No Bookmarks Exist.
Progress. 00:00:06
6:00 PM I am Stephen Lily and I will call to order this December 14th, 2023 regular meeting of the Pacific Grove Planning 00:00:08
Commission. 00:00:13
Who on the staff is calling the roll this evening? Is that Be you, Mr. Campbell. That is correct. 00:00:19
Please call the roll in. 00:00:24
To really? 00:00:26
Vice Chair Murphy Present. 00:00:29
Commissioner. 00:00:31
Commissioner Sawyer present. 00:00:34
Commissioner Davidson had sent in. He's ill and not able to make it. 00:00:36
Commissioner. 00:00:42
And Commissioner Nisinski? 00:00:44
We have 6 present, one absence. We have a quorum. 00:00:48
Thank you. So we have a quorum and on my left are. 00:00:53
Commissioners Frederickson and Kubica. 00:00:57
As well as Vice Chair Murphy and. 00:01:00
Our Commissioner Sawyer and. 00:01:02
And I'm Steve. 00:01:05
As we probably all know, this meeting is being conducted under revised rules mandated by Assembly Bill 2449. This is a hybrid 00:01:08
format with our median and chambers and virtually with zoom participation. 00:01:14
The webinar ID and toll free telephone numbers are on the agenda face sheet and the host opens the agenda for public comment. 00:01:21
Those wishing to speak via Zoom should press Star 9 to raise your hand and then star 6. 00:01:29
To mute yourself. 00:01:34
Before we continue, let me remind you, including myself, that we must turn on our microphones to speak directly into them so that 00:01:36
our equipment can properly record us. 00:01:41
We now come to approval of the. 00:01:47
Does anybody have any changes to the agenda as? 00:01:50
Sent to us on Friday. 00:01:54
Vice chair. 00:01:57
I would like to propose moving three items from the agenda. 00:01:59
Onto our consent agenda. 00:02:03
One would be item 6A, the work plan that is in. 00:02:05
I think it was listed as an addend. 00:02:10
The other items are 8 D which is a resolution of. 00:02:12
On hotel par. 00:02:17
In AE, which has a resolution of intention on title 23 cleanup. 00:02:19
This those two items. 00:02:26
Important, but they're just for formalities. 00:02:30
We've already discussed hotel parking in the Title 23 cleanup. 00:02:33
The public has had a chance to weigh. 00:02:37
If we proceed with those items, we in the public will have another chance to weigh in. 00:02:40
So I think it makes 3. 00:02:45
Progress. 00:02:48
So it is 631. I am Steve Lilly. I believe we are back online now. Am I not correct? 00:02:52
Mr. Campbell. 00:02:58
Yes, I believe we are. The recording is on and I apologize to the audience and. 00:03:01
Everybody on Zoom who has been patiently waiting for, I apologize for the delay, but I think we're back online. 00:03:08
So let me briefly recap where we. 00:03:16
We were. 00:03:20
The under number two approval of the agenda and we approved an amendment to add. 00:03:23
To the consent agenda, the. 00:03:30
The hotel parking and the. 00:03:33
Chapter 23 Amendments There was a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson that. 00:03:36
Second in. 00:03:41
That had to do. 00:03:43
Continuing item 8. 00:03:45
Until to the historic resources. 00:03:48
So that's where we are. 00:03:51
And. 00:03:54
I would like to ask and that I seconded that. 00:03:56
Is there any discussion on the Council for that? And I think, Commissioner Frederickson, you made the motion, so I'll ask you to 00:04:01
start. 00:04:05
Thinking about this. 00:04:11
Realize that we have the. 00:04:15
Make that. 00:04:18
OK. 00:04:29
The the background from my point of view is that there have over the years been. 00:04:33
Few more contentious issues than windows in historic buildings. 00:04:39
And and and those of you who have been around a while know what I'm talking about. And and so. 00:04:45
That's why I put it up for discussion and already this item had a few comments from various citizens about the windows. 00:04:53
Well, we're perfectly capable of working through that ourselves as a Planning Commission. 00:05:03
The HRC has the expertise in general to look at this type of situation. 00:05:09
So I put it up for discussion whether we'd be better off continuing it to the HRC until the HRC reviews the project. 00:05:16
Or carrying forward ourselves. So that's my thinking. 00:05:24
All right. Are there any other comments from other commissioners? 00:05:28
Vice Chair Murphy. Well, I agree with Commissioner Frederickson that you know, if we want to, we can go ahead. 00:05:33
And I you know, I I would prefer that we go ahead rather than. 00:05:40
Delay for at least a month. 00:05:46
All right. Are there any other comments from the? 00:05:48
Mr. Campbell, was this your staff report on this? 00:05:53
Yes, Sir. Do you have any comments? 00:05:57
I think you mentioned something and so I asked you to defer. Thank you. 00:06:00
It really is in the case especially with this where where we have made it a not made it the the zoning says that it is a counter 00:06:06
review determination for these type of window replacements on historic. 00:06:13
Resources. The only way that staff is really ever. 00:06:20
Given any authority to do this is when it is. 00:06:26
Objective And so we have the objective standards of these, of these, of these windows and this type of replacement. 00:06:30
Especially when we have our very qualified. 00:06:37
Building official saying that they are too deteriorated. 00:06:40
The the second part of this is. 00:06:46
It's eligible for a CRD. 00:06:49
That same code section says that when it's tied in with a use permit. 00:06:52
The review. 00:06:57
Is only the Planning Commission. 00:06:58
So it is your. 00:07:00
Authority to to do this and I'm not exactly sure what the beyond what you have in front of you and these these standards what you 00:07:03
would be. 00:07:07
Making a determination on that's already allowed to be determined. 00:07:11
At the staff level. 00:07:15
Is there anything you would add to that? 00:07:20
No. OK then. 00:07:22
If there's no other comments. 00:07:26
Then I'll call the. 00:07:30
And. 00:07:32
Yeah. Well, would you please call the, I'm not going to address the the audience. No, I'm not going to discuss this with the 00:07:34
audience. This is in the province of the Planning Commission about adopting. 00:07:39
Our agenda. So Mr. Campbell, would you please call? 00:07:45
Commissioner Frederickson. 00:07:56
I vote to continue. 00:08:00
So he would. 00:08:03
Chair Murphy. 00:08:05
I'm sorry, Chair. 00:08:07
Yes, vice chair. 00:08:09
No, Commissioner Sawyer. 00:08:13
No, Commissioner. 00:08:16
No, Commissioner N. 00:08:22
No, with two eyes and four nose. 00:08:25
Motion fails. 00:08:32
All right. So then that amendment fails. So now we have. 00:08:34
Approval of the amendments regarding the work plan, the part hotel parking and the. 00:08:39
Chapter 23 amendments. And so those now would go into a final motion to approve the agenda. 00:08:46
It would be as amended and so do I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended. 00:08:53
So moved by Commissioner Fredrickson and seconded by Vice Chair Murphy. So is there any further discussion? 00:09:00
If not, then, Mr. Campbell, would you call the roll for the adoption of the amended agenda? 00:09:09
And all those in favor should say aye. All those opposed should say. 00:09:15
Commissioner Fred. 00:09:19
All right, Vice Chair Murphy. 00:09:20
Commissioner. 00:09:26
Aye, Commissioner Kubica. 00:09:28
Aye, Commissioner Nisinski. 00:09:30
Sure, Lily. 00:09:35
Six eyes, 0 nays and one absent. The motion passes. 00:09:36
Thank you. So the motion passes to approve tonight's. 00:09:41
Item number 2 And so now we come to. 00:09:45
Commission and staff announcements. 00:09:49
On city related items. 00:09:52
So does any member of the Commission have an? 00:09:55
Vice chair, Commissioner. 00:10:01
I'd like to give a brief report on the Great tide pool they now have up the. 00:10:04
Toll and cable, and I want to say thank you very much to. 00:10:11
Those that put those up. 00:10:18
My second announcement is I I attended a California 2024 Housing Laws Part 2 affordable housing yesterday and it was really 00:10:20
interesting. Lots of things coming. 00:10:28
Thank you. 00:10:36
Vice Chair Murphy. 00:10:38
It's the period during which residents can apply to serve on boards and commissions. 00:10:39
It's something you can do to help help make your your city. 00:10:46
If you are wanting to do that. 00:10:50
The application, a simple application, is available on the City Clerks page. 00:10:53
On the city website. I believe the deadline to apply this year is December 21st. 00:10:59
If you need more information, I believe you can call the city clerk and her number is listed on on the city website. 00:11:05
Or you could call. 00:11:12
Or contact the mayor, Mayor Peach? 00:11:16
Thank you. 00:11:20
There's no other Commission announcements. First, I want to recognize Mr. Robert Perrault, who was interim city manager. He's 00:11:23
sitting in the audience. 00:11:27
So welcome, Mr. Perrault, to our proceedings. 00:11:32
I also want to recognize Lou Bauman. 00:11:35
Community Development Director who was sitting next to Mr. 00:11:38
Peralta and I. 00:11:42
You can correct me if I'm wrong. 00:11:44
You will be here only until the end of the month. 00:11:46
That being the case, I want to thank you for your leadership over the past few weeks. You have provided structure, process and 00:11:50
accountability. 00:11:54
To our Community Development department and I hope you will. 00:11:59
I hope. 00:12:03
People will join me in wishing you the best in your future endeavors. 00:12:05
At our last meeting on November 9th, I announced a new city policy that there would be no public comment on Zoom. 00:12:12
Committee meetings like this. 00:12:18
Apparently there wasn't for a while this morning of this afternoon or this evening either. However, at a recent City Council 00:12:21
meeting, that policy was reversed. Now there is public comment on Zoom. 00:12:25
Our City attorney has was also instructed to research and. 00:12:30
A new policy regarding this issue at a future Council meeting. 00:12:35
In our last meeting I commented that disruptive hate speech has no place in our meetings. Please know I will enforce protocol to. 00:12:39
That type of speech, it becomes disruptive. 00:12:46
Recently I asked for hard copies of the draft housing element submitted to the state Department of Housing. 00:12:51
Unity Development or H. 00:12:57
Those documents are being prepared for those of us who want them, so we have a running start. 00:12:59
Looking at the review when it comes. 00:13:05
Early. 00:13:08
Are there any staff announcements, Mr. Bauman, Sidor Campbell or McGowan? Any any of you have anything to say or? 00:13:10
Certainly welcome to. 00:13:19
OK, tonight we have Erica Vega, our Assistant City Attorney, and I think she's with us on Zoom. 00:13:21
A Hooper picture comes up there. She is good. Well, welcome. Do you have any announcements? 00:13:30
I don't cheer Lily. Thank you. 00:13:35
Thank you for your help. 00:13:38
Household and now we come to four number item number 4, Council liaison announcements. Council Member Colletti, do you have any 00:13:41
announcements? 00:13:45
Good evening, Chair Lilly and Commissioners. I have no announcements. Have a good meeting. 00:13:50
Thank you. Now we come to general public comment, which is item number 5. 00:13:56
This must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the City and the Planning Commission, but are not on the agenda this 00:14:02
evening. 00:14:05
This is an appropriate time to comment on items in the consent agenda, but only if the speaker does not wish to have the item 00:14:08
pulled for consideration by the Commission. 00:14:13
Comments from the public will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker and will not receive. 00:14:19
Commission attention this evening. 00:14:24
Comments regarding an item on the agenda will be. 00:14:28
Time of the Commission's consideration of that item. 00:14:32
Before we continue, I need to mention that we have received several letters and emails since our last meeting on November 9th. 00:14:36
It appears that they were submitted after distribution of the agenda package last week. 00:14:43
And I have listed several here and there were some more today, but let me. 00:14:48
List the ones that we have before today and that would be Tony Cian. 00:14:53
December 10th. Archaeological Resource Review and Tribal Monitoring Protocol. Ingo Lorenzen Dahmer. On December 9th. There were 00:14:58
two letters. One was item 8B. 00:15:03
And HC? What was 8B and 8C? 00:15:11
8B was the lot line matter at the corner of his Arena and Sylmar avenues and 8C was. 00:15:14
Use coastal permits of 270 Central Ave. then one from Moammar, December 9th. 00:15:23
Regarding item. 00:15:29
On the use in coastal permits at 270 Central Ave. and Tony Cian. 00:15:31
December 8th. 00:15:36
Item 8C on this evening's agenda for 270 Central Ave. and I believe there were. 00:15:37
There was another e-mail today from a Mr. Hu. 00:15:45
Regarding, I believe it was the. 00:15:49
Lot line matter at the corner of Arena and Sylmar avenues and then Mr. Chiani had I think 5 emails that. 00:15:56
Covered many of the items on our agenda this evening and I don't have those listings in front of me. 00:16:05
Let me note that our administrative technician, Debbie Gonzalez, keeps a copy of all communications. 00:16:11
In our Commission binder in the Community Development office. 00:16:17
So with that, would anyone like to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda this evening? 00:16:22
Welcome. 00:16:32
Lily and Commission, thank you very much. My name is Mike Gibbs. I'm a member of the Pacific Grove of Economic Development 00:16:39
Commission. I'm here. 00:16:44
To talk a little bit about something different, I don't want to take too much time. 00:16:48
You know, I don't if you ever saw these movies that come out of Hollywood bad bosses. 00:16:53
I never saw one about good bosses, right? And so if you, if you had a bad boss, you know, you kind of remember. If you in your 00:16:58
brain, you start thinking about who those people were. Broken, broken promises. 00:17:05
Taking credit for the people's word. 00:17:11
Arrogant. 00:17:15
Hopefully you've all had good bosses and you can think who. 00:17:17
And I spent 30 years in Silicon Valley and I've seen a lot of good and a lot of bad. So the next 10 or 1011 months, Pacific Rd. 00:17:21
was going to make some important decisions, mainly staffing the new city manager. 00:17:27
Right. And so Redmond's a good city manager. It's it's kind of a subjective thing. There's a big, long job description, which a 00:17:34
lot of us have read. It's a big responsibility. They hire all of the staff. 00:17:40
And they're responsible for the leadership and the teamwork of that. 00:17:46
Over the last couple months, a group of us here in Pacific Grove have formed something informally called Leadership Pacific. 00:17:49
And we've been talking to a variety of people about what makes a good hire and what doesn't. 00:17:56
And we've come up with not necessarily any guidance, but just some thoughts from our own experience. So these people have been 00:18:02
around Pacific Grove a lot of time, a long time. They've, they've been members of various boards and commissions and the list is 00:18:08
pretty short, great leadership qualities and inspires confidence. Again, we're thinking of a city manager recognizes talent, not 00:18:14
afraid to hire somebody smarter than they are. 00:18:20
They can zoom in on the on the detail and zoom out and see the big picture. 00:18:26
My God, they can read and analyze a spreadsheet. Well, we've got a lot of budget issues going on. Not among which is not the most 00:18:31
important item, the pretty big unfunded pension liability. 00:18:37
And not to talk about the one that's funded good listener. 00:18:44
Able to build relationships with the City Council and all the boards and commissions. 00:18:48
Well recognized by the committee. 00:18:52
And own. 00:18:55
Shows up and owns up to what they do right. Admits and has the courage to. 00:18:56
Own up to their mistakes. 00:19:03
Promises made or promises kept in honest as the day is long. 00:19:05
So all here to say is that you can weigh into anybody listening on Zoom or anybody here. 00:19:10
Commissioner Murphy mentioned the boards and commissions. It's an important role that the Miller makes and I would encourage 00:19:16
anybody to apply. If you'd like to fill out a survey, it is on the city website at the very top. You can click on it and the 00:19:22
questions are going to be asked. What do you think makes a good city manager? I encourage you to do that and when you do that you 00:19:27
can think back to your good bosses. 00:19:32
And you're not so good, boss. Hopefully you're gonna think of the good ones. And we'll get somebody who's really good as a city 00:19:38
manager. Thank you for your effort. Thank you for what all you do. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah. Thank you. 00:19:43
Thank you. 00:19:50
Is there anyone? 00:19:53
The audience? Is there anyone on the Zoom audience? 00:19:56
We have England, Lorenzen, Dahmer. 00:20:00
Thank you. I don't know exactly when you resumed because I sat here for over 20 minutes. Hello. Am I unmuted? 00:20:05
We can hear you. Thank you. So I'm really rather confused here because it stopped for me when. 00:20:16
Commissioner Murphy was suggesting certain. 00:20:25
Changes to put things on the consent agenda. 00:20:29
And I was disheartened to hear that eighty Title 23 changes was going to be moved to consent because I did have a couple of 00:20:32
questions on that. I never remembered hearing about lowering to 10 days for noticing from 15 days. I do not ever remember hearing 00:20:41
that as a proposition. 00:20:49
And the the losing the use permit for plumbing and an outbuilding. 00:20:58
Or an you know, whether it's higher than seven, more than 70 square feet or low, I mean, I don't remember that either. So I mean, 00:21:06
I guess people can put plumbing in any little shed. I have no idea anyway, so I would have really rather discussed. 00:21:16
Whatever was 80 before and I don't know which items are what now. I mean it's compared. 00:21:27
If Lisa hadn't told me, the meeting had started up again because it was frozen and the recording stopped at. 00:21:35
624 So that's when the closed captioning stopped and everything else so. 00:21:41
Frankly, this zoom audience. 00:21:47
Member of the public is pretty lost here, right? 00:21:50
Thank you very much. 00:21:54
Thank you. 00:21:57
For anyone else, Mr. Campbell. 00:22:01
Welcome. 00:22:04
Thank you. I just like to respectfully request that that. 00:22:07
Some arrangement be worked out with our IT staff. 00:22:13
For when these things happen. I mean, half an hour is a long time. I was, you know, I was about to quit. 00:22:20
Uh, but you know, out here we don't know what's going on. I mean, for me this time. 00:22:28
Even 5 minutes into it I think. 00:22:34
You guys froze. 00:22:38
No, no, I guess it was first it went silent and and then I realized you guys were frozen and and then. 00:22:39
The screen went black and then we had green flashes and various things. 00:22:46
But it seems like. 00:22:52
You know, these things do happen. 00:22:54
And they've happened a number of times in with with BNRC and and and. 00:22:57
Probably most of the of. 00:23:04
Of the meeting. So it it seems like it would. 00:23:08
Really great if you could if if you could, request for. 00:23:12
IT staff to. 00:23:18
Some way of handling this your your. 00:23:22
Agendas don't have the number to call it if there's a problem, so I had to go look at a City Council. 00:23:26
Agenda or their website or something and and. 00:23:37
I called the number but it was just. They said no one was available and leave a message and the and the. 00:23:40
And the answering message didn't identify who it was. Or you know who you were leaving a message with. 00:23:48
And so. 00:23:57
It seems like it. 00:23:59
Impossible to workout some arrangement, so we have an idea. How long would you? 00:24:02
Wait before you decided to cancel the meeting, You know. 00:24:13
Just so we know what? 00:24:17
What's going on? I mean, because especially when the screen is black and there's no sound and there's no message saying, you know, 00:24:20
we're working on it, anything. I mean, you know, because I've seen that on council, I think, before someplace. 00:24:28
Where they can put a message on the screen. 00:24:36
So anyway, that is my request I. 00:24:40
I'm glad you're back in action. 00:24:44
And and I hope, I hope that these these issues with the. 00:24:48
Broadcast of the meeting will will be fewer and fewer. Thank you. 00:25:00
Thank you. 00:25:07
Tony Triani. 00:25:10
Will you please? 00:25:14
Recap what the agenda is tonight. Thank. 00:25:18
I will do that. I was going to do that. 00:25:22
After public. 00:25:26
And I will do that. 00:25:28
We get to that. 00:25:30
Are we to that point? Is there any other public comment? I see no other hands up online right? The next item on our agenda was the 00:25:34
consent agenda. But before we get to that, let me recap where we are and where we've been. 00:25:39
As I recall, we had approved amending the agenda. There was an amendment proposed by. 00:25:46
Vice Chair Murphy and that passed. Then there was an amendment proposed by Commissioner Fredrickson to continue. 00:25:53
The then item 8C until the HRC, the Historic Resources Committee could review it that motion. 00:26:02
As we started to discuss, discuss. 00:26:11
We had this. 00:26:14
And we'll have to work, I would say, to the people in the Zoom audience will have to work on some kind of notification system so 00:26:16
that everybody kind of understands. 00:26:21
That the system is down maybe. 00:26:25
Out of order screen? A sign on the screen? I don't know, but we'll work on that. 00:26:29
So when we came back at 6:31 and we we gave the the staff, we thought 630 was a good cut off time. 00:26:34
They made it by the skin of our teeth there, and so we were ready at 6:30 to come back. 00:26:43
And we we re adjourned or reconvened, I should say at 6:31 would even gone to the point of selecting another time to. 00:26:49
And I even had language that I was going to read about that but we didn't need to do. 00:26:58
So now. 00:27:04
An agenda and let me go through the agenda. So item 6A. 00:27:05
Was the Planning Commission work? 00:27:10
In the amended. 00:27:13
Item 7A are the minutes from December 14th 2023. 00:27:16
Item 7. 00:27:22
Is the hotel parking item that was moved from item. 00:27:24
Let me see if I have that number right. 00:27:29
That 8. 00:27:35
7B is a hotel parking. 00:27:39
7C is the Chapter 23 amendments, so those four items are on the consent agenda. 00:27:42
That would then result in the. 00:27:48
Of the. 00:27:51
On the in the regular agenda and let me go through that here in the second. 00:27:54
Let's see. 00:28:03
So item 8. 00:28:07
Becomes item 8. 00:28:11
Item 8F is the no. 00:28:14
Yeah, Item 8F is story poll. 00:28:22
So that becomes. 00:28:25
8D. 00:28:27
And then item 80, which was a hotel parking, became item. 00:28:29
7B And Item 8 E, which was the Chapter 23 amendments, becomes. 00:28:34
Item 7. 00:28:41
So I hope this is eliminates any confusion. Not that I'm not confused but. 00:28:44
I think that's the order of things we're going to do, going to do tonight. And so I hope everybody understands that. So then we 00:28:51
have 4 items on the consent agenda this evening. 00:28:56
So we're to the point now. 00:29:00
I need to ask does? 00:29:07
Commissioner want to remove any of the. 00:29:09
From the consent agenda. 00:29:12
Commissioner Sawyer, I don't wish to remove anything, I just wanted to announce. 00:29:17
A couple of changes that need to be made they. 00:29:26
Small changes on the. 00:29:30
And if I could just, why don't you go ahead and do that, do that now, that would be great. 00:29:33
And. 00:29:39
On the September 14th draft minutes the call to order. 00:29:43
Should be noted that we had Commissioner Nodzinski and Vice Chair Murphy absent. 00:29:47
Then we go to 8B. 00:29:56
Where it talks about recusal. 00:29:59
And Sawyer recused herself. You do need to state a reason why. 00:30:01
You if if there's a conflict of interest, and my reason was financial, that does need to be included in the Minutes. 00:30:07
And 8B. 00:30:15
The motion notation is incorrect. I think it should be 4021. 00:30:18
That is it. That's it. Thank you. So those are, those are. 00:30:29
Changes all right, we'll. 00:30:33
Rule that we can have those without taking it off the consent agenda. 00:30:36
Does anybody else want to? Does anybody? 00:30:42
Else on the Commission want to address the committee the consent agenda or? 00:30:45
Then I will ask any staff member if you want to remove anything from the consent agenda. 00:30:50
Hearing no response to that, would any member of the audience like to remove any item from the consent agenda? 00:30:56
And that would be in the audience physically as well as on. 00:31:03
I have a hand up angular rinsing D. 00:31:09
One moment. 00:31:13
Welcome. 00:31:18
Thank you. I would like to remove and I don't even quite know what it is. Maybe 7 C? 00:31:20
The selected prov. 00:31:30
In the clarifying the selected code provisions in title 23. 00:31:33
I would like to remove that and discuss it, yes. 00:31:41
OK. Well then that's removed and from the consent agenda, so that will now become. 00:31:44
See, this is going to get complicated. Will become 8 something. 00:31:50
I think 8. 00:32:03
That will be. 00:32:06
OK. 00:32:11
So that item is. 00:32:20
Has been removed, so that leaves then. 00:32:22
Pardon me, Chair. We have one more hand up. It's oh, I'm sorry. 00:32:26
And who? 00:32:30
Anthony Anthony. 00:32:31
Welcome Let. 00:32:34
Can you hear? 00:32:37
Yes. 00:32:38
Is 270 Central Ave. on? 00:32:40
Agenda or not? 00:32:46
It's a hearing under a regular agenda. 00:32:47
Thank you. 00:32:50
Right. So we have a consent agenda then of three items. 00:32:56
Item 6A. The Report for Information Only The Planning Commission 2023 Work Plan. 00:33:03
Then item. 00:33:09
7A which is the September. 00:33:11
14th 2023 Minutes, with the three corrections noted by. 00:33:14
Commissioner. 00:33:20
And seven B the hotel parking. 00:33:23
Matter and that has a. 00:33:27
Resolution of intention. 00:33:32
So those are the items now on the consent agenda item, the item 7C. 00:33:35
Chapter Chapter 23 MEMS has been taken off. 00:33:41
That is what is on the consent agenda, those three items. So may I have a motion then to approve the consent agenda? 00:33:45
I move to the consent agenda. 00:33:56
Commissioner Dozinski moved to approve the consent agenda. 00:34:00
Commissioner Sawyer, I'll second seconded by Commissioner. 00:34:03
So all those who favor the motion should say aye. All those opposed should say nay. 00:34:08
Mr. Campbell, would you please call the? 00:34:14
Commissioner Nazins. 00:34:19
Aye, Commissioner Sawyer. Aye, Chair Lilly. 00:34:20
Commissioner. 00:34:26
Aye, Commissioner. 00:34:27
Aye, Commissioner Fredrickson. 00:34:30
With six eyes 0 Nathan one absent the motion. 00:34:33
Passes. OK, so the motion passes. Six eyes. 00:34:37
Nays and. 00:34:40
So the motion car. 00:34:42
To approve the consent agenda of the three items I mentioned. So now we are to the regular agenda and we have 3. 00:34:45
Permit hearings. 00:34:53
Under sections 8A through C, those didn't change. Everything else did. But before we continue, let me briefly. 00:34:54
Plan or review our rules. First, we will have an agenda and staff report. 00:35:02
The applicant will then be given 10 minutes to. 00:35:07
The designated spokesperson of a group wishing to be represented, if there is anyone. 00:35:11
Will be given 10 minutes to speak. 00:35:16
Brief rebuttal and Sir rebuttal can be. 00:35:19
And we'll then open the public the hearing for public comment. Those wishing to speak, we have 3 minutes each. 00:35:22
I will then close the meeting to. 00:35:28
Comment from the applicant in general public so the Commission can then ask questions to deliberate and possibly make a decision. 00:35:30
We should also be aware that findings, conditions and sequel compliance are a necessary part of the decision making process. 00:35:37
Therefore the Commission at its pleasure, may either make a single motion that includes findings conditions. 00:35:44
Sequel compliance and the decision or make separate motions for finding these conditions. 00:35:50
And sequel compliance and a decision. 00:35:56
So with that, we have the first item on here which is item 8A that would be an architectural permit coastal development. 00:35:58
22-0264 one eleven 10th. 00:36:07
Assessor Parcel number 006218001. 00:36:12
And so I will now open the public hearing. 00:36:17
And before we proceed, does anyone on the Commission need to recuse a report, an ex party communication? 00:36:20
Hearing none. Who's the staff for this review? Is that you, Mr. Campbell? 00:36:30
And I need to ask you, have you received notification from any group? Was he wishing to designate a spokes? 00:36:36
Person for this project other than the applicant. 00:36:44
No, I'm not. 00:36:47
Then finally, Mr. Kimmel, we have your report. Thank you, Chair Lily, Vice Chair Murphy and commissioners. Before I start, I do 00:36:50
want to make a couple of minor corrections. That was grateful that Vice Chairman Murphy pointed out. 00:36:57
And I believe Commissioner Sawyer as well, in my recommendation for this, it just states the architectural permit, although it's 00:37:05
just the agenda report it does include. 00:37:10
The determination of the coastal development permit, so I just wanted to make sure you understand that's added and the draft 00:37:16
permit I I didn't, I didn't end up updating the actual date because I had the last month's Planning Commission meeting. So I that 00:37:23
is going to be amended and corrected on the draft permit for today's date. 00:37:30
The site description? It's a 3600 square foot lot on the northeast corner of 10th St. and Pearl Street. 00:37:39
There is an existing 1117 square foot two-story single family dwelling with a 398 square foot detached Adu. 00:37:46
It is in the Coastal Zone, Archaeologically Sensitive Area Area of Special Biological Significance and is listed on the Historic 00:37:55
Resources Inventory. 00:37:59
This is a major remodel of an addition to a single family dwelling. 00:38:05
They're planning to connect the main level to the existing detached accessory structure with it with a new 304 square foot first 00:38:11
floor addition. 00:38:15
They're converting the Adu to primary living space and A1 car garage. 00:38:20
There'll be 276 square foot second floor addition to the existing rear 2nd floor dormer. 00:38:25
There'd be a new 403 square foot driveway. 00:38:32
320 square foot wooden deck and it will result in two 2096 square foot single family dwelling only 1911 square feet of living 00:38:35
space and 185 square foot garage. 00:38:42
In the background. 00:38:51
On August 23rd. 00:38:55
2023 The project was first heard the Historic Resources Committee. At that time, the HRC identified the following concerns. They 00:38:57
felt the real height of the proposed addition was taller than the existing structure. They felt the massing of the proposed 00:39:02
additions appear overwhelming. 00:39:07
And the proposed additions did not show substantial differentiation between new work and existing historic structure. 00:39:13
So the HRC continued the item to September 27th. 00:39:20
And. 00:39:25
Came with revised plans. 00:39:27
HRC recommended that the Planning Commission deny the architectural permit on the grounds the applicant failed to address the 00:39:30
overwhelming massing of the addition. 00:39:34
The applicant had reduced the building height of the proposed addition to be no taller than the existing structure, and they 00:39:40
provided mass study with 3D perspectives and a field analysis for clarity. 00:39:46
They reduced the size of some second floor windows that connected the hallway. 00:39:53
The H. 00:39:57
As I said, recommended denial. 00:39:59
And that motion had carried with six eyes, 0 nays and one vacancy. 00:40:02
On November 9th, the Planning Commission continued the item and requested that staff repost and re notice the property, which was 00:40:10
done on November 28th. 00:40:15
To point out the general. 00:40:28
And through the General Plan, the city adopted goals, policies and programs that address and guided city development. And this is 00:40:32
to to address the issues of massing the position that is similar and slightly smaller in massing to the properties that are in the 00:40:37
neighborhood. 00:40:43
The programs from the general plan, they are implemented through Title 23, the zoning ordinance. 00:40:48
The General plan in Chapter 2, Land Use Policy 2 ensures the new development is compatible with adjacent existing development 00:40:59
policy 3A balance property owners ability to develop with the desirability of maintaining neighborhood character. 00:41:05
The General Plan policies were carried out by a subsequent General Plan programs. Program C was to revise the height and lock 00:41:14
coverage standards to regulate the size and massive residential additions and expansions. 00:41:20
We're going to do was to consider including floor area ratios in the zone regulations for residential areas. For a ratios regulate 00:41:27
building mass and scale. 00:41:31
The General Plan programs were carried out by the Pacific Grove by adoption of Pacific Grove Municipal Code. 00:41:36
In Title 20. 00:41:43
That's in title 23.26 and .040 with building height limit 050 building coverage and O6O site coverage, and also the table O6O, 00:41:48
which is allowable gross floor area. 00:41:55
Staff recommends approval of the proposed architectural permit and coastal development permit. 00:42:03
Subject to findings, conditions of approval in Sequel, Class One and Class 31 categorical exemptions for existing facilities and 00:42:09
historical restoration, rehabilitation, respectively. 00:42:14
Thank you. I am available for any. 00:42:20
Right. Are there any questions of the? 00:42:24
Campbell. 00:42:27
That supposed to be clarifying questions. 00:42:31
Commissioner, saw. 00:42:36
I just had a kind of an odd question in regards to the Adu's. 00:42:41
If it gets folded into the house. 00:42:48
Does it still keep the same setbacks because it was not considered? 00:42:52
Historic, but I know as an Adu it got those setbacks, so I'm just kind of being. 00:42:59
Devil's advocate because I'm trying to see what happens when you fold an Adu. 00:43:05
Back into a. 00:43:10
Well, actually, thank you and through the chair through this, in this case, this Adu was. 00:43:13
It's it's a non conforming structure prior to the Adu ordinance, so it was a converted. 00:43:21
Property, we don't know exactly when that conversion took place. So I don't believe that they were actually taking advantage of 00:43:27
the Adu setbacks because it was considered a conversion which is also allowed. So we don't require with the nonconformities to 00:43:34
conform and there is no expansion of that that existing and legal nonconformity. 00:43:42
Itself, so that's why that would be. 00:43:50
Thank you. 00:43:54
Right. Well then we. 00:43:57
Proceed to the applicant. And is the applicant here this evening and would the applicant like to make a presentation? 00:43:59
Good evening, Chairman Lee Lee and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Claudia Ortiz. I'm representing. 00:44:15
Lynn and Craig Harlan Collins on this project and. 00:44:21
It's nice to be here after all using dilemma with the zoom meeting, but. 00:44:26
Hopefully I can make this short, because what? 00:44:32
Start with by saying is I would like to continue the project and I would like to continue with hopefully direction from this 00:44:35
committee. 00:44:38
And the reason for that even though my client's wishes are to obtain approval on the project. 00:44:43
And given the direction that I obtained from the HRC, which I think it was inappropriate in some manners. 00:44:49
That direction that I was given was not correct in the sense that I was given. 00:44:55
Information to modify the building and in a manner that. 00:45:00
Came to the second hearing with the. 00:45:05
Changes as. 00:45:08
And still obtained a denial of that and no direction. 00:45:10
As to why and or how to alter the addition in a manner that. 00:45:16
Satisfy them. 00:45:23
So I am here today with my hands crossed not understanding how to proceed. 00:45:24
I my wish is to provide an addition. 00:45:30
This project for my clients that will obtain an approval. 00:45:34
But I don't want to be going back and forth. 00:45:38
Or get a denial and with no direction. I think this is the project overall. 00:45:41
Meets all the criteria guidelines from Pacific Growth. 00:45:47
View sheds shadows, mass. 00:45:52
Historian analyzed the provided information. 00:45:56
So what I have in front of you today. 00:45:59
Meets all the envelopes. 00:46:02
In guidelines, so I'm puzzled. 00:46:04
At the moment on how? 00:46:07
Again, I want to reinforce them, It's my clients wishes to obtain approval. 00:46:11
But I don't want to get a denial from you guys and. 00:46:16
These stumps, so I would. 00:46:20
Get some good direction on how to. 00:46:22
Again, the project meets the envelopes and the guidelines. 00:46:25
Let me let me interject in. 00:46:31
So that we can minimize. I don't want to get into a negotiation here. 00:46:34
On the dyess, because that's not why we're here, but it seems to me that. 00:46:38
HRC, the Historic Resources Commission, made a recommendation. 00:46:45
There's a couple of choices here. 00:46:50
One is to. 00:46:52
Work with go through. 00:46:55
To determine what was. 00:46:57
The basis of their their. 00:47:01
And then depending upon that discussion between you and the staff. 00:47:03
Make any modifications that you then feel. 00:47:09
To bring forward. 00:47:14
That ultimately, though, becomes your decision based upon input from the staff. 00:47:17
Beyond that I I don't know what more to say. Is there anything that if I may add wanted to add, Can I add to your comment, this is 00:47:22
the reason why I'm here today because staff. 00:47:26
Is approving. 00:47:31
The staff report approves, it's recommending approval, so there's not much more that staff can say well the overall project 00:47:34
because from their purview the project meets all the criterias well the the the staff can speak for themselves, the staff can also 00:47:39
speak for. 00:47:45
The HRC, as it relates to what they think the HRC meant or wanted to see, they're certainly capable of doing that and I haven't. 00:47:51
Total faith that they would. So while they have a staff report that says what it says, they may be able to provide input. 00:48:01
As to what? 00:48:09
The. 00:48:10
Might have meant to provide you. 00:48:12
You have any comment, Vice chair Murphy about? 00:48:15
I guess I'm perplexed at your at your strategy and the hearing is just beginning. We haven't heard from the public. We haven't 00:48:20
heard from the neighbors. 00:48:25
And I'm anxious to do that. 00:48:30
But I'm. 00:48:34
You know, right now, without hearing from them, I'm. 00:48:37
I'm it's not clear that this board will deny your project, so I guess you understand. I just want to put that put that on the 00:48:40
table. 00:48:46
A lot of what you're going to hear is in regards. 00:48:52
Massing in regards to. 00:48:55
Views and you know the guidelines and the rules and views in the Pacific row and and there was a comment about the mass the 00:48:59
structure casting a shadow which I provided evidence and. 00:49:06
And and justify the fact that that is not the case. 00:49:13
And also provided A massing study to demonstrate that the addition. 00:49:17
It's hardly visible from the street. 00:49:23
And. 00:49:25
So again, I'm going back to my original comment, which I'm puzzled as to why. 00:49:27
Let me let me clarify this by saying this. 00:49:33
Ultimately, the application that you present to us has to be something that you're confident. 00:49:38
In presenting to us whether you think somebody likes it or not, and so I would, Mr. Armin, Vice Chair Murphy's comments are are 00:49:43
very pertinent here. We haven't. 00:49:49
Gone through this hearing at all and and if we're going to continue this, then we need to to do that. If you wish to continue your 00:49:57
application, you can say so right now. We're done. 00:50:03
Otherwise we will go through the process and we may make a decision as we make a decision. That's all I can really say. 00:50:09
Commissioner F. 00:50:18
If I can suggest, I think we should let the process play out. 00:50:19
And and then if if something, if further direction is needed at that time, we can we can input it. But let's give give the process 00:50:24
a chance and let's see what happens. Fair enough. I, I, I, I, I agree. I think you guys need to hear all the points and make a 00:50:29
decision. We're here, right? 00:50:35
I just don't want to get stuck in the in a similar dilemma, but I feel that I was giving wrong direction. Every every every 00:50:41
application has to stand on its merits and on on its review and. 00:50:46
Our ordinances, codes and policies and ultimately the staff can recommend to an applicant. 00:50:53
What ought to be based upon their perceptions of what we may or may not do. But but ultimately that's a decision the applicant has 00:51:01
to make, whether or not you want to proceed or not. And. 00:51:06
It sometimes it's it's a risk I I don't know what more to say no I'll I'll give the the. 00:51:11
A chance and love to hear your comments after you hear everybody's input. 00:51:17
Let me recognize Commissioner Saw. 00:51:23
What you're supposed to be doing right now is giving us. 00:51:27
A report on your project. 00:51:32
And that is what I would like to hear so that I can make a decision. 00:51:35
Of what my thoughts are, I'd like to know. 00:51:40
What your plans are for it, etc etc. I don't really. 00:51:44
Feel as has been said. 00:51:49
I listened to the HRC meetings, both of them. I know what went. 00:51:52
I don't need to have that recaptured and I do understand your feelings of frustration. 00:51:57
But this is a. 00:52:03
Hearing and I'd like to hear about your project. 00:52:05
And what you were asked to do with your project. 00:52:09
Thank you. 00:52:13
Lily, mate. Uh, Mr. Campbell, I just if if the applicant is going to continue, I just want to check on how much time you want me 00:52:14
to give, was it. 00:52:19
Got broken up a little bit. It's usually 10. I don't know if you want to, OK. 00:52:25
So the question then is you said initially you considering continuing it. 00:52:31
Or if we proceed, then you're not continuing that. Understood. So you're not continuing it. So we're going to proceed as though 00:52:39
that issue never came up. And so please go ahead. 00:52:44
Thank you. 00:52:49
So we're proposing in addition to a historical structure that design was created in a manner to minimize any impacts to the 00:52:51
historical structure. 00:52:57
The structure, it's a single story dwelling. 00:53:05
And any additions to it could overwhelm it. And that was. 00:53:09
Our first step when we looked at the overall design is how to accommodate. In addition, that would not. 00:53:14
There would be subordinate to the main. 00:53:23
And maintain the historicity of that. 00:53:25
Single story dwelling from the street as. 00:53:29
We didn't want to take away from that character. 00:53:32
And we also wanted to minimize any impacts to the actual. 00:53:35
Historical skin of the of the building minimize any impacts to the structure itself. 00:53:39
The As you can see, the additions and the alterations were made to the rear of the property where they're not visible from the 00:53:44
street. 00:53:48
And they were created in a manner. 00:53:51
We would not alter the. 00:53:54
If any at all. 00:53:57
And and keep it to a min. 00:53:59
And get and therefore we designed the addition on AT shape coming off of the main building. 00:54:01
And then? 00:54:08
Absorb the the existing structure that you call the Adu that used to be a carriage house. It used to store vehicles and then it 00:54:10
was turned into. 00:54:15
An additional living quarters for that, for that structure. 00:54:20
So the addition that we proposed, we wanted to minimize any impacts to it and that's how we started the original concept. 00:54:26
As you can see, if you look at, if you look through our plans, if you're standing anywhere on the street looking at that building. 00:54:33
The addition is very, very. 00:54:40
As large as. 00:54:42
Wanted to call it or see. It is hardly visible from the street, which is the goal for any historical structure. 00:54:45
Many other buildings, historical buildings that have been approved. 00:54:53
Have additions that are two stories attached to the main structure and visible from the street where our building our project does 00:54:58
not. 00:55:02
Convey that. 00:55:07
And so that was. 00:55:08
The the main concept on this design is to really keep that. 00:55:10
Addition to a minimal and I think we accomplished that with this project as seen and demonstrated through our. 00:55:16
Diagrams and and through the massing that we provided. One of the arguments is that you know you from the opposite St. On the 00:55:24
opposite I don't know the name of the street, I apologize, but on the opposite side you can see the the addition. But that's the 00:55:28
case for any building. 00:55:33
It doesn't matter where you put an addition, you're gonna eventually see it from somewhere. But the important thing is that from 00:55:38
the street, the front facade of the historical building is kept intact. 00:55:43
And that's what we that's what we have here today. 00:55:49
With that said, I you know the. 00:55:55
It's easily distinguished from the historical building, which is a plus. 00:55:58
And again, we minimize any impact to the historical. 00:56:04
And not visible hardly at all from the. 00:56:08
That's pretty much the overall intent of the project and the addition. 00:56:13
If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them. I see you have. Again, I would like to advise Commission 00:56:25
members these questions for clarification only, not for discussion of points of view. 00:56:32
Commissioner. 00:56:40
My question was. 00:56:42
Have. 00:56:44
Cladding the shingle cladding for the addition. Is that now different from the front? 00:56:47
So that was one question. 00:56:55
And. 00:56:59
Is there a possibility of changing the driveway to pervious material? 00:57:00
Yes, but I believe we have it semi permeable that can we can talk about that more, but it was just one other question. 00:57:05
And the door. You were changing the door. 00:57:14
Can it stay the same or is it going to be the same? The door that is. 00:57:19
That we're changing the front door. No, we're not changing the phone. You're not. OK, We're keeping the front slot. You know, if I 00:57:24
may add, and you brought up a good point about the driveway, that's that's another reason why we did the addition in incorporated 00:57:30
existing structure because we wanted to maintain that driveway. 00:57:36
For the benefit of providing additional offsite parking, because we could have easily added that addition. 00:57:43
Closer to the street attached it to the building, but that would eliminate parking spaces. It would eliminate. It would bring the 00:57:49
massing closer to the street and remove more historical material from the dwelling. 00:57:55
So that's another reason why we utilize and as much as possible the existing footprint and build from there and attach it to them 00:58:02
to the main structure. 00:58:07
All right. Are there any other Commission questions? 00:58:14
The applicant. 00:58:17
I have a question. 00:58:20
There's a very large tree on the lot. There's a Big Cypress tree, one of the biggest probably in town. It's a beautiful tree. 00:58:23
Chapter 12 in our code deals. 00:58:30
Pre permits and. 00:58:34
Has an arborist come out and looked? 00:58:37
No, we have not. No, we haven't. But that was also brought up at the HRC. 00:58:41
And a comment was made that we were impacting the tree. 00:58:47
I made a point that if you look at the plans, we are cantilevering a portion of the front of that edition over the roots to 00:58:52
maintain an adequate space between the the the the trunk of the tree. 00:58:59
In our building. 00:59:06
That was. Apparently that was not studied well enough through the. 00:59:08
HRC to to verify that. 00:59:13
But yes, we are aware of that three, we want to maintain adequate distances to allow the three to maintain and continue growing 00:59:16
vigorously because it's a beautiful tree and we want to maintain it. So yes, we are aware of it and we did design proper distances 00:59:22
between the three and our footings. 00:59:28
Any other questions? 00:59:36
Commission of the applicant. 00:59:38
You have one more. OK, one more. 00:59:42
I also was wondering if you have an exterior lighting plan since there will be a new garage. 00:59:45
And a new structure. 00:59:53
We do, we are going to propose. 00:59:55
Dark sky light fixtures. 00:59:59
With a canopy that are. 01:00:02
They're they're almost like crafting style type of fixture that we're. 01:00:04
And will you be submitting that as a plan? 01:00:10
I believe we have some pictures or photos of those. 01:00:14
Fixtures on the plants. 01:00:19
Thank you. 01:00:23
Hi. Are there any other questions? If not then? 01:00:27
Thank you. 01:00:31
Coming this evening, I'm sure we'll. 01:00:33
More comments that you might be able to answer, but. 01:00:35
For now, I think we're to the point where we would go to public comment. 01:00:39
So, so reading one in the audience, either first we'll go with those who are physically here, then we'll go with those who are on 01:00:48
Zoom. 01:00:53
To make comment on this application again, as I stated in our rules, 3 minutes per speaker. 01:00:59
And Mr. Campbell is. 01:01:07
Buddy, well, there's one individual who was showing up to the podium, so welcome. Thank you. 01:01:08
My name is Tyler Ridgeley. I live in 110 9th St. right behind it. 01:01:15
Probably the most impacted by the project. 01:01:19
Of Yeah, yeah, definitely. Can you hear me? So. 01:01:22
My major concern is that tree. 01:01:27
Arms branches come over my house. 01:01:31
I don't know what adequate distances are. That's without an arborist verifying that that's. 01:01:34
Very vague amount. 01:01:40
It's definitely not outside the drip line of this tree. I mean just the whole project is under the drip line of that tree and. 01:01:42
That's the last space that tree has. 01:01:49
In the oxygen to its roots is through that whole backyard. 01:01:52
So this entire project. 01:01:56
Is built in the drip point of the tree. 01:01:58
I've never seen a cantilevered foundation. 01:02:02
That could not impact. 01:02:06
That are going to. 01:02:08
With that corner foundation, I don't know, 6 feet. 01:02:10
Whatever. 01:02:13
Destroy the root system. 01:02:14
To the point where I'm fearful to have this thing next to my house. 01:02:16
It's a scary propos. 01:02:21
I. 01:02:23
It has to. 01:02:25
Like all the other stuff, the visibility, all of that stuff is passable. 01:02:27
But this tree is a. 01:02:31
Ball of wax. 01:02:35
It's not the right property for somebody trying to develop like this. 01:02:37
Yeah, it's I I. 01:02:43
Personally pay for an independent arborist review. 01:02:46
I think we would have. 01:02:50
If they propose it, you know arborists, unfortunately, are capitalists. 01:02:52
So however, we get somebody to really analyze this. 01:02:57
Environmental impact. 01:03:02
However, just to make it safe. 01:03:04
For me and my family to live there. 01:03:06
Right next to it, it's. 01:03:09
It's. I don't mind them towering over my house, looking in my backyard, but. 01:03:11
When they do damage that, tree that. 01:03:17
That's an asset to Pacific growth. 01:03:19
Like you said, probably the largest. 01:03:22
Area. So that's all I have to say about it. Thank you guys. Thank you. 01:03:24
Welcome. 01:03:39
Can you hear me? Yeah. My name is Tony Souza and my husband Ken and I live at 118 9th St. 01:03:45
I have three issues that I'll address. 01:03:55
Number one, it seems the staff neglected to include some letters that we had written in August. 01:04:00
My husband and I wrote a letter on the August 20th. 01:04:07
And the Bianchi's, who live at 115 10th St. wrote a letter on August 21st and I we felt that they should be included in the public 01:04:13
comments. 01:04:19
#2, of course, is about the tree. We requested an arbitrace and nothing. 01:04:26
You know, really was what's done as you can tell about that and I just want to say hopefully you know, after you. 01:04:32
Peruse all of the. 01:04:43
Public and legal comments that you'll agree with the historic. 01:04:45
Resource committee and uphold their denial of the project. 01:04:51
That's what we're hoping. 01:04:55
Thank you for your time and consideration. 01:04:57
Welcome. 01:05:08
Good evening, Commission members. My name is Anne Russell Rudolph. My husband, Dan, and I own a small home at 114 9th St. and our 01:05:11
contiguous neighbors to this property. 01:05:15
This property, also known as the Playhouse, is a charming and iconic home in a retreat neighborhood. The proposed structure before 01:05:20
each night will create a completely different structure. An existing Adu will be absorbed into the home and the proposed Second 01:05:24
Floor expansion will create a looming massive structure with a nine inch distance from the eaves of the new addition to our 01:05:29
property line. 01:05:34
The applicant suggests that the consequences for the immediate neighbors are not adverse and that we in the HRC did not understand 01:05:40
the differences between the plans and the 3D reality of them. 01:05:45
The presentation at the August HRC meeting termed the proposed additions and changes to be quote subtle. 01:05:50
The HRC unanimously denied the proposal for non compliance, telling the applicant that the mass of the 2nd floor was too large. 01:05:56
The applicant said he would come back with a 3D modeling and. 01:06:03
The proposal came back to the HRC in September. 01:06:07
With a study that's surprising and only addressed three sides of the house, but did not include the east side that we and our 01:06:10
neighbors continue to be concerned about. 01:06:15
Plans were basically unchanged except changing a couple of windows and lowering the lowering the roof line by 6 inches. 01:06:19
The applicant stated that he didn't see any legitimate concerns for our house. No, no negative impact, no shadows or any privacy 01:06:25
issues. 01:06:29
The news story polls have been installed, but they're not connected to the existing second story, so they don't accurately reflect 01:06:34
the actual mass of the proposed additions. 01:06:38
In September, the HRC stated the same concerns they had in August and the project was unanimously denied for the second time. 01:06:43
At the September meeting, the applicant cited examples of other projects in the city that have been approved as examples of why 01:06:50
this project should also be approved. 01:06:54
If every small home is permitted to inappropriately expand like this one, we will continue to lose the charm of the retreat. 01:06:59
Dan and I are greatly affected by this proposed addition. It looms over our small backyard and will block light and impact our 01:07:05
privacy. Our next door neighbors Originally you've met Tyler, who live at 110 9th St. directly located behind the project, spent 01:07:11
years carefully restoring. Their home is originally built and they did a beautiful job. 01:07:17
When the ridges were finished, they petitioned to be included on the historic register and their home was accepted. Tonight's 01:07:24
proposed Project Negative negatively impacts their home the most, looming over their entire property. And you've heard about the 01:07:28
tree. 01:07:32
As you consider whether to accept the recommendations of the HRC, I respectfully ask you to consider that the HRC was created as 01:07:37
the city's review board. 01:07:42
This project was unanimously denied twice by your committee due to non compliance and I urge you to please accept their 01:07:46
recommendation. Do the same. 01:07:50
And lastly, I wonder what is the incentive for anyone to preserve the character of the retreat neighborhood by doing what the 01:07:54
Ridgleys did, or simply buying a small home and keeping it that way? 01:07:59
Thank you for your consideration. 01:08:04
Thank you. 01:08:06
That includes comments from the audience, that is. 01:08:13
Building this evening, then we can go to the Zoom audience. Mr. Campbell, is there anyone who wishes to speak? 01:08:18
We have Englewood and Dahmer. 01:08:25
Thank you, Chair Lilly, I'm having a great deal of difficulty hearing you. 01:08:30
Most of the time. 01:08:38
So just turned mine. 01:08:40
OK, I'm gonna go to the project now, and this is. I'm going to recommend denial too. And to explain once again because the 01:08:44
applicant seems to. 01:08:50
UH spend all his time justifying, apparently with staff support, that it meets all the requirements. So there's he doesn't come 01:08:57
back with changes. The massing is. 01:09:04
It is like a wart on a beautiful. 01:09:12
Cottage. 01:09:16
It does not fit in, and it does not fit in on the Pearl St. massing. And it's taking away an Adu. It's taking away housing. 01:09:17
In the meantime, and destroying the tree, it will destroy the tree. 01:09:29
No matter what. 01:09:34
That tree would be trimmed trimmed down to a twig. 01:09:37
To have any. 01:09:41
Be OK. 01:09:43
You know, it could have one little sprout. 01:09:45
That's a horrible thought. 01:09:48
This doesn't fit in with the character of the neighborhood. 01:09:50
Whatsoever. 01:09:54
Maybe the cladding has finally changed, but it doesn't. It really is detrimental to that little cottage. 01:09:56
The the, the the view from Pearl Street is just. 01:10:06
Horrendous. It doesn't. It doesn. 01:10:11
Cohes it doesn't blend, it doesn't. It's just there. 01:10:14
And frankly, I don't want to see the there there. Thank you. 01:10:20
Thank you. 01:10:26
Gianni, welcome. 01:10:30
Thank you. The proposed project overwhelms the historic structure, which is one of the relatively few properties in PG that 01:10:35
qualifies for the California Register as well as the city's historic resources inventory, the H. 01:10:44
Recommended denial for very good reasons and as the vice chair of the HRC said, who is a retired architect and with years of 01:10:53
experience on both ARB and HRC. He said the massing is astonishing. 01:11:01
Other concerns I share with HRC members, neighbors and community members are the loss of an Adu compounded by using the Adu to 01:11:11
enlarge the main structure. 01:11:16
And the lack of protection for the massive Cypress tree, which clearly is at risk. The fact that they're doing this and there's 01:11:22
not an arborist involved, I agree with the back door neighbor, that's no guarantee, but that's a starting point and there needs to 01:11:29
be something in the permit about that. 01:11:35
But. 01:11:43
The The Agenda report contends the site and proposed development are not within a designated Scenic view area or corridor 01:11:44
disregarding IP section 2391 Sixty B1A, which states that and I'm going to say this quickly because there's so much but. 01:11:54
The following documentation requirements shall be provided for all CDP applications within scenic areas, including those mapped in 01:12:04
LUP Figure 4. All development on seaward or. 01:12:10
On seaward or visible from Ocean View Blvd. And the pedestrian recreation trail Seaward of those roads and so. 01:12:18
The I'm trying to go quickly through this and that's not working. 01:12:28
So the tree retreat is identified as a special community in the coastal zone and policies as SCE 2-3 and nine applied to the house 01:12:34
and the Monterey Cyprus. The tree roots, trunk and canopy needs to be protected during any construction and the addition needs to 01:12:42
be subordinate to the historic home. But just remember, staff doesn't seem to be aware that being visible from Ocean View Blvd. 01:12:49
and the Wreck Trail. 01:12:56
Means, yeah, it's seen it all right. And then archaeology. 01:13:05
The city. 01:13:11
The report that I includ. 01:13:13
A screenshot of the front page of a 2000 report by Gary Bruschini, which has a map that shows. 01:13:16
A designated archaeological site within feet of this property and. 01:13:25
There has. 01:13:32
Both archaeological and tribal monitoring of this site having having not found any visible. 01:13:34
Umm artifacts does not mean you don't need monitoring. This is an archaeologically sensitive area. Thank you for the time. 01:13:43
Thank you. 01:13:51
Welcome. 01:13:58
Good evening. 01:14:00
I have more questions than answers. 01:14:03
Umm. 01:14:06
How can this Comm? 01:14:10
Override. 01:14:13
Two decisions. 01:14:15
Of the Historic Resources Committ. 01:14:18
Which is the authority for evaluating historic preservation? 01:14:21
Permits or additions to historic buildings. 01:14:26
That's. 01:14:30
How does the staff? 01:14:31
It has more knowledge, experience and is more. 01:14:33
Than the. 01:14:38
Have you ever? 01:14:41
Has there ever been before this committee any project? 01:14:43
Any project. 01:14:48
Since you. 01:14:51
This Commission. 01:14:52
Where the staff is recommended den. 01:14:54
I don't think so. 01:14:59
The staff always recommends. 01:15:01
The tree has to be protected. There needs to be must be an independent objective analysis. 01:15:05
For the protection of that tree you don't have. 01:15:13
I must. I am a licensed architect who's practiced historic preservation architecture that for 50 years. 01:15:19
And I. 01:15:29
This architects or? 01:15:32
Desire to postpone this. 01:15:35
To find a solution that's going to be. 01:15:39
That makes a lot of sense to me. 01:15:43
I think you should take them up on it. 01:15:46
And. 01:15:49
You need to find somebody other than the current staff who has the knowledge and experience. 01:15:50
To make those kinds of decisions or send it back. 01:15:56
To a subcommittee. 01:16:00
Of the H. 01:16:02
To assist in the. 01:16:04
Of this project. 01:16:07
That would. 01:16:09
The visual impacts on a neighborhood. 01:16:11
Keep in mind. 01:16:14
For many years. 01:16:18
At least thirty I know of. 01:16:20
Now more than more than 30, the Coastal Commission is determined that special communities. 01:16:23
Are part of the scenic. 01:16:30
So historic. 01:16:32
Sites in special commun. 01:16:36
Are scenic. 01:16:39
And so if this is going to interfere with this scenic quality because of the tree or because of the buildings that needs to be 01:16:41
protected, this project doesn't do it. 01:16:46
Thank you. 01:16:52
Thank you. 01:16:55
Any further com. 01:17:00
No, Sir. 01:17:01
All right. Well then, if there are no further comments, and I will say that slowly, then we will. 01:17:03
Do we have one? Then we will proceed to close the public. 01:17:12
Comment portion of the public. 01:17:18
And proceed with our discussion vice chair. 01:17:20
And I I apologize to staff, I should have set this up before the meeting and I didn't think of it. Is it easy for you to put on 01:17:25
the screen the tree guidelines during development? 01:17:31
It's our information bulletin #20 million. 01:17:37
If you give us some time to to pull it up off of the website. 01:17:40
We'll see if we can get that for you and I. 01:17:44
You know, along with my colleagues on the Commission and and people who have. 01:17:47
The tree is obviously very, very important. 01:17:55
And this document lays out protections for trees during during development. 01:18:00
And if if we do approve this project, I'm going to recommend that that as a condition. 01:18:05
We follow all of the guidelines in this in this. 01:18:11
And I can start to read them so we all know. Or if you can display them that would be preferable I think. 01:18:16
And again, I'm sorry I didn't alert you ahead of time. I didn't think of if you'd like to. If you don't mind starting to, read 01:18:23
them and we'll see if we can pull it up while you. This document is called Tree Guidelines during Development and there are two 01:18:28
parts, and the first part is what should be done. 01:18:33
During this process that when you're when a project is being planned. 01:18:39
It says during the development process, a tree resource assessment shall be performed by a qualified professional. 01:18:43
Designated the project arborist for the duration of the. 01:18:50
All costs associated with this should be broadened by the. 01:18:54
The development shall preserve the maximum number of trees that exist on the site in accordance with the desired canopy and 01:18:58
identified any designated trees that would be removed. 01:19:03
There should be construction impact analysis, which is an evaluation of the impacts of construction. 01:19:09
Recommending alternative construction methods and pre construction treatments. 01:19:16
And there should be. 01:19:22
To protect the tree roots. It's called the Critical root Zone specification, including a protection fencing plan. 01:19:25
Mitigation requirements and all of this becomes conditions of a project. 01:19:31
And then there are a list of standards that you should take during construction to protect the trees 123456. 01:19:37
70 There it is. So I'm on that second part. 01:19:47
And I guess if we if we do approve this project, the simplest thing would be just to take this and and use the whole document and 01:19:52
make it a condition of of approval. 01:19:56
So I think that would go a long way to help with the tree issue. 01:20:02
Right. 01:20:09
Do you have any other comments about the application? I I think we probably should. 01:20:12
Let every person speak with questions or comments and then go back. There's want to have a second round so that everybody has a 01:20:16
say. 01:20:19
Who wants to start Commissioner Saw? 01:20:24
You're wrestling your papers there, so. 01:20:26
I'm on. 01:20:31
I have a number of issues with this particular project. The first issue has to do with the tree and it has been discussed as to 01:20:33
what can happen, but I totally agree that there needs to be an arborist involved, and I was. 01:20:41
Very amazed that there was not. 01:20:49
I also feel that the massing of the addition is a little bit too generous for that particular. 01:20:53
Project when you read the secretary of. 01:21:04
Interior standards. It states that exterior additions ensure that the addition is subordinate. 01:21:08
And it is basically behind it, yes. And that it is secondary to the historic building. 01:21:15
And is compatible in mass and scale. 01:21:23
I can't say. 01:21:26
And the reason being is when you look at what's being added at 71%. 01:21:28
Larger than what? 01:21:35
Precious sweet cottages at this point in time and. 01:21:38
Wonder if there's a way to compress it a little bit. 01:21:41
I appreciate the fact that they're. 01:21:46
Adding a garage. I don't appreciate the fact that an Adu is taken away, but I do understand what the thought process was. 01:21:49
But I also just. 01:21:57
I wish to see a way to make the massing just a little bit smaller. 01:22:04
So that it's compatible with the historic building because it still is a little bit overwhelming and when you look at the. 01:22:10
The sheet. 01:22:21
The product, the project data sheet. 01:22:25
It looks as though the height of the addition is still at least a foot higher. 01:22:29
Then no. 01:22:36
That that's what it says on the project data sheet. So it needs that needs to be corrected then. 01:22:38
I'm I I had thought that it was supposed to be the same, but on the project data sheet it does not show that. 01:22:44
Um, and. 01:22:52
My other concern is. 01:22:53
I. 01:22:59
Hang on. 01:23:08
And the rest of my other concerns would have to be with what we're going to be addressing as far as findings etcetera. So thank 01:23:11
you. 01:23:16
This is a subjective discussion. 01:23:32
When we talk about massing, massing compared to what? 01:23:36
I guess that's my engineering background. I like numbers. 01:23:41
And and what we have here, as I said, is a subjective discussion. 01:23:45
And the HRC and and and this was clear to me when I did the site visit. 01:23:49
Because from a massing perspective. 01:23:56
The house across the street dwarfs this. 01:23:59
House across 110th. I mean the house across 10th St. which I think is 110. 01:24:03
And St. 01:24:09
That's a three story built. 01:24:11
House. 01:24:15
And if you go down the street, Kitty corner on, stay on 10th and and again. 01:24:18
What you have in the next street over Pearl is I think a condo development. That's. 01:24:25
2 1/2. 01:24:31
On the north side, going across Pearl, you have another kind of development. 01:24:34
Up the street, which I think is. 01:24:40
Horton 115. Anyway, it's. 01:24:44
If I made any comment in my notes on the north, on the South side, the South neighbor to this property. 01:24:49
Is a house that's new or relatively new, but is relatively the same size as what this house will be. 01:24:56
So if you go all around the applicants house, the property, what you're left with is really the only house that's going to be. 01:25:07
The only two properties that are going to be less in size than this one are on 9th. 01:25:16
All the other properties on 9th Street are. 01:25:23
So from a massing pers. 01:25:27
Compared to the surrounding properties, I don't think you can make the case that this house is too big. 01:25:31
Now it seems to me what the HRC was talking about is mass compared to what it should be for historic building. 01:25:39
Without comparing it to the size of the building. 01:25:46
The project, I think that's off. 01:25:51
I can't fault them for their passion about. 01:25:55
Preservation. 01:25:59
But. 01:26:00
In my view the. 01:26:02
So that's what I dealt with initially is the massing issue, I think on a massing basis compared to the properties surrounding this 01:26:06
property. 01:26:10
You can't make the pace case to deny the application. 01:26:15
Thank you. 01:26:21
Can I hear that, Commissioner? 01:26:24
I just want to point out my comparison with Massing was in regards to the historic structure. 01:26:28
I was using numbers of the historic structure. 01:26:35
And numbers of the. 01:26:39
It was objective, not subjective. 01:26:42
And we're looking at this particular historic structure. I appreciate your argument. 01:26:45
But I'm merely looking at this house. 01:26:51
Wonderful little house, that. 01:26:56
Needs to be addressed in a different manner from my perspective. Thank you. 01:26:59
On this on this particular topic. 01:27:14
My observation. 01:27:18
Visiting the site several times. 01:27:20
When you look from 10th St. at the wonderful front of the building, you don't see any any of the addition the the existing 01:27:23
structure. 01:27:26
Is is preserved as as it? 01:27:31
When you look. 01:27:34
Or 9th St. 01:27:36
You see, you're a relatively large addition. 01:27:39
But large is subjective and I agree with Commissioner Frederickson it it. 01:27:42
You know it's not the size of the two. 01:27:49
Houses on 9th. 01:27:52
But it does otherwise fit very well. 01:27:54
With the surrounding houses. 01:27:56
And and again, I think it's important. 01:27:59
I might feel differently if if the view from 10th St. change, but it doesn't. 01:28:04
Thank you. 01:28:11
Commissioner Kubica. 01:28:16
Thank you. Thank you. 01:28:21
You know, I've gone out to the site three Times Now and. 01:28:23
I've looked at the story polls, I've looked at drawings. 01:28:28
And I've read some of the historical documents of what the requirements are. 01:28:32
It appears that they're attempting to save the cottage, not modified the cottage itself. 01:28:38
The main historical. 01:28:45
And I agree with my colleagues on on several issues and. 01:28:47
I think at this point you know, looking from the front of the building. 01:28:54
Seeing the structure, the new addition behind it. 01:28:59
It's very minimal if it all could be seen from the. 01:29:02
And the buildings on the street. 01:29:06
In that neighborhood, this does not. This addition does. 01:29:09
Go over the size of the other buildings that are on that street. 01:29:16
Thank you. 01:29:20
Thank you. 01:29:22
Want to say anything or you want me to go? No, go, go ahead. 01:29:24
I hear what? 01:29:31
Question, Murphy and Commissioners Kubica and Fredericks are saying. However, I'm going to put a different spin. 01:29:34
Uh, items 21, two and three in. 01:29:42
Guideline, architecture review, guidelines are very clear about the tree. 01:29:47
The design and citing of a dwelling should take into consideration all existing trees in order to avoid unneeded cutting and 01:29:52
trimming. 01:29:55
22 is protect root systems of significant trees. 01:30:00
23 Consult the city forester or arborist. 01:30:03
Regarding tree protection measures during construction. 01:30:07
Apparently, while there's a desire, stated desire. 01:30:11
Protect the tree. There's no evidence that they really have taken these measures and so I don't think we're in a position. 01:30:15
To say whether or not there's any mass excessive massing of this. 01:30:22
Because there's been no City Forester evaluation of this site to see if. 01:30:27
Root systems are such that the project would have to be cut back. 01:30:35
Or or modified in some way. And so without that we're speculating about what? 01:30:40
The mass of the project really is so I that that's that's the the biggest concern I have about this is that tree is as mentioned 01:30:45
by the first speaker. 01:30:50
Who spoke from the audience? 01:30:55
That's that's my major comment. The other comment I have is that Commissioner Sawyer made a comment about the. 01:30:58
Secretary of Interior guidelines, there's we also received a letter where there are some calculations. 01:31:06
Regarding. 01:31:13
The the amount of of of space involved with this and. 01:31:16
And it all tied back into Sequa. 01:31:22
And. 01:31:27
We haven't had any discussion about compliance with SECO regulations. 01:31:29
We've had some discussion with the staff on that regarding, you know, if somebody wants to. 01:31:35
Remodel a house. They they, you know, they should be able to do that within certain specifications, but it would appear that the 01:31:45
amount of of space involved with this goes beyond the the what's allowed under the under our CDP and under the secret. 01:31:53
Interior guidelines, I'm not sure which, but I think it's the OUP. So I think that's something we need to take into consideration 01:32:01
instead of just saying, well it looks OK, so it's so we can approve it. I don't think it is. 01:32:07
Commissioner Sawyer. Well, I chose not to go to the sequel argument because I was gonna wait to hear what everybody else was 01:32:14
saying. However, I do need to have an explanation of the sequel Section 15301 with existing facilities, because when I looked it 01:32:20
up. 01:32:26
It states that additions to existing structures. Umm. 01:32:32
Should not be more than 50% of the floor structure of the. 01:32:37
Before the addition or 2500 square feet, whichever is less. And this particular addition is 71%, it is larger. 01:32:42
So I don't know how we can use those that particular sequa and I'm hoping that. 01:32:52
The staff can help. 01:33:01
Unravel that mystery. 01:33:03
There's item number two under that same. 01:33:06
So you're you're reading from item 150% on the floor of the structures before the addition, or 2500 square feet. 01:33:10
Whichever is less or 10,000 square feet, if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to 01:33:18
allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan. 01:33:23
And the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive and this one. 01:33:29
This, in this environment, is not considered environmentally sensitive. 01:33:37
I have a question, yeah. Commissioner Frederickson, I'm not quite sure I understood where your art, where your discussion 01:33:47
regarding the size of the tree goes. Are you suggesting that we can't know what this? 01:33:54
Mass of the building can be. 01:34:02
That arborist tells. 01:34:05
What's permissible? 01:34:07
Exactly. I mean, we don't know what an arborist is going to say about the tree. 01:34:09
It's all speculation they've gone ahead and designed something and said we want to protect the tree but but in our guidelines say 01:34:15
an arborist has to look at it. 01:34:19
And they haven't done that. And until that's done, until the Arbor says, well that works or it doesn't work, I think we're 01:34:24
speculating on the mats, I really do and the sense I'm agreeing with you about the mass if it may or may not be an issue. 01:34:31
But I I. 01:34:38
I'm sorry, I can say with some certainty. 01:34:40
The plus 10 years I've been doing this on reviewing projects. 01:34:45
We have never turned down a project because Ann Arbor. 01:34:49
Project could not be developed, but there's no arborist report. OK, so what's your your? 01:34:54
All right. 01:35:00
Understand, in the absence of report, I'm just saying there's no report. So technically I could make the argument this is an 01:35:04
incomplete application. 01:35:09
You know, I don't know what to say. 01:35:15
I maybe it it maybe the the the tree is such that the roots would be OK and the and the the massing is is fine. 01:35:18
But we don't know, and so we're being asked to approve a project. 01:35:28
Well that is been put before us that doesn't even fulfill the the conditions in our guidelines. Well, OK, so to be specific here 01:35:33
what what we're saying what what you are saying is that. 01:35:40
We. 01:35:48
An arborist reports. 01:35:49
To certify, to the best of their knowledge, that that project wouldn't harm the tree. 01:35:51
Well, yeah, it says protect root systems of significant. 01:35:57
Consult Sydney Forrester regarding pre protection measures, I mean I'm not saying you know during construction, that's to say 01:36:01
there. 01:36:05
I'm not saying there shouldn't be construction. I'm just saying we don't have enough information here to make a judgment on the 01:36:10
mass because. 01:36:13
These three items have not been addressed. 01:36:17
Plus, plus the the sequel thing which I I need to hear again. What? 01:36:21
Staff. 01:36:26
The different provision because that 50% is obviously off Vice Chair Murphy. 01:36:28
If if I could ask staff to weigh in about. 01:36:33
The Trillion and why an arborist perhaps hasn't been involved at this point, and whether. 01:36:38
And this somehow does make this an incomplete application. 01:36:44
When we receive an application, a tree permit with development is typically when. 01:36:49
There's actually something that's going to happen to the tree, what you brought up with the tree protection. 01:36:56
Is our policy to protect those trees, especially as during construction and if there was number proposed? 01:37:03
Trimming or or removal of trees, so a tree permit. 01:37:11
Isn't involved, and that's what triggers. 01:37:17
Uh, the the city arborist to go out to to visit that site. 01:37:20
Thank you and. 01:37:25
With chair. 01:37:28
If you could. 01:37:30
Explain the secret issue again. 01:37:32
Sure. Yeah. Let, we'll let Joe Seedor if you don't mind. 01:37:35
Yes, Commissioner or Vice Chair Murphy and Sherly. So Joe Seedor. 01:37:40
And. 01:37:48
The existing facilities Sequel Categorical Exemption 15301. 01:37:50
E1 where it talks about 50% of the floor area of the structures before the additions. 01:37:54
Or 2500 square feet, whichever is less. That's a. 01:38:02
Categorical Exemption that is generally used in more rural. 01:38:08
Areas. 01:38:12
And. 01:38:15
I mean not exclusively in rural areas, but generally speaking the 2nd. 01:38:19
Categorical Exemption Under E 10,000 square feet if. 01:38:25
Project area is project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development 01:38:31
permissible in the general plan well for this particular. 01:38:37
Project, site or property within the Pacific Grove Retreat and. 01:38:45
Within most of. 01:38:51
Pacific Grove well, actually all of Pacific Grove 2A would apply because all of Pacific Grove has public services and facilities 01:38:53
with regard to water and wastewater. 01:38:59
To allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan. 01:39:05
And to. 01:39:09
Again, does not apply to this site because in the land use plan, This site is identified. 01:39:15
As having a low sensitivity regarding biological resources and. 01:39:21
I would agree with. 01:39:28
That assessment although. 01:39:29
There may be some argument for updating that particular figure. 01:39:32
I believe it's Figure 5 in the Land Use Plan. I would agree that. 01:39:37
That low sensitivity. 01:39:41
Designation that would apply to this particular project site. 01:39:46
Areas of Pacific Grove where the project is located in an environmentally sensitive habitat area would of course be the syllabar. 01:39:52
A residential area which all of that area is considered environmentally sensitive Remnant dune. 01:40:03
02 I'm sorry. So E2B. 01:40:13
That categorical exemption would would likely not be able to be used in the Asylum are dunes residential area, but it could be 01:40:19
used for this project site. 01:40:23
Enough, if I may. I'm a little confused because on the in the text of the agenda report we talked about 15301. 01:40:29
But on the. 01:40:38
We talked about 15, three. 01:40:40
Historical resources. Restoration. Rehabilitation. Is that alone the agenda? Quick. The the. 01:40:43
Staff report system. 01:40:52
Or application that staff uses only allows us to enter one or the. 01:40:54
In that particular section, is either one enough to make it categorically exempt, or do you need both? 01:41:00
Go ahead. 01:41:16
And maybe this is the question for our. 01:41:19
Our attorney. 01:41:21
And put both. 01:41:26
I would say airing on the safe side since we have a historic the the 15331 is referring to the historic properties and one is the 01:41:34
existing properties we do have. 01:41:40
A non well they they weren't able to identify the carriage house as well. So on the safe side is a categorical exemption they 01:41:47
would they both apply and I would. 01:41:52
I would use. I would use them both and not one or the other. 01:41:57
Thank you. 01:42:02
I'm still confused. 01:42:06
How do we How do we unconfuse you? 01:42:09
I need to read. 01:42:12
You're using 2 sequels. 01:42:19
And the historic sequel also talks about. 01:42:22
Additions. 01:42:27
And. 01:42:34
Print that one out because I felt this other one was a little more applicable to what we were talking. 01:42:35
I think if I can just let you know our. 01:42:47
Way of thinking when it comes to sequence and exemptions and again erring on the safe side. So we would look at a historic site 01:42:51
and say 15331. Does it apply? 01:42:56
Yes. 01:43:00
Does the other one apply as well? 01:43:02
Yes. 01:43:05
The question of whether or not and and perhaps we could ask our attorney this if she whether we do one or the other. Good, good. 01:43:07
Chime in on this when she might be able to to give us more of a legal definition of that if you could. 01:43:14
Yes, I'm happy to answer that question. 01:43:23
It's very common practice. 01:43:27
To rely on multiple sequent exemptions, they frequently overlap. 01:43:29
And to be safe as planner Campbell. 01:43:36
Has stated you would want to rely on as. 01:43:41
That fit the project as possible. 01:43:45
If you disagree. 01:43:49
That one of these two secret exemptions applies to the project? Then you're free to eliminate. 01:43:50
One of them from your findings, but in staff's assessment. 01:43:56
They believe that both of these fit the project and therefore the standard practice would be to rely on both of the exemptions. 01:44:03
Thank you. 01:44:10
Vice chair Mur. 01:44:13
I'm I'm ready to make a motion unless. 01:44:15
Unless there's further discussion or I could make a. 01:44:19
And more discussion for. 01:44:23
Is there any objections? If not, then go ahead. 01:44:26
I I move that we approve the. 01:44:31
And make two changes to the conditions. 01:44:36
One the tree Guidelines during Development Information bullet #29. 01:44:40
Be added as condition? 01:44:46
In its entirety. 01:44:49
Some of these items may not. 01:44:50
Applied to this project, but I would leave it to staff to. 01:44:53
Deter. 01:44:57
Which items apply? 01:44:59
And again, the cost of this is is borne by the applicant. 01:45:03
I also agree with some members of the. 01:45:07
That this project needs some monitoring for the ground distur. 01:45:11
Activities and we have conditions 9 and 10. 01:45:17
That talk about inadvertent. 01:45:21
Discovery of of art. 01:45:24
But I am. I guess those are fine, but I would add 1 requiring. 01:45:27
Archaeological and tribal Mon. 01:45:33
During ground disturbances I that's recommended in the phase one and phase two studies, the archaeological is. 01:45:38
I think this area, the coastal zone, so close to the coast, also requires tribal monitoring. 01:45:47
And again, I realize I'm adding. 01:45:54
To the owners costs, but I think, I think we should do that. 01:45:57
And so with those changes to the conditions, I move that we approve the project. 01:46:00
Accept the. 01:46:08
Accept the sequ. 01:46:10
Exemptions plural. 01:46:14
And I'm not sure if I have to add anything else to the motion. 01:46:17
There's a motion from Vice Chair Murphy to. 01:46:24
Approve the project with the conditions that he outlined. 01:46:28
Additional conditions I should say. 01:46:34
Is there a second to that motion? 01:46:36
I'll second seconded by Commissioner. 01:46:39
I'll let Vice Chair Murphy speak first, because he made the motion that I believe Commissioner Sawyer had her hand raised. So Vice 01:46:43
Chair Murphy, would you like? 01:46:48
Speak in support of your motion. 01:46:54
I appreciate the efforts the designer has made to preserve the front front facade of of the building. 01:46:57
I think in the context. 01:47:08
Of the. 01:47:11
The size massing seems seems OK. 01:47:16
And I guess I'll leave it at that. All right. Thank you. I'll recognize. 01:47:20
Commissioner Sawyer and then Commissioner Fred. 01:47:27
As a. 01:47:31
I think as an addition we should have. 01:47:33
ESC E9. 01:47:37
Which is part of the LUP that trees that are visually integral part of the coastline and contribute to the scenic views of the 01:47:39
coastal zone shall be protected. 01:47:44
I think we need to add that in. 01:47:49
And when necessary, replanted to ensure their continued scenic. 01:47:53
Utility. 01:47:58
Is that an amendment you're proposing? That's a friendly amendment that is proposes a friendly amendment. Is that acceptable to 01:48:00
the mover? 01:48:04
And how? How would it be added as a condition? 01:48:09
That's protecting the tree. That's acceptable. 01:48:14
Commissioner Frederick. 01:48:20
What exactly do we have about the arborist in this motion, if anything? 01:48:23
We need to. 01:48:29
I think that and then protecting the tree becomes sub sub part of the guide arborist the guidelines that I'm suggesting. 01:48:31
Require an arborist. 01:48:41
Be involved to a Resource Investment Resource assessment. 01:48:45
And that. 01:48:51
And during. 01:48:54
The construction. 01:48:57
And the arborist verifies that all pre construction conditions have been met. Tree fencing, erosion control, pruning, pre 01:48:59
construction treatments. 01:49:03
So, and in addition, the city. 01:49:07
Under these conditions, we'll inspect the project tree protection measures. 01:49:11
So there's there's a arborist for the project and the city arborist is also involved and you're gonna you're gonna cite that 01:49:16
document in in the in the. Yes I've I've asked that this document be condition 11. Alright. 01:49:22
Pardon me, Chair Lily. I just want to double check. Was the friendly amendment accepted? 01:49:31
I I I did. I do accept that amendment, Vice Chair Murphy. 01:49:40
I did, but I don't know what the second there's the second person who seconded the motion's. 01:49:44
I guess I don't understand what how it's different than the the the bulletin. 01:49:51
The tree bulletin requirement #11 how is. How is this is part of? 01:49:58
Lup. 01:50:05
But what? What is the benefit? 01:50:07
I don't. I don't understand. 01:50:10
More. 01:50:16
Well. 01:50:18
Another reason why you want that in the findings. 01:50:21
If you don't agree, may I? May I ask Mr. Campbell, You can clarify. Possibly. All right. Well, it's it's a it's. 01:50:24
Friendly suggestion. Since this is a policy, we can place this in findings. 01:50:33
If that, if you would be OK with that, we'd put it in our findings, which would support the conditions. 01:50:39
At work, Yes. Thank you. Yes. All right. Thank you. 01:50:46
Then commission's your Sawyer's friendly amendment is now a finding. 01:50:50
Regarding the protection of the trees. 01:50:57
So any further comments? 01:51:00
Before we take a vote, I just want to make the comment I I I empathize and sympathize with. 01:51:08
The obvious majority that that perhaps. 01:51:14
Believes that the massing is OK. My my concern is we don't know what the massing is because we don't know. 01:51:19
What the situation is with the tree because the arborist hasn't been out there, so I'm voting no and and with that then I'll call 01:51:25
for the motion if there's no further comment. 01:51:30
And Mr. Campbell, would you please call the roll all those in favor? 01:51:37
Vice chair. 01:51:41
Motion should say aye. Those who opposed should say no. 01:51:44
A term review. 01:51:48
Commissioner Nisinski. 01:51:52
Commissioner. 01:51:56
Commissioner Sawyer. 01:51:59
Commissioner. 01:52:02
Aye, Commissioner Lilly. 01:52:04
With four eyes and two nose, the motion passes. All right. So as Mr. Campbell said, the motion to approve this project with 01:52:08
conditions passes for votes for to no and one absent. And so we are now ready to move on to the next item, item 8B, in our agenda. 01:52:17
And. 01:52:27
That would be. Let me read the description. 01:52:30
Coastal Development Permits CDP 22-0296 Four 1353 Arena 1335 Arena. 01:52:35
And 3:20 of Sylamar Ave. Pacific. 01:52:45
Assessor Parcel numbers 007061003. 01:52:48
007061044 and 007061045, so I will now open the hearing. 01:52:54
And before we proceed, does anybody on the Commission need to recuse a report, an ex parte communication? 01:53:05
All right, so then, who is the staff for this review? Garrett McGowan, welcome. 01:53:15
We'll let you speak, but first, have you received any notification from any group wishing to designate a spokesperson for this 01:53:22
project other than the applicant? 01:53:26
No, I have not. OK, then maybe we have your your agenda or staff report please. Yes, Sir. 01:53:32
Good evening, Chair Lilly and Commissioners. 01:53:39
The site project is located at 1353 Arena Avenue, 1335 Arena Ave. and 3:20 A Sylmar Ave. 01:53:41
The existing site consists of three legal lots of record on the southwest corner of Arena Ave. and a Sylmar Ave. 01:53:51
Existing lot. 01:53:59
1353 Arena Ave. is 54,252 square feet and currently developed with a 1115 square foot single family dwelling including a 472 01:54:00
square foot attached garage. 01:54:09
And an 888 square foot single family dwelling. 01:54:17
Existing lot. 01:54:22
1335 Arena Ave. is 23,470 square feet. 01:54:24
Currently undeveloped. 01:54:30
Existing lot 3. 01:54:32
3/20 at Sylmar Ave. is 19,971 square feet. 01:54:34
And also currently undeveloped. 01:54:40
The site is located in the coastal zone, an archaeologically sensitive area. 01:54:43
And in the environmentally sensitive habitat area. 01:54:48
The proposed project includes a lot line adjustment between the three existing legal lots of record. 01:54:52
Resulting in adjusted. 01:54:58
Which is 1353. 01:55:02
45. 01:55:05
845 square feet. 01:55:07
An adjusted lot. 01:55:10
Two, which is 1335 Arena. 01:55:11
Of 24,073. 01:55:15
Square. 01:55:18
An adjusted Lot 3, which is 300-2320, a Sylmar. 01:55:19
Of 27,873 square feet. 01:55:25
This adjustment would bring the existing parcels into conformance with the adopted certified Pacific Grove Coastal Land Use Plan 01:55:29
in regard to the low density residential land use designation of one or two dwelling units per acre. 01:55:37
The proposal the proposed project is consistent with applicable land use policies. 01:55:45
A Coastal Development permit was filed with the Community Development Department on November 17th. 01:55:51
2022 and forwarded to the. 01:55:56
Commission on September 13th, 2023. 01:56:00
The proposed project is found to be categorically exempt under SQL Guidelines section 15305. 01:56:04
Class 5. 01:56:11
Minor alterations and land use limitations. 01:56:12
This class of Categorical Categorical Exemption allows minor alterations and land use limitations in areas with an average slope 01:56:16
of less than 20%. 01:56:20
Which do not result in any change in land use or density. 01:56:25
Including minor line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. 01:56:29
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approves the proposed coastal development permit. 01:56:36
22-0. 01:56:41
96 Subject to findings. 01:56:44
Conditions of Approval and Class 5 Categorical Exemption for Minor Alterations and Land Use Limitations. 01:56:46
This concludes my staff staff presentation. I'm available for questions as well as the applicant. Thank you. 01:56:53
Are there any questions? 01:57:01
Commissioner. 01:57:06
I was wondering if there could be just an explanation of the two water meters before we go any further so that. 01:57:08
People are. 01:57:19
Of where they're located. 01:57:21
What may or may not happen. 01:57:26
And I'm addressing that to Mr. Sidor. Yes, yes, Commissioner Sawyer, the the two there are two existing water meters, one for each 01:57:29
of the existing residences. 01:57:34
At 1353 Arena Ave. 01:57:40
And the two existing water meters are currently located adjacent to the property line, but within the City Street right of way on 01:57:44
Arena Ave. 01:57:50
And those two existing water meters? 01:57:57
Would not have to be relocated. Neither one would have to be relocated. They could remain where they're currently located. 01:58:01
And the. 01:58:08
Portion of the project scope on the application that identified relocation of an existing water meter. That would be. 01:58:16
That that's not no longer part of the scope. This the scope now would be to leave the two existing water meters where they're 01:58:26
currently located and staff has already. 01:58:31
Struck through that item on the hard copy application form. 01:58:38
Vice chair. 01:58:44
There's included in our packet is an excellent biological survey report. 01:58:46
But then sort of imagine that it's it's not really relevant or required, so I I guess I don't know how. 01:58:53
Consider this Biological Survey report. 01:59:02
Are you referring to Biological Policy 24 in the Land Use Plan in terms of no, I'm just referring to the report in. 01:59:09
In her packet and and mentioned in the packet that the report wasn't. 01:59:18
Well, the. 01:59:24
Well, it's not that the report was not required, it's the there's no physical or structural development proposed. This is a lot 01:59:27
line adjustment. So it's essentially redrawing lines. 01:59:32
On. 01:59:38
On the map or the ground, essentially? 01:59:40
So. 01:59:45
For lack of a better way of stating that I'm sorry, so the. 01:59:46
The biological report was useful in helping to identify the location of rare plant species. 01:59:51
Or whether or not rare plant species existed on the on the properties. 02:00:00
And where the areas of. 02:00:05
Best habitat, environmentally sensitive habitat were located. 02:00:10
On the. 02:00:14
And. 02:00:16
The portion of the. 02:00:18
Biological report that was not relevant was the portion of the biological report that talked about what would be required if 02:00:22
future development occurred on the properties. Well that that's not part of the application before the the Planning Commission 02:00:29
that there is no proposed. 02:00:36
Development other than the lot line adjustment and so those. 02:00:43
Mitigation measures or requirements that were identified by they all by by the biologist would not apply to this lot line 02:00:50
adjustment. However, those would be good recommendations and requirements for potential future development if the city were to 02:00:57
receive an application. 02:01:04
And however, the thing about biological resources is that they do change overtime, unlike geologic or archaeological resources or 02:01:11
cultural resources which tend to remain fairly static. 02:01:18
And so over long periods of time and so. 02:01:25
If any of these properties were proposed for redevelopment. 02:01:32
Staff would likely require a revised or an updated or a new biological report. 02:01:37
Thank you, I think I misunderstood, so thank you for help helping. 02:01:44
Commissioner Sawyer, you had a question. I do. 02:01:48
In the biologic report there are. 02:01:53
A number of guidelines for development. So you're saying at this point in time, those don't need to be added to what we're doing? 02:01:56
That's correct. OK. So when would we want to do that because they're, they're two of the properties are up for sale? 02:02:06
As you're. 02:02:14
Umm, Well, whether the properties are for sale is is not relevant to the application before the Planning Commission this evening 02:02:16
and. 02:02:20
The. 02:02:27
There is no other application. There are no other applications or any of these properties before the OR that have been submitted 02:02:31
to the city or to the Community Development department and so the the only. 02:02:38
Proposed application at this time before the Planning Commission and that's been submitted to the city is. 02:02:47
Lot line. Lot lineage. OK, Excuse me. Lot light adjustment. Yeah. So when we get an application for development, then we would use 02:02:54
Mr. Moss's. 02:03:00
Report and suggestions if it. 02:03:06
And they they could be used or or we would likely request depending upon how long in the. 02:03:09
Or how many years in the future that development is proposed? We may request a new biological report. Thank you. 02:03:18
Commissioner. 02:03:26
Yeah, this is we're still developing. I I do have a question to. 02:03:28
I recognize that this. 02:03:33
Proposal is simply for adjusting the lot. 02:03:36
My concern is that and that relates to a project that was done on Ocean View and quarter deck about 5-6, seven years ago. 02:03:40
Where two lots were combined in a much larger house was. 02:03:50
And although I recognize that we're not looking at a project for development here, I am very much concerned that A1 owner. 02:03:56
Get ahold of all three lots and and then ask that the lots. 02:04:04
Is and I know at the time and. 02:04:11
Commissioner Murphy was part of the Commission then, and I think you were too, Steve. 02:04:14
We asked staff to put wording into the code somewhere that would prohibit this from happening in the future, but I don't know that 02:04:20
that ever got done and you're giving me that indication. I don't believe staff would. 02:04:26
Would support that type of recommendation because. 02:04:34
The If someone wanted to purchase all three lots and then merge them, they certainly would have. 02:04:37
The. 02:04:43
Under the code that they would have the ability to submit that application. 02:04:46
And it would be reviewed. 02:04:52
A determination would be made as to whether or not that that could be approved or not. 02:04:55
That what's before the Planning Commission this evening is a lot line adjustment between these three existing three legal lots of 02:05:03
record. 02:05:06
And to the potential for someone in the future to purchase three lots, the three lots, and merge them is speculative at this 02:05:11
point. 02:05:15
Understand, but it's still a possibility. It wouldn't stop us if we were concerned about this as an issue, from making a condition 02:05:20
of approval that they might be merged in the future. 02:05:26
Because I don't. Well, I would like to hear the the City Attorney's opinion on this. Maybe maybe we should ask Miss Vega if she. 02:05:32
Would give us an opinion about that or can I don't know if this is too sudden but. 02:05:40
1st please if you would Steve Chair you want me to you know let me I yeah the the concern is that Commissioner Fritters. 02:05:46
This type and not necessarily in a Sylmar Dunes. It has much larger lots. 02:05:56
In some other areas of the city. 02:06:01
Purchase and consolidation of lots could lead to building a house that's out of scale with all of the surrounding properties. That 02:06:04
was our issue at the time. 02:06:09
And may still be now I don't know if anything got put into the code. 02:06:16
On that issue or not, So that's a question I have of staff anyway. 02:06:21
It's apart from this. 02:06:26
This this item on the agenda. 02:06:30
But I. 02:06:33
I guess that for me is is a concern down the road because. 02:06:36
It seems like whatever community you're talking about in California, you have mega houses springing up. Now this one would be 02:06:43
difficult to construct because it's in the coastal zone. 02:06:47
So there would be lots of hurdles, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about it. 02:06:53
Even though it's just a lot line adjustment. 02:06:58
Miss Vega, do you want to venture a comment? 02:07:05
Yes, I I would just like to state that I, you know haven't had the opportunity to look look into this specific issue. So this is 02:07:09
sort of my off the cuff opinion. But I would be concerned about conditioning this lot line adjustment to prohibit merger of one or 02:07:17
or two or more of the lots without having the opportunity to do legal research into whether that is a legal condition of approval. 02:07:25
Thank you. Let me. 02:07:35
Kind of ech. 02:07:38
Commissioner Frederickson said. I recall when this came up and it had to do with Ocean View Blvd. Properties. 02:07:39
From C Plum Road to. 02:07:49
Oh, down toward point pin. 02:07:54
And they're they were developing mega mansions. In fact, there were two or three cases where people bought adjacent Watson built 02:07:57
big houses. 02:08:01
And there was quite a bit of discussion when I was first on the Planning Commission about that. 02:08:05
And and perhaps we can have staff look into that. I thought we had resolved something about that, but I could be wrong. 02:08:10
Commission vice Chair Murphy shaking his head. So he's probably right. 02:08:17
You both write the concern. 02:08:22
People buying a large lots and having your really huge house. We didn't think that was a good idea and we were going to try to 02:08:24
somehow limit. 02:08:28
And people's ability to do that, but we didn't, we didn't follow through. We talked about it, never did it. Yeah, maybe that's the 02:08:32
the basis of a new subcommittee, but we'll see later on that's that's not for this evening. 02:08:39
I had a couple of questions of staff. 02:08:46
Was a survey done on this? 02:08:49
Or is that a question for the applicant? 02:08:53
Yes. 02:08:56
The second question I have is. 02:08:58
Well, I'll just make a note. Well, I'll make this comment it appears. 02:09:02
That if I look at up the square footages on the first page. 02:09:08
Which I have. 02:09:13
Of the the. 02:09:15
For the. 02:09:18
That number is less than what? 02:09:20
Concept from the new line, adding up all the three properties, I don't think we can create property out of thin air. 02:09:24
And I think it's because there's a computation or there's a. 02:09:32
Nearly a. 02:09:36
In the. 02:09:38
On the sheet and Lot 1 and so that would need to be corrected in the findings. So we will need to discuss that but I you know if 02:09:41
you want to comment on that now. 02:09:45
But I I discovered that last night so so the the total is 97693. 02:09:50
And instead the new would be 97791 or 98 more square feet. That's not because of rounding, that's because of a computational air. 02:09:58
Now the second sheet is correct, the one that has the more detail, but not the first sheet. 02:10:06
So I think it's just computational more than anything else. I just want to make. 02:10:14
Observation. 02:10:19
Question if you will for the staff and you can look into this as the. 02:10:21
Makes this presentation, but I'm just making that comment. Sure. Lily, yes, I can answer that right now if you would like. 02:10:26
Thank you. So the site plan that's in the agenda packet, excuse me, was prepared by. 02:10:34
The applicant Carver Architect and. 02:10:43
The lot line adjustment plan, which is also in the agenda packet, was a survey prepared by Rasmussen. Surveyor answers that and so 02:10:47
the numbers that we should be using are the survey numbers exactly. 02:10:56
But those aren't. 02:11:05
A simple correction in anywhere. So we'll have to modify that, All right. If there's no further comments or questions from the 02:11:08
Commission of staff, let me recognize the applicant to speak. 02:11:12
And does the applicant here? 02:11:18