set back. 01:47:01
So could the project be modified to eliminate that? 01:47:15
It would seriously change the project. 01:47:19
Just looking at the the drawing, there's just a small portion of the front of the residence that extends into that and we don't 01:47:26
have room to push the that wing back because of the setbacks. You couldn't change the size of the wing. 01:47:33
Well, it would be definitely redesigned and then we would have to come closer to Central, which I think is more detrimental. We're 01:47:42
trying to leave Central. 01:47:46
Sight line coming from Monterey Open. 01:47:52
Thank you. Thank you. Does the staff have that? 01:47:57
Any comment on the request for a variance? 01:48:00
No, the the question that was directed is is a design question and staff does not design homes or or or participate in the design 01:48:05
of those projects. If I could just follow up on a couple of various issues. What what is the process when that an applicant comes 01:48:12
in and asks for a variance? Does staff try to discourage it? How, how? How do you deal with that? 01:48:19
Typically when we receive projects that are not conforming with the code. 01:48:28
We notify the applicant that that is the case. In this case, I believe that that application came to us with the variance it was, 01:48:34
it was brought to us as part of the application. If I remember, I wasn't the first planner on that project, but I remember that I 01:48:41
think the variance had been the idea through the whole the whole thing, so it was presented to staff. 01:48:48
This way. 01:48:56
And again as part of your normal process to try to discourage variances, yes, yes we we we our our goal is that our projects that 01:48:57
come to us conform to the code we we don't. 01:49:05
Seasonal process we enjoy going through so much and we we tried to have our applicants conform to our to the city ordinance and 01:49:14
I'm not sure anyone can ask because I didn't let you know. I can answer because I didn't let you know I was going to ask the 01:49:20
question do you have any sense of what percentage of our. 01:49:26
Permits have variances. 01:49:33
I don't. Since I've been here, I've seen. 01:49:36
You maybe? 01:49:41
Is that in the last year? Was it 2-3 or four? Yeah, I think you wouldn't. You would know better than I. 01:49:43
Thank you. Yeah. I think I'll let you keep working on your 10 minutes, but you're probably close to it. But do you have something 01:49:52
to drop? And we first reviewed this with with minor, Joe Sidor and. 01:49:58
Said this was an option that we could look at because this previously would not have been a variance. It was actually adhering to 01:50:05
the design guidelines for the retreat and so the object was even in the coastal land use plan. It says that we should be promoting 01:50:13
the character of the neighborhood and this is exactly what this. 01:50:21
4 foot set back is designed to do. 01:50:30
Oh, yes. 01:50:37
I'm sorry, I have a question for you, Miss Byrne. 01:50:40
So with the variance, you're not asking for it for the totality of the front set back. Where specifically is it needed that I was 01:50:45
having difficulty seeing on that on the plan, it's 26% of the front. 01:50:54
Of the building and the allowable is 50% on the four foot set back. So it's on the side of the, oh it's right there. 01:51:03
Yeah. So it's only it's not the 18 feet, OK. 01:51:13
All right. So it's 18 feet and that's 26% of the total building frontage. 01:51:18
Thank you. 01:51:26
Other comments or questions? 01:51:28
Mr. Davidson, great. Are we allowed to come up with the special conditions around the popping season? Is that an option we do have 01:51:31
or is that just not on the table? 01:51:35
I understand the issue. 01:51:48
But we we have to rely on the city's adopted codes and policies, and right now what the city has on the books is along Ocean View 01:51:51
Blvd. And is it is it a 100 foot or is it just along Ocean View Blvd. 01:51:59
It's OK, so it's a long Ocean view Blvd. So this property would be outside of the area that is noted in the city's policies. I 01:52:07
just didn't know if we could do like a special condition. 01:52:14
That's great. 01:52:21
Other comments or questions? 01:52:24
Richard Frederickson. 01:52:27
Yeah, I'd like to come back to the four foot setbacks. I think we're in a situation here where we deal with it now or we're going 01:52:29
to deal with it later. 01:52:34
That's that's the way the retreat is set up and next project coming along in the retreat, we may well bump into the same issue. 01:52:40
And and the from my perspective it's it's clear that there was an air of omission made by the staff of the Coastal Commission. 01:52:49
I can understand how it happened because it was a frenzied period of time and maybe most of you don't know, but after three years 01:52:58
time we thought and by the Planning Commission and the City Council thought, we had a deal with the 2nd submittal to the Coastal 01:53:04
Commission. 01:53:11
Where we marked it up incorporating their comments, City Council added a few more of its comments. 01:53:18
And we submitted to the staff the Coastal Commission for approval. 01:53:24
And to our shock and surprise, we got a document back. And I'm not talking about a 10 page document. I'm talking about 100 and 01:53:29
6000 and 70 pages. 01:53:34
That's clean. 01:53:40
It basically sent us a new document and said screw you. 01:53:43
This is the way it's going to be, and at that time you can imagine how we thought about that after a lot of work. 01:53:47
I was called to the city manager's office. 01:53:58
And. 01:54:03
At that time, Commissioner Byrne was with me. 01:54:06
And we were asked if we would care to go through the 100, sixty 170 pages and find the changes. 01:54:09
And. 01:54:18
And from my standpoint, I didn't have the time to do it. 01:54:20
Jane Byrne didn't have the time to do it either. We were fully occupied with other activities. 01:54:25
So at that time, the Mayor and Robert Hewitt took up the task of going through the submittal and trying to work out a deal and and 01:54:31
under a very short time frame. 01:54:36
And I think we've discovered one of the first things that's popped up there were an era of omission was made. I think there'll be 01:54:42
more that we won't discover until we get to the point where we find something in the coastal requirements that surprises us. 01:54:50
So what I'd like to see, what I'd hope we could do is proceed with a I'd I'd like to approve the variance, but more than that, I'd 01:54:59
like to go forward with a change. What the necessary steps we need to take to change that language. 01:55:07
In the coastal plants. So it complies with the desire and the looks of the neighborhood. Let's deal with it. 01:55:16
That's my view. 01:55:23
Mr. Kubica. 01:55:28
I'm reading the plans and and maybe I'm not reading them right. What type of variance are we asking for? 01:55:31
Is it 3 feet? 2 feet? 4 feet? 01:55:38
It's 4 feet at the front elevation for 18 feet. I'm sorry, these two were talking. It's 4 feet, 4 feet from the property line. 01:55:44
It's a four foot set back for a distance of 18 feet, which is 26% of the total frontage. 01:55:54
When I'm looking at this proposed residence on, it looks. 01:56:05
I don't know. It's. 01:56:14
Bring up the site plans right here in front. It looks like it's 3 1/2 feet. You had it there, Joe. Don't move it. 01:56:15
I think Site Plan #2. 01:56:27
#2 site plan proposed. 01:56:30
If I look in the measurements, it looks like it's three feet one, three foot, 3 foot, one inch. 01:56:33
OK. So it's 4 foot one inch to allow for the siding? 01:56:41
OK, so if a requirement is made for the sidewalk, the sidewalk would be. 01:56:47
If the building department defines that they need to have a sidewalk, the sidewalk would be 4 feet. The sidewalk would be in the 01:56:56
city right of way. It would not be in the property, OK. 01:57:01
Thank you. 01:57:09
Questions. Comments. Time for further discussion or time for a motion? 01:57:13
I have a quick comment or? 01:57:19
And that relates to the to the issue that Commissioner Davidson asked about. And I I think that as commissioners, as planning 01:57:23
commissioners, we have the opportunity to opine on and take action and impose conditions that relate to potential significant 01:57:33
environmental impacts independent of of whether there's any requirement in the code for for that. So I think that we we could. 01:57:44
Impose that kind of condition and and the other thing that I would. 01:57:56
Ask is Mr. Aikman referenced a national report issued by Noah that addresses the noise impacts on harbor seals, and I would be 01:58:02
very curious to know what that report says. And regardless of what the city code says about just along ocean View, would, would 01:58:12
this project fall within the kind of noise impacts that that NOAA study identifies as potentially harming harbor seals? 01:58:22
I agree to the fact that we will do no demolition during the popping season. That's that's the simplest thing. Thank you. And but 01:58:32
but to answer your question that Noah's study was specifically about work done on Ocean View. 01:58:38
So whether you can take that and move it inland isn't clear to me. Yeah. Oh, so you've seen the study. 01:58:46
Have not seen it, but I know about. 01:58:52
I think it would be interesting to know so so the applicant would agree to the condition that we just described during the 01:58:55
simplest solution. Thank you. Thank you very much. 01:59:01
I just have one comment for for staff if we're moving toward a motion. 01:59:09
On page 127. 01:59:14
Now the CDP finding number two, public views. Nonetheless, Line is talking about public views along the 14th St. 01:59:17
View corridor. I wasn't sure if that doesn't seem right to me, if that could be corrected at the appropriate time. 01:59:28
Yes. 01:59:36
Is someone ready for a motion, please? 01:59:39
Seeing none, I'll I'll make a motion I I. 01:59:46
I recommend that the Planning Commission approve that architectural permit and the variance and the closer development permit. 01:59:51
And subject to the Recommended Findings, Conditions of Approval and Acknowledging the Class 3 Categorical Exemption it will add to 01:59:59
the Conditions of Approval. 02:00:04
No demolition during the popping season. 02:00:10
And. 02:00:14
Mr. Aikman is one of the citizen scientists who's an expert on harbor seals. Whether his definition of the poverty season February 02:00:17
1st. 02:00:21
Through May 31st is is the correct one I I would. 02:00:27
You know, either you can rely on that, or you could have Noah tell you what what dates to use. We do have a definition in the 02:00:32
code. OK, yes, perfect. 02:00:36
Thank you. 02:00:41
Is there a second? 02:00:43
Second, any further discussion? 02:00:45
I would. 02:00:49
I still have a problem with the variance. I respect Mr. Frederickson's historical perspective on the certification of the Land Use 02:00:54
plan and the implementation plan. However, the the the rules as written are the rules as written and I think the remedy. 02:01:02
Is a an amendment to the to the CIP to address these issues I. 02:01:12
You know it It. 02:01:19
I don't think we can make the findings that this is necessary as required under the under the government code provision that 02:01:56
regulates. 02:02:01
Variances and under the city codes, so I I. 02:02:06
I would ask the the moving Commissioner's. 02:02:12
To make a friendly amendment that that the variance be excluded from the approval. 02:02:16
And then, as friendly as it may be, I do not accept it. 02:02:24
Do we have a roll call vote please? 02:02:30
Unless any further discussion. 02:02:33
The vote please. 02:02:35
I just wanted to agree with Commissioner Swigert. I have a problem with the variance as well because that is what's written. I 02:02:38
understand history and I do appreciate the project that you've done. It's it's a very nice project and I appreciate the plans too. 02:02:44
They were beautiful. So thank you. 02:02:51
No further discussion. We have a roll call vote please. 02:03:00
Chair Murphy? Aye. Commissioner Nedzinski, aye. 02:03:04
Commissioner Davidson. 02:03:10
Commissioner Frederickson. 02:03:13
Aye, Commissioner Kubica. 02:03:15
Aye, Commissioner. Vice Chair Sawyer. No. 02:03:19
Commissioner Swagger, No. 02:03:25
With four eyes and three nose, the motion passes. 02:03:28
Thank you. 02:03:35
Oh. 02:03:38
Our last item is item 9A and it's it's the work plan. It's our first work plan of of this session of the. 02:03:42
Planning Commission. In the future it will be on the consent agenda. 02:03:51
I just wanted an opportunity to make a couple of couple of remarks. At first glance, it may seem as if CD and the Planning 02:03:56
Commission isn't isn't doing very much, but I assure you that's that's not right a lot that a lot of the nature of the work CD is, 02:04:02
is short term planning. 02:04:07
And they don't know now what they might be doing in November or or even even June, depends on project applications and things that 02:04:14
City Council may, may ask them to do. So this this represents what we know is coming up this this year. 02:04:22
I believe fairly quickly some of these dates will be filled with housing element and general plan related items. 02:04:32
And I guess that's all I had to say that I was happy to answer answer questions. I guess we have to go to the public too. 02:04:40
And director Vaughn, did you wanted to add? 02:04:51
To this. 02:04:54
The only thing I was going to add is last month I had provided the commissioners with a tentative agenda for this month. But 02:04:59
you'll now be seeing that on the work plan as the chair and the vice chair and I are meeting in advance of the the packet 02:05:07
publication and the work plan will be as up to date as it can be. But usually we're we're pretty good in terms of having the 02:05:14
tentative items one to two months out. 02:05:22
And I did have a question for you. I haven't put housing element updates on the work plan. You do update the City Council every 02:05:31
month and that's an opportunity for the public to understand what's what's going on. But in the meantime, commissioners have 02:05:39
questions about the housing element and the work that's going on that we're not seeing what's. 02:05:47
What's the best way for us to get our our questions about that to you? 02:05:55
Certainly. Well, first of all, there there is a monthly report that's going to council and I believe your council liaison 02:06:02
typically sends you a link to that when it's posted with the council agenda. 02:06:08
Next month we are planning on having the updated sites inventory here in front of the Planning Commission for your review and 02:06:16
recommendation. 02:06:21
And I I think throughout the fall you're going to start seeing more items coming to you for the housing element. 02:06:28
And I think that'll help to fill in some of the the missing picture as it may be that you're not seeing right now. 02:06:36
We're just with every project, you reach that point where you just put your head down and crank out work and that's where we are 02:06:45
in terms of staff and the consultants right now. 02:06:50
Once we get to the point of having the the sites identified, we begin working on addressing the HC VS comment letter and an 02:06:57
updated draft housing element will then be released for public comments. Again, the draft EIR will come out later this year and 02:07:07
you'll have an opportunity to provide comments on that. I am working with our consultant. 02:07:18
It's not a requirement of Sequa to hold a public meeting during the draft EIR comment period, but it's something that I've done in 02:07:28
other jurisdictions and I think it's a great opportunity to to be able to. 02:07:36
Discuss the the draft EIR, the areas of impacts that have been identified, the mitigation measures that are being proposed, the 02:07:45
methodology for. 02:07:52
The analysis that can be a lot for most people to comprehend by reading a you know, multi inch thick document and so I think it is 02:07:59
a a good. 02:08:05
Good gesture to bring that to the public and have a meeting where we can discuss it rather than relying on people to just review 02:08:12
it at home, but I know right now we've just been in a bit of a quiet period from the public side of things. The work is still 02:08:19
continuing, but throughout this year you will be seeing more of it coming your way on the agendas. 02:08:26
Well, I know you know, but I'm going to say it anyway. We do. 02:08:33
We do want to help, yes, And we don't want to be in the position we've been in in the past where. 02:08:38
We were given something at the sort of last minute and we're expected just to rubber stamp what comes to us. And I know you know 02:08:44
that, but I I thought I would say that. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. 02:08:50
And I'm not sure the public cares. And I think we have to go to the public. No one in the room clearly cares. 02:08:56
And we have Lisa Chiani. 02:09:04
Go ahead, please. Thank you. Well, I think having a work plan like this on a regular basis for the public to see is great. I did 02:09:10
wonder about two things and one of them has left me. I hope it will come back, but is. 02:09:19
Question you may or may not answer. 02:09:32
Or the? 02:09:36
Director might be able to answer is uh. 02:09:39
The. 02:09:44
Archaeological protocol has disappeared. 02:09:46
And I know that this Public Works director is supposed to be. 02:09:49
Developing. 02:09:58
A new contract to finish the work that the public works actually stalled and made it run out of time as far as I can tell. But in 02:10:02
any case, that was in September that they actually ran out of money and and so if there's some way the director can. 02:10:12
Moves that along. It would be great. And oh, I am. 02:10:22
Oh, things like the IT could there be like a waiting list. I don't know what exactly you would call it, but the the grant that 02:10:29
that the city has from the Coastal Commission to develop something to do with the sea level rise. 02:10:38
And coastal coastal hazards. 02:10:49
So we see where that is and when we might expect it. That would be great. 02:10:53
And there's also the wildlife protection. 02:11:00
Plans, things. There's two aspects of that. And those last year I think were actually on a work plan. Of course they never they, 02:11:05
they never got where they needed to go, but anyway. 02:11:13
I think it would be great to know what's pending out there. I guess that that's what it would be. OK. Anyway, that would be my 02:11:21
request. Thank you. Thank you. And I can answer I think two of your questions and the coastal hazards is on the plan now for for 02:11:28
August. 02:11:35
August. 02:11:44
Stay tuned for news about the archaeological. 02:11:47
And tribal monitoring. 02:11:52
Any discussion? 02:11:57
Time to go home. 02:12:00
The meeting is adjourned at 8:10. Our next meeting is in June and I don't remember the date. June 13th, same time, same place. 02:12:02
Thank you. 02:12:08
Yes. 02:12:21
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed

* you need to log in to manage your favorites

My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
Good evening, it's 6:00 PM. I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission for Thursday, May 9th. Let it 00:00:09
let the record show that all commissioners are are present. 00:00:14
And can we go to approval of the agenda? Does the staff have any suggested changes to the agenda? 00:00:22
Anyone on the Commission have any suggested changes? 00:00:30
Could we have a motion to approve the agenda, please? I move to approve the agenda and a second. 00:00:34
All in favor, please say Aye aye opposed. And that was Commissioner Nozzinski and the second was Commissioner Sawyer. 00:00:41
Now we're on to Commission and staff announcements and. 00:00:55
We usually start with the Commission and before we start, I will just mention. 00:00:59
That the city is insisting that we move to action minutes and they're trying to keep our minutes as as simple as possible. 00:01:05
And one of the things that is going to happen in the future is for announcements. They're just going to mention that we made an 00:01:14
announcement, Don Murphy made an announcement. That's what will be in the minutes if you believe that your announcement somehow. 00:01:21
Is important enough that it should be in the minutes for forever. Please say that when you make your you make your announcement. 00:01:30
Otherwise it'll you know it'll live on the video for the, I think the three years that the city retains it, but after that that no 00:01:37
one would know what you said. So with that long and perhaps unnecessary introduction, are there any staff announcements? 00:01:44
I'm sorry, City. Sorry, Commissioner Renaissance. 00:01:53
Well, that was easy, seeing none. Are there any staff announcements? Director. Bond? 00:01:58
There are, thank you very much, Chair Murphy and Commissioners. I do have three staff announcements. Most of you probably are 00:02:03
already aware that the ATC hotel project was heard by the Coastal Commission last month. On April 11th the Coastal Commission did 00:02:12
approve approve a reduced size project. 00:02:20
There is still a pending sequel lawsuit, so So staff isn't going to go into the particulars of what the Coastal Commission. 00:02:30
Approved or what any next steps are, but I just wanted you to be aware that it finally, after several years, was heard by the 00:02:38
Coastal Commission and approved. 00:02:43
The second item I. 00:02:49
As you recall, earlier this year, maybe even late last year, the Commission forwarded 3 resolutions of intent. 00:02:51
For some proposed zoning text amendments, and those were heard by the City Council at their May 1st meeting. I was there and and 00:03:01
Chair Murphy was also there for that meeting. 00:03:06
The council was very much appreciative of the work that the commissioners have put into those proposed zoning text amendments and 00:03:14
asked if staff could find a way to at least try to advance some of that work forward as opposed. 00:03:23
To to keeping it on hold. And So what we've decided is. 00:03:33
The definitions and and cleanup amendments that the Commissioners have proposed. 00:03:40
Staff is going to go through those with Rincon, our consultant for the housing element update and that entire package of work. 00:03:48
That will include some zoning text amendments and so we're going to look at rolling in some of the work that that you've done into 00:03:56
that zoning. 00:04:01
A package of zoning code amendments. So as you'll recall, I think some of the work you did on definitions pertaining to things 00:04:06
like height. 00:04:11
Yards, setbacks. And that's exactly the work that we'll be doing to develop what's called objective development standards that we 00:04:16
need to have per state law. So we're going to be able to dovetail some of your work into that package. 00:04:25
And then third. 00:04:35
Chair Murphy had asked me if we could get a brief update to you on SV9. There was a a court case out of Southern California 00:04:38
recently and I know there have been a lot of questions and dialogue around that. 00:04:44
I believe we do have somebody from the city manager's office that that is going to give just a brief update. 00:04:52
But I also wanted to let you know that the city attorney has an agenda item on the on their May 15th agenda which is next week. So 00:05:01
there will be a staff report and and possibly a presentation at council as well. So if if you're OK chair, we do have the. 00:05:11
Uh, gentleman from the City Attorney's office that is available to give a brief update on SV9. Yes, I'd appreciate that. OK. 00:05:23
Good evening. Can you hear me? 00:05:31
Great. My name is Ephraim Margolin, but everyone calls me EPI. I'm pitching sitting in tonight for Erica Vega, so I'll just give 00:05:36
you a quick update on the the case as mentioned. So as you're aware SB-9 which became effective in 2022 added sections to the 00:05:44
government code that required cities to ministerially approve lot splits and duplexes in single family residential zones, 00:05:51
essentially with the addition of ADUS allowing up to 4 dwelling units on a property. 00:05:59
So SB-9 was recently challenged by 5 charter cities in Southern California. These were Torrance, Delmar, Carson, Redondo Beach, 00:06:07
and Whittier. The city has alleged that the application of SB92 charter cities violated the constitution. A trial court issued a 00:06:14
decision siding with the charter cities. I think it's crucial here to point out that the decision only applies to those five 00:06:21
charter cities. I. 00:06:28
The court ruled that SB-9 violated the Constitution because it wasn't reasonably related to its stated purpose of ensuring 00:06:37
affordable housing. 00:06:41
So what's, you know, the court kind of just said that the the law was about increasing the supply of housing, which the state 00:06:47
legislature has used to. 00:06:52
To. 00:06:59
Thank you. Are there any questions from Commissioners? 00:07:43
And and just just to round that out, I wanted to let you all know that the city has not received any lot split applications under 00:07:48
SB-9. So we've not received any or processed any. Thank you. And so that concludes the staff announcements. Thank you. 00:07:57
I see, Councilman. 00:08:08
Coletti, do you have announcements for us tonight? 00:08:10
Thank you, Chair. I I just a few just to kind of reinforce what a Director Bond mentioned as regards to Council's discussion on 00:08:13
the three resolutions that were forwarded to us. I again want to thank you and acknowledge the interesting. 00:08:22
Suggestions and we did have a, we did have a very good debate on it and I think we we did, we did our due diligence in pursuing 00:08:32
the recommendations that you forwarded to us and as the Director mentioned, we will be following up. 00:08:38
With some of the recommendations at a later date. Thank you and have a good meeting. 00:08:45
Thank you. 00:08:51
Now it's time for general public comment and comments must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city and to the 00:08:54
Planning Commission and they should not be on items that are on on our agenda tonight. 00:09:01
And we'll limit the comments to 3 minutes and the Commission will not take any action tonight on any, any comment. Is there anyone 00:09:08
in the room who wishes to make a public comment? 00:09:13
Seeing none is, are there any zoomers wishing to make a public comment? 00:09:21
It's like we do not have any hands raised. 00:09:34
Well, that's a that's a first. I'm disappointed. 00:09:37
It's moving to written general, public comment. These are comments that we received in writing since the last meeting that did not 00:09:42
speak to an agenda item. Were there any of those? I. 00:09:48
Director Vaughn or planner Campbell. 00:09:56
No, Chair Murphy. I don't believe we have any written public comment that didn't pertain to items on the agenda. The only one I 00:10:02
remember, and it was a copy and I cannot remember if it came just to me, to the entire Commission. It was some Tony Ciani and was 00:10:09
a copy of A. 00:10:15
I guess a complaint he made to the code compliance officer having to do with parklets and the coastal zone. 00:10:22
And again I. 00:10:30
I'm not, if I may, that that being a code compliance case, that's not it wasn't. 00:10:32
Directed toward It wasn't meant to be public comment, It was just you guys were you were copied on it, but Uber received thank 00:10:39
you. Yes, there was one other communication that I recall. 00:10:45
Oh, that's that's correct. Thank you. 00:10:52
It was just too, too small, relatively small corrections. Again, I think those those were to the Council. 00:11:05
I believe that correct with the CC to the Planning Commission. 00:11:12
They were written directly to. 00:11:17
Thank you. 00:11:20
Now it's time for our consent agenda, These items, Commissioner Duzynski. 00:11:22
I, I think it's OK. Why don't we go ahead with the the public comment. 00:11:32
We have Inga Lorenzen, Dahmer. 00:11:38
Thank you. I want to remind all of you to turn on your microphones and speak into them please. Thank you very much. 00:11:42
Thank you. 00:11:52
That seems to be. I think that's it. We'll move now to the consent agenda. These are routine and non controversial matters that we 00:12:01
usually vote on without any discussion. 00:12:06
Does the staff wish to remove an item from the consent agenda? 00:12:12
No, Sir. 00:12:17
We do have two items, minutes from January 11 and minutes from February 15, anyone on the Commission wishing to remove an item. 00:12:18
Any member of the public wishing to remove an item. 00:12:27
We have no one raising their hands. Well see none. Could we have a motion to approve the consent agenda, please? 00:12:38
Commissioner Sawyer, I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda. 00:12:44
2nd. 00:12:49
Commissioner Swagger. 00:12:50
Yeah, all in favor. Aye, All opposed. It's seven O with Commissioner Sawyer and Commissioner Swagger. 00:12:52
Now it's time for a public hearing. Our first hearing is an architectural permit and the coastal development permit for property 00:13:05
at 107 14th St. 00:13:09
We'll follow this process for this this hearing and all the hearings tonight we'll hear from the staff. 00:13:15
Then we'll hear from the applicant. Then we'll and. 00:13:20
The then public comment and then questions and discussion by the Commission. 00:13:25
And I think, Mr. Sidor, this is your project. 00:13:32
Yes, chair. 00:13:37
Hey, good evening, Sharon Murphy and Commission members. 00:14:21
The project is located at 107 14th St. and involves the redevelopment of a property listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. 00:14:25
Project site is an interior lot located near the intersection of 14th St. and Ocean View Blvd. In an area consisting of moving to 00:14:36
large sized one and two-story residences in the Pacific Grove Retreat residential neighborhood and our three PGR zoning district. 00:14:45
The 18120 square foot parcel is currently developed with an 11108 square foot, one story single family residence. 00:14:54
Those development would include demolition of a rare addition comprising 770 square feet of the existing residents and 00:15:06
construction of a 1078 square foot two-story addition resulting in a 14116 square foot, two-story single family residence. As 00:15:13
shown at the top. The existing structure is non conforming with regard to building coverage, site coverage and side and rear 00:15:20
setbacks. 00:15:28
As proposed in the lower view, the project will correct these non conforming features and bring the property into compliance with 00:15:35
all applicable development regulations. 00:15:40
And these elevations show the existing and proposed view from 14th St. 00:15:47
And the phase two historic assessment prepared for the property concluded the proposed development would be consistent with the 00:15:56
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings and a phase one archaeological assessment prepared 00:16:04
for the project by qualified archaeologists recommended pre construction sensitivity training and archaeological monitoring during 00:16:12
ground disturbing activities. On March 27th the HRC Historic Resources Committee reviewed the project. 00:16:19
And recommended the Planning Commission approved the project with the addition of conditions of approval to require tribal 00:16:27
monitoring and wood railing on the rear deck, which the owner agreed to at the HRC hearing. So condition numbers 8910 and 11 have 00:16:36
been added to address training and monitoring as well as inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, and condition #12 has been 00:16:44
added to require wood railing as proposed. The project is categorically exempt per sequel guidelines sections. 00:16:53
15301 existing facilities and 15331 historical resource restoration and rehabilitation. 00:17:02
Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the architectural permit and coastal development permit subject to the 00:17:11
findings, conditions of approval and class one and class 31 categorical exemptions. And this concludes staff presentation and I'm 00:17:18
available for questions and the applicant is also available for questions. And before we have the applicant, any commissioners 00:17:24
have ex parte communication that should be disclosed. 00:17:31
Seeing none, I'll invite the applicant. 00:17:39
Commissioner Sawyer, I had a conversation with Mr. Davis and he's a retired contractor and I just was asking for further 00:17:41
clarification in regards to lateral walls. Thank you. 00:17:49
Any other ex parte communication on this project, I'd invite the applicant to speak to us. 00:17:59
Welcome. 00:18:12
And you have 10 minutes. 00:18:13
Tucker, my wife and I are proposing this project as our downsizing retirement home. We have lived here for the past 18 years, have 00:18:21
4 kids that we've raised in PG, two of which are now off to college and we're down to two. So we're 5050% home and my mom lives on 00:18:29
19th, not far from there. So it's kind of a perfect spot. 00:18:38
That we worked with our neighbors to sort of accommodate any issues that they had up front that is reflected in the design we 00:18:47
talked about with their historical resource committee's. 00:18:53
Yeah, so. 00:19:02
We love the house from its character and historical perspective. That's why we you know we I'm not changing anything in the front, 00:19:04
but with four kids that potentially will come back to visit, adding the 300 and some square feet is is pretty big for our family 00:19:11
sort of usage over the coming years. 00:19:17
Yeah, that's all I have, unless you have any questions. 00:19:26
We we may have questions later, but not right now. Thank you very much. Thank you. 00:19:29
And I remember the public wishing to speak on this project. 00:19:37
Seeing no one in the room, is there anyone? 00:19:42
Mr. Campbell on Zoom, who wishes to talk to us about this project. 00:19:47
I do not see any hands raised. 00:19:52
Wait a few seconds. 00:19:55
Well, I don't see anyone either. So the public hearing part will be over. 00:20:03
Time for questions for staff or the applicant. 00:20:08
Mr. Schwagen, thank you. 00:20:15
I just had a couple of questions. 00:20:18
Again. 00:20:20
I'm coming back to the same issues that I had with a project a few weeks ago, the historic project and the secretary. 00:20:22
I'm I have a similar question to to one that I had on a project a few weeks ago. And again, I am the new kid on the block and so 00:20:31
I'm I'm. 00:20:36
Being educated as well. But I've I've spent some time with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic 00:20:41
properties and there's specifically the guidelines for rehabilitation and. 00:20:47
The Secretary of Interior standards are pretty clear that that certain things that are not recommended under the Secretary 00:20:56
standards are considered inconsistent and things that are recommended are considered consistent. And I guess the issue here swing 00:21:05
pivots on the question of whether the proposed addition is subordinate to the historic structure. 00:21:15
And the standards are pretty clear that construction. 00:21:25
The construction of a new addition that is as large or larger than the historic building. 00:21:34
Is not recommended. And here we have a case where the historic structure by my count is 338 square feet. That is the original the 00:21:42
total existing square footage of 1108 minus the 770 that will be. 00:21:49
Demolished leaves the existing historic structure of 338 square feet and the addition itself would be 1078 square feet so and it 00:21:58
would tower above the historic structure so. 00:22:06
You know, you have an addition that's three times as large as a historic structure towers above it. How? How could that be 00:22:17
considered subordinate and therefore consistent with the Secretary of Standards? Just throwing the question out there, because 00:22:22
that's my my only concern about this project. 00:22:27
Is that for staff or for the applicant? Well, I'd like to hear from staff. 00:22:34
And the applicant if he has anything to augment it with. 00:22:42
Thank you. 00:22:46
Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Swagger, So staff as part of the application package for this project received a phase two historic 00:22:47
assessment for the property and the historian for the project did conclude that the project as proposed and designed would be 00:22:56
consistent with the standards for rehabilitation and. 00:23:05
Staff relied upon the. 00:23:19
Recommendation and the conclusion of that report from the historian, as well as the recommendation from the Historic Resources 00:23:24
Committee. 00:23:28
Just a follow up. Thank you. 00:23:36
I guess my question is the the. 00:23:39
The historians report doesn't really address that issue and it it just conclusory makes the statement that it's consistent and I 00:23:44
think in the future we should we should ask a little more of the historian in their reports that they provide some discussion of 00:23:52
the specific issues that are in the. 00:24:00
In the Secretary of Interior standards, especially when this is, I think, a pretty pivotal issue with respect to this project. 00:24:09
So that's just a suggestion for the future. 00:24:19
Thank you. 00:24:22
Mr. Sawyer. 00:24:24
My concern has to do with the. 00:24:27
Definition of demolition. 00:24:31
And when you go into. 00:24:34
The. 00:24:38
Definitions that are part of the historic resources part of our code and 2376.02 partial demolition means that if there are 00:24:40
changes that are more than 50% of the total lateral length of the exterior walls. 00:24:49
And by Mr. Moores calculations, we're going to have 61% of the lateral walls demolished. 00:24:59
I really have a problem with that. I look at this basically as new construction and demolition and very little to do with the 00:25:10
historic resource. There's not much left of it. When you're you're done. There's only, as Mr. Swigert pointed out, there's only 00:25:20
338 square feet left of the really of the historic property. So my question is, is this a demolition? 00:25:30
Or what is it? Because it is definitely according to the definition, it's definitely more than what's acceptable. 00:25:40
Then I also am wondering why we were given these plans when 23 point 90.06 asked for clear depiction of all existing conditions, 00:25:50
which it did show, but also clear depiction of all proposed development. And on it we see nothing in regards to exterior lighting 00:25:59
or landscaping. We have loose pavers, dirt and loose brick referred to. 00:26:09
And it doesn't fit that criteria. This is supposed to be. 00:26:19
This is for council development permit and it's kind of a step up and I didn't see any of that. And what do they plan to do with 00:26:24
the leaning fence in the back? I mean, I really feel that we have not been given enough information. I also would have loved to 00:26:31
have seen some details about what windows they were going to be using. What kind of outdoor pavers or sidewalk are they going to 00:26:38
be using? Are they pervious or impervious? 00:26:45
And it would have been nice to see more board and bat in detail for the new versus the old. Yes, I can get a ruler and I can 00:26:53
measure, but usually when we're giving these, we have that detail given to us. And so I have to say I was pretty disappointed with 00:26:59
these plans. 00:27:05
I do have further concerns, but I'll address those a little bit later. Thank you. 00:27:12
Maybe Mr. Cedar if he would tackle the demolition issue. 00:27:18
Yes, Chair Murphy and Commissioner Sawyer or Vice Chair Sawyer, the. 00:27:23
Rear edition which is considered non historic will be fully demolished. The front original residence. 00:27:31
Off of 14th St. will be retained and that is the historic portion of the structure. 00:27:43
Per the phase two historic assessment. 00:27:53
In a case like that, with so much of the existing building being demolished. 00:27:57
Do we need a demolition permit? 00:28:03
Well, the demolition permit would come through the building permit phase that's that's not that would not come through us. No. OK. 00:28:10
Thank you. 00:28:14
And did the applicant wish to respond to some of the questions about the plants? 00:28:20
Thank you, yes, Commissioner Swagger. 00:28:26
Just one additional question for the applicant and that is I'm curious whether anything is going to be done to reinforce, 00:28:30
stabilize the historic structure itself. Will there be reinforcement in the walls? Will there be any rebuilding of the historical 00:28:36
structure S the front part? 00:28:42
Thank you. Sure. Let me let me sort of frame the three different points. So I think the one I can sort of. 00:28:49
Be consistent with the Planning Commission on and explaining Mr. CV's perspective on Mr. CVS, the historian. As far as I know, 00:28:59
he's the only historian here. We were given his name and no other names. He was great, his view and it's pretty obvious when you 00:29:07
look at the inside of the place that the back part was added on probably sometime in the 60s or 70s and then even a third sort of 00:29:15
addition, probably in the 80s or 90s, given the dating of the electrical and that kind of stuff. 00:29:22
So. 00:29:32
Part of our plans were to have access to both sides in the back of the house as a family, we wanted some kind of back patio or 00:29:34
yard. So we can't even to your point, we couldn't really do anything without going to the neighbor on the back fence because you 00:29:41
can't it's right on the the house. So that was sort of part of the demo of the the structure was sort of to narrow it so that 00:29:49
there's room between US and especially our. 00:29:56
Let me get this direction wrong. Our South side neighbor, so Mr. Mrs. Rose gets our runoff into their house because the roof goes 00:30:04
right to the the lot line and that was one of their concerns. If we could fix that, that would be great for them. 00:30:12
The terms of the landscaping, I can hold on one second. 00:30:23
Were you anxious to say something, Mr. Cedar? 00:30:36
I'll wait until the applicant or owner is finished. Thank you Chair. I have a packet here but only have two because my color 00:30:41
printer wasn't up to snuff. Can I hand these to you and so to them you give them to staff? 00:30:48
Those are pictures of the three houses that we've lived in and renovated here in PG over the last 18 years and kind of gives you a 00:31:01
sense of the landscaping, what we plan typical papers in our mind within, you know, crazy cowstone paper. And in terms of 00:31:09
landscaping, right now there's flowers in front of the the porch. 00:31:17
That would be the really only soft scaping available to the house just because the yards is not very big. So we keep some soft 00:31:27
scape there with consistent with the flowers that are kind of there already. But part of our retirement plan is to downsize on our 00:31:35
landscaping. Right now we have about an acre that we take care of, I take care of. So that was another sort of consideration for 00:31:43
us choosing this property initially. And then the third question, remind me. 00:31:50
Mr. Swagger. 00:31:58
Structure. Umm. 00:31:59
Right, Yeah. 00:32:03
Yeah. So concurrently, there's no foundation under the front part of the house. So no perimeter foundation. It's the wood is 00:32:05
sitting on dirt. So we actually, a structural engineer is coming on Friday. And my understanding is we couldn't go to structural 00:32:11
plans until we had like historical review sort of approval. That took a couple weeks to get the structure on the engineer out to 00:32:17
take a look at that and see what we're going to have to do because right now the front structure is about 7 inches lower in the 00:32:23
back. 00:32:29
Over like a 15 foot span than the front. So my expectation is we're gonna have to level that floor and put in you know probably a 00:32:36
perimeter foundation under under it. 00:32:42
Did you have further any further questions while the applicant is here? 00:32:52
One follow up on that point. 00:32:59
If you're leveling something that has a 15, would you say a 15 inch drop front to rear or a 7/7 inch drop across 15 feet front to 00:33:01
rear? That's right. 00:33:05
What impact will that have on the walls of the building, the roof of the building? Is that going to weaken the structure at all or 00:33:12
the hope is it's going to strengthen it? 00:33:16
The currently the structure has been there for 100 and. 00:33:22
50 years. So we don't expect obviously the damage in any way. You know again the curb appeal of the structure is largely reason 00:33:28
why we bought the place for that porch and this sort of curve appeal of the cottage style house so. 00:33:35
To answer your question, you know the goal is to make it better so that last another 150 years. That's the goal. 00:33:44
Thank you very much. Sure. 00:33:53
Mr. Cedar. 00:33:55
Director Vaughn. 00:33:58
Yes, Chair Murphy, So. 00:34:00
The implementation plan, a landscape plan is not required in all circumstances and in this case staff determined that a landscape 00:34:04
plan would not be required. A landscape plan is required. 00:34:12
Implementation Plan code section under Scenic Resources when. 00:34:23
The property site or the site is in a designated Scenic view area. 00:34:29
And this property is not in a designated scenic view area. 00:34:35
Thank you, Commissioner Sawyer. 00:34:42
That's my feeling. Thank you. 00:35:19
Commissioner Cedar, could you put up on the screen the plans that a 4.1 the the elevations? 00:35:24
And we all, you know, we all have them in our packet. 00:35:46
And Mr. Chair, if I may, while he's getting the plan sets up on the screen, I wanted to touch on a few things. First of all, the 00:35:50
Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment for historic homes. We kind of discussed this, I think, at the March meeting. 00:35:57
But for those of us that have worked in historic preservation, it's a bit of an inside joke that they're called standards, but 00:36:03
they're really guidelines. 00:36:10
And when you contact the State Historic Preservation Officer. 00:36:18
And and run a scenario by them of whether or not something may be or may not be consistent with the Secretary of Interior 00:36:24
standards. They almost always will defer back to the city to to know its neighborhoods and and. 00:36:32
To make the determination. 00:36:41
I myself have worked in historic preservation for about 16 years. I've managed historic preservation programs in four cities. 00:36:45
We do rely heavily on our qualified historians that provide the Phase 2 reports to determine whether or not a proposed project is 00:36:53
consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. 00:36:59
I think that the key thing to keep in mind while there are sets of recommendations that you know one treatment or certain work is 00:37:07
not recommended and different types of work are. Every historic building is unique in its own right and you have to develop a plan 00:37:16
for restoration or rehabilitation based on that individual building. So while something may or may not. 00:37:25
Meet all of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. 00:37:35
We look at it overall. 00:37:41
In terms of will the treatment that's being proposed help to keep the property in use because that keeps properties maintained and 00:37:45
from from being degraded or deteriorated from that being in use? And then also overall, will it help to ensure the ongoing 00:37:53
longevity of the historic resource. So it it it's. 00:38:02
It would be nice if there were some hard and fast rules that we could point to and say yes this and no that, but there is some 00:38:11
flexibility that comes into play with rehabilitation of historic structures. 00:38:17
The other thing I wanted to touch on in terms of things like structural engineering. 00:38:24
Site engineering that will all come into play when an applicant applies for building permits. 00:38:31
We certainly want to or do work with applicants to ensure when they're working on historic homes that they are stabilized during 00:38:36
during construction. 00:38:42
So I I just want to make sure that everybody understands that those things happen in the building permit stage and may not come 00:38:49
forward as part of a planning entitlement. 00:38:55
Thank you, Mr. Cedar, that. 00:39:02
I was hoping for. 00:39:05
A 4.1. 00:39:06
Which is just called elevations. 00:39:11
Yeah, that's it. 00:39:15
And. 00:39:17
I. 00:39:21
You know, I have little expertise in historic umm. 00:39:23
Historic planning, but my understanding is that there are standards and there are guidelines. 00:39:27
And certainly. 00:39:33
You know, everything you said, Director Vaughn, you know, applies to the guidelines. And I guess my impression was that the 00:39:35
standards. 00:39:38
We're not as loosey goosey as the guidelines and the standards should be should be followed and and I guess when I look at these 00:39:44
this plants that the addition. 00:39:49
The new construction clearly dominates the historic it towers over it it. It becomes the. 00:39:56
It becomes really what you see when you look at the property and and I guess my question is, is is that OK? And and I'm asking it 00:40:05
as a question but I I I didn't think it was. 00:40:10
Certainly the answer is it can be, there's, there's flexibility in there. And so in terms of something like this there there's 00:40:18
differentiation that can be made. 00:40:24
Even though the proposed addition is 2 stories and the historic building is one story, Pacific Grove has approved a lot of 00:40:32
projects just like this where a two-story component pushed to the back so that you still at the sidewalk level. When you're 00:40:39
walking by, you see the one story original facade of the home. 00:40:47
But there are other things that can come into play in terms of changes in the siding, the whether it's horizontal or vertical 00:40:56
siding, you can change the width so that it's differentiated from the original. 00:41:03
You can also. 00:41:13
So there there are different things that you can do to ensure that. 00:41:19
To ensure that the the new addition is differentiated and clearly identifiable from the historic property. 00:41:26
You know it, it's it. It really is a judgment call. It really is a judgment call when when we look at some of our historic 00:41:37
properties here in the city, they are very small. 00:41:42
And whether or not they can be utilized for modern day living. 00:41:48
Again, it gets back to it's better to keep them in use and do some modifications to allow families to continue to live in them for 00:41:55
the next 50 or 100 years as opposed to having them sit vacant. But Long story short, there is flexibility. It is a bit of a 00:42:03
judgment call and the City of Pacific Grove I've seen. 00:42:10
Dozens and dozens of these types of additions where it's a two-story addition on the back of a one story historic home that the 00:42:18
HRC has recommended approval on and that the historians have said. 00:42:24
Are consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. Again, thank you. 00:42:32
Other questions or comments from. 00:42:38
Commissioners Vice Chair Sawyer. 00:42:42
Respectfully, I disagree with some of what you said. It is OK to question local historians, especially since we only had one. 00:42:45
That he gave his opinion, which is fine. My concern is on a 4.1 is when you look at the proposed W elevation, it's very difficult 00:42:56
to sort of suss out which is new and which is old. That new looks pretty much like the old. With the exception of the Borden 00:43:06
Batten. The roof structure is pretty much the same and I would like to see more. 00:43:16
Of a change so that it's not so. 00:43:26
It's mimicking it, so that's a lot. And then. 00:43:30
I just have a problem with the fact that it overpowers the the new and I have seen very well done second story additions to little 00:43:37
historic houses that are. 00:43:43
Complementary and I just don't feel that this one is. Thank you. 00:43:51
Other other questions or comments from Commissioners Commissioner Frederickson. 00:43:57
I tend to disagree with some of the comments I've heard. I'm prepared to move ahead with this project. 00:44:03
Other other comments, Commissioner Kubica? 00:44:10
I read the proposal and maybe I missed something, but when I went out and did a site visit, it seemed like the historical 00:44:15
structure needs quite a bit of work. I'm assuming that work is going to be done on it. 00:44:21
I mean, it seems like there's a lot of rotten wood on the front and on the sides and underneath the eaves, so I'm assuming that's 00:44:28
going to be rehabilitated and. 00:44:33
Is that a question? That's a question, Yes, please. Please. 00:44:39
Answer your questions. Yes, the wood rod is not nearly as bad as it would seem. So that's a good thing. The floors are in great 00:44:49
condition according to our. 00:44:55
Shoemaker floors who came home and respected those a couple weeks ago. So we're going to preserve all of that. I'd say the, the 00:45:04
biggest issue is the windows. So the windows are going to have to be carefully removed and rehabilitated individually so that 00:45:10
they're not in terrible condition. But that's probably the biggest job outside of the the structural perimeter which again was 00:45:16
sort of a. 00:45:22
You know I'm a homeowner, I don't do this for a living but I was told that was sort of the sequential. Once we get through here 00:45:29
then we go to structural and building. But to answer your question the the words in better condition than it would appear which is 00:45:36
a good thing especially the siding and yeah the the the windows is really the the biggest issue. 00:45:42
And one of the comment to. 00:45:50
Mrs. Sawyer, Vice Chairman Sawyer. When I talked to Mr. CD about the historical review and I just had a lot of questions about 00:45:53
what that kind of everything you're asking here and his view on the the elevation, we're actually under height by about two feet 00:46:00
or something like that. We kept the roof as low as we possibly could. 00:46:07
And from the sidewalk you don't see sort of the huge unless you're in between. 00:46:16
The two houses, right. And that's really the only time that you see and that was sort of in his opinion, a big part of his view of 00:46:23
the structure. We also, we made this roof line similar so that our neighbors could preserve their views of the Bay. That was a 00:46:29
consideration we had for them. We're probably going t