Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Uh, call the regular meeting of the Caramel by the Sea Planning Commission to order. Want to welcome you all here today. Can we have roll call, please? Commissioner Alboard here. Commissioner Allen here. Commissioner Carrop here. Commission Sherlock here and Chair Le here. Okay.

Brings us to the public appearances. Uh, any member of the public may address the planning commission at this time on any matters of municipal concern which are not on our agenda tonight. Um, items uh will not receive discussion, but they may be agendaized for further discussion at at a a regular meeting. uh want to remind you we are all under the governance of the Brown Act and uh you will be expected to abide by that. So at this time I'd like to invite any members of the public to come and address us about any matters of municipal concern which are not on our agenda tonight. Got one hand up. Okay. Uh nobody in the chamber coming up. Um Nancy, you have your hand up. You'd like to speak to us?

Yes. Uh just wanted to thank you guys all for the above and beyond work that you're doing here this month. Four meetings, one that was kind of aborted a little bit, but um just uh showing our appreciation, good results from last night from where I sit and thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments, Nancy. Okay, no further hands up. Last call for the chamber. All right, we will move on to the consent agenda. Uh items on the consent agenda considered to be routine in nature and do not require discussion, but any members of the commission or the public may request items be uh pulled for further discussion or questions. Uh tonight we have three items. uh the monthly activity report, the minutes for the commission uh January 21st and February 4th special meeting minutes. Any questions? Any questions from the public? Uh in that case, I will make a motion that we accept the uh consent agenda as presented.

Second. Okay. Um roll call, please. Commissioner Alour? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Yes. Commissioner Carco, yes. Commissioner Lockach, yes. And Shayla Le Page, yes. Motion is carried. All right, that brings us to the public hearings. The uh first item of the public hearing tonight is the annual general plan and housing element progress reports. I believe Marne Waffle is going to be presenting that.

Well, thank you and good afternoon. Uh so this afternoon the planning commission is going to be reviewing the 2025 annual progress reports. Um so there are two one for the general plan um and then one more specifically for the housing element. Uh so each year the city prepares and submits annual progress reports on the activities taken to undertake the general plan. These reports are submitted to the office of planning and research um which is now the office of land use and climate innovation. A separate report on the implementation of the housing element is submitted to the department of housing and community development uh which we commonly refer to as HCD. Both reports are due annually by April 1st. Um and before submitting those reports, they are reviewed by the planning commission and the city council. So, I'm going to start first with the general plan report. Um, just a a quick overview. Our general plan has a number of different elements um which are basically just different chapters. Um, they are listed here uh followed by the year that each one um was most recently either adopted or updated. Um, because we are a coastal community, we also have a uh local coastal program. So the LUP um that you see next to the general plan element um is also part of our local uh coastal program. So just some general highlights from the um the general plan and local coastal program. Um we did not have any general plan amendments during calendar year 2025. Uh we did have two amendments to our local coastal program. Um, and that was updating our wireless telecommunications

regulations and then adopting our updated historic context statement um, under the land use and community character um, element. So what I'm going to do as I kind of go through is I'm just going to mention some of the highlights um of the activities uh within each element um that were undertaken in 2025 to implement um each of these um categories within the general plan. So the planning commission considered uh 40 applications of residential design studies uh within the circulation um element. Uh the traffic safety committee met three times in 2025. They recommend recommended some um additional stop signs to enhance pedestrian safety. Um and those stop signs were installed um under housing. Uh just generally the council allocated 14 acre feet of water. Um they entered into a professional services agreement with Opticost Design to prepare the objective design and development standards. They also updated uh the city's reasonable accommodation policy um and accepted the annual progress reports for 2024. Later on in the presentation, I'm going to go into more detail on the housing element uh report itself. Um some other policies that were were implemented. Um city continued the active short-term rental enforcement uh which is consistent with our coastal access and recreation element under co coastal resource management. Um the city undertook an assessment of the 4th Avenue um out outfall. Uh the council held a discussion on architectural copper um and then adopted a ban on the installation of artificial turf under public facilities and services. Um

there was quite a bit of work done in 2025. Um including numerous conversations about the Carmel Police and Public Works uh building upgrades. Um we also implemented the audiovisisual upgrades in the council chambers to enhance our um public engagement during our our meetings. Uh the fire station upgrades to accommodate a new uh fire engine. Um and then also uh kicking off the Harrison Memorial Library restoration project under the open space and conservation element. Um the city installed some electric vehicle charging stations up at Vista Lobos um and purchased two uh electric vehicles uh for our public works fleet. Um, under the environmental safety element, uh, Carmemell Prepares held two workshops. Um, the city engaged, uh, an emergency preparedness work group. We updated the fire hazard severity zone maps. Um, and then also the emergency operations plan. Under the noise element, uh, the city council did ban uh, pickle ball at Forest Hill Park. Um and then also uh continued uh enforcement of gas powered leaf blowers. Uh so this is just kind of a general overview of the activities that were undertaken in 2025 to implement uh the policies in the general plan. Uh with respect to the housing element, while it is part of the general plan, um HCD has a more robust kind of reporting requirement for the housing element. they actually provide standardized forms that we're required to use uh when doing our reporting. So, as the planning commission um is is now very familiar, our housing element um is updated every eight years. We're

currently on the sixth cycle update. Um and it was adopted in April of 2024. Uh we have now posted um our annual reports for the sixth cycle on our website. So you can find 2023 um 2024 um and now the current 2025 uh reports there. So the housing element report uh tracks all new housing construction during this 8-year planning period which is 2023 to 2031 and we report this to the state on an annual basis. Uh we're also required to report to the state our progress in implementing each of the programs that's in our housing element. Um and again the state provides us with standardized forms um in which to do our reporting. Uh so the forms come in um an Excel file and there are a number of tables. Um some of the tables do not apply to us. Uh so we do not have to fill them out. Um and you'll see there on the fifth bullet down I've listed the tables that are not applicable to us. Um but in table A uh we report the number of new development applications submitted during the calendar year of 2025. Then in table A2 uh we report the number of building permit applications that we have approved and issued. And then we also report the number of certificants of occupancy we've granted. So that's basically the number of building permits that have been finaled. Uh table B, it's a summary of our progress in meeting our regional housing needs allocation. So it's keeping track of all the net new housing uh units over

this um 8-year planning period. And then table D is where we report on our progress um in implementing each of the programs. So that's a very textheavy uh table. Table L is a new table um as of 2025. Um, so the state is now looking for um all of the jurisdictions to identify any new sites that have been added to the national, state or local historic register uh during the prior calendar year. So this is table B uh which is the summary table that tracks our regional housing needs um progress. Um, so you can kind of see here in 2025, um, we issued building permits for 23 new housing units. Um, so these are not demolition rebuilds. These are actually net new housing units. Um, the majority of which are accessory dwelling units. We do still have a couple of vacant single family lots in Carmel. Um, so there's a couple of those in there as well. Um and so to date, uh starting from the the start of the planning period in 2023, um there have been 51 net new housing units, uh towards our housing needs allocation of 349. Um and of those 48 are market rate units. We were able to capture uh three lower income units um within the 2023 planning period for a couple of those accessory dwelling units um under a interesting formula that HCD allowed us to use and I can answer any questions um if you have any regarding that. So this

is the current status of our regional housing needs allocation and then you can see the rest of the columns throughout the planning period. We'll keep populating those um each year as we go. So staff's recommendation is that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council accept the annual reports. And that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Marty, can you um ex explain the formulation used by ACD regarding low income ADUs? Yeah. So, um so there was a a formula I don't know how to say this simply. one of the the the region up in the Bay Area, they undertook a study um that found that many accessory dwelling units are sort of affordable by design um in a sense. So by the nature of their small size or the fact that they're being utilized for um elderly parents or caretakers, they're naturally affordable. So the state said that even though they're not deed restricted, there is a certain percentage of accessory dwelling units that are naturally affordable. So they allowed cities to count a certain percentage as lower income, but they only allowed that to occur um for a certain period of time. Um and for us that was the 2023 time period. So that's why we were able to log uh three non-deedrestricted ADUs as lower income for 2023. Going forward, we're going to have to provide um some new analysis to justify

that if we're going to continue reporting them if they're not deed restricted. Is it primarily um the rent amount that they're asking or is it have to do with square footage still or We would have to produce um a more locally a more localbased report that demonstrates that they are affordable. Whether it's based on size, occupancy, um or the rents being charged to justify it. Good. Thank you. Any other questions for uh staff?

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um this time I'll invite any members of the public that would like to come forward and speak to us about this report. Nobody in the chamber. Oh, there we go. Thank you for your service and time. Um, regarding the traffic um, commission, the stop signs that were added, um, is it possible to make re recommendations at this point still or is it already null and void at this point? I I live near in Monovery in 9inth and um it's a very precarious um situation because of the way cars are parked as well as um trees and so forth and to the point where I'm very cautious. But I've even pulled out in front of a police officer because it is so hard to see around cars. And I know we have plenty of stop signs in in our community and you know there's probably not need for much more but I just wanted to leave my input because it is a precarious intersection there at Monterey and 9inth.

So that's all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Marty, did you want to comment on the how the comment periods worked or the director since it's it's not relative to really the the report? Um, I will share my information with you. I sit on the traffic safety committee and then we can work together. So, contact traffic safety. Um, I'll share my information with you and then we'll work together. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else from the public that would like to make a comment at this time? Okay. I don't see anybody in ch any hands up online.

Okay. Um, we have a the commissioners any comments? No. I would make a motion to accept the uh report as presented. A second. Okay. Any further discussion? All right. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alward, yes. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Careco, yes. Commissioner Lock, yes. And Chair Page, yes. Motion is carried.

Okay, that brings us to the next item on the public hearings, which is a director referral. This is continuation of the October 8th, 2025 um and other commission uh meetings and hearings regarding the Ashucks cocktail and oyster bar. All righty. Um, thank you planning commissioners. Um, Anna Janette here to present on the director's referral on AWX. So this item was continued from the October 8th, 2025, December 10th, 2025, and January 21st, 2026 meet hearings. Um, subject property is located at O on Ocean 3 southwest of San Carlos and the zoning is central Commercial or CC. Just to go a little bit of the background that was included in the staff report in the '9s a use permit was um approved stating that a drinking

place was the primary use and allowing um uh light food as an ancillary use. Um then there are a series of building permits that were issued by the city allowing a commercial upgrade to the kitchen. Then in 2015, the planning commission at that time designated AWS shuts as a one of the three drinking establishments. Then in 2023, there was a business license that was issued to the current operator and an email from the planning director at that time with the determination that um AW Shucks was legal non-conforming. Then on December 10th, 2025, um staff presented the planning commission with five options that are shown here on the slide. Um ranging from allowing them to continue as is or through an amendment of a use permit. Ultimately on the 10th, the planning commission, consider the information, took public testimony, deliberated, and directed staff um to come back with a resolution for for a determination of abandonment of the use permit. And also stating that the preference um for moving forward was through option five, which would be to amend the use permit, omitting the drinking establishment and instead replacing it with a full line restaurant. as the allowed use. Um on January 21st, 2026, staff received correspondence for that hearing. The correspondence was provided by Hudson Martin PC, which was an attorney firm representing the um owners of the subject property, TSD Carmemell Properties. Our city attorney um here today, Brian Purrick, has reviewed the

Hudson letter um and there were specific statements relative to vested vested rights and a stoppple and at this time I can um pause and allow Mr. Perrick to add any additional information JD wish.

Yes, thank you. So um you have in your packet the staff report and under the heading of correspondence received uh for the January 21 2026 planning commission hearing there's a discussion uh which confirms that um I have reviewed the January 2126 letter from the Hudson firm. Um they are the attorneys for the property owner. I can add that I've also reviewed the letters from the uh JRG law firm. Um those are the attorneys for Parker Logan. Um and I also reviewed the letter from the Fenton Law Firm um that um is the are the attorneys for the owner and operator of AW Shucks. And based upon that review, um it's my belief that um if the commission were to determine that the current uses of AD AW shucks constitute an abandonment of this drinking establishment, then that that determination would be subject to legal challenge u based on the record is described in the factual chronology before you in the um staff report. And while it is not possible to predict with accuracy how a court would rule in the event of such a legal challenge, um there is a risk that a court might find that the doctrines of vested rights andor a stop will apply based on the current record. Um one thing I can tell you after a few years of experience is that litigation takes time, it takes money, um and there's an uncertain outcome. So, um it's my understanding that this um that AW Chucks was brought to you in October of uh 2025. And um part of the motivation for that was um communications that the city had received prior to that time regarding the use permit. And the issue then for you this evening is to determine um which of the two alternatives, I'm

calling them alternatives instead of options because I don't want to confuse it. It was called options um in the December 10th um uh 2025 report. So what you have before you um this afternoon um are those two uh alternatives and those include u resolutions that are described in the staff report um including a um resolution regarding abandonment and um also regarding an amendment to the use permit. Um and then the second alternative um would be a resolution directing staff to communicate with AWS Shucks um regarding an amendment to the use permit um to omit uh limited food service and add a fullline restaurant as an ancillary use that is greater than 10% of the primary use. So those are the two resolutions before you. Um uh the second alternative if you will um in terms of um communicating with AWS Shucks, I can tell you that in reviewing the uh correspondence from uh the Hudson firm of February 11th of 2026 and from the Fenton firm of 2026, it appears that AW Shucks would be amendable to having that discussion regarding an amendment to the uh use permit. um before you you do not have before you an application to amend the use permit which is why it is stated in the staff report in the resolutions that that would require the consent um of AWS Shucks and the property owner. Um so that's what my analysis is. I'm prepared uh to answer now or later questions that you might have.

My question go um thank you very much for your presentation on that. Um the question is is if the um owner of AW Shucks were to apply for um you're saying an amendment to the use permit to allow greater than 10% um of the use as the primary use permit greater than 10% of the use being food service. Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes. they would retain their drinking establishment permit and the um fullline restaurant would be um authorized under the amendment to the use permit as an ancillary use. How does the use permit for the drinking establishment um how is how does it maintain a use? Isn't that contradictory? I guess is between those two different uses because the drinking establishment use is essentially um where the main use is drinking. But if you're not using the main use as drinking, don't they contradict each other by having those two use permits?

Well, I don't think so legally. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I I had a couple questions. Um, first of all, can you conf confirm that the planning commission has the authority to uh make decisions about zoning and use permits? You do. If there's been an application um for um the use permit, you do have that authority. There is no authority in the code for you to um unilaterally amend the use permit, but we do have the authority to review use permits. Yes. When they are brought to onto our agenda, as in this case. Yes.

Okay. And uh in making those decisions um historically we haven't required that the the applicant agree with our decision. We make the decision based upon the findings and the conditions of the use permit. We don't ask for a confirmation from the applicant to affirm our decision. Is that correct? Well, I don't know what the history is, but I can say that in order to um approve an amendment or to issue an amendment to the use permit, it would require the consent of the um property owner and of the operator of the business. Now, I don't know what examples you're referring to in the past. Um, and I don't know what actions were taken by the planning commission on the private

Well, as long as I've been on the the planning commission, I've never had to we've never had to ask for consent from the applicants regarding the use permits. You mean amending the use permit? Yes. Okay. I'm not I'm not familiar with those. Director, do you want to make sure the consent would have uh occurred prior to the application going before the planning commission? So once they sign the application, turn that in with the fees. That's that's a portion of consent and that's what's missing in this particular case. So that if the if a decision was made on a use permit, the applicant would would be required to sign the use permit and that would be essentially consent, right? Okay.

They'd start the application process. So, so in this case the on both resolutions we're asking we're just putting that consent upfront in the the uh resolution, right? Okay. Cuz normally it's it's not it's not called out as a condition of the application. That's correct. It's so it's just understood as a as a condition of the application. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you.

I I have Two questions for Mr. Perrick. Good evening, Mr. Perrick. Um, my first question has to do with the phrase uh legally non-conforming use. And I'm referring to back to the um email uh that was referred to uh the uh August 14th, 2023 email when um from then planning director Mr. Swanson um stating that the city had memorialized additional cooking equipment uh creating a um legal nonconforming situation. And my question regarding this um has to do with what what is the difference between legal non-conforming and simply um non-compliance. And the the reason for my question is that my understanding was legal non-conforming happens when there is uh an established and legal business and the law changes and the business is then not required to change to match the law that they're given um a grandfathered approval. Pardon my vernacular, but that's my loose understanding of what legal non-conforming means. And because a a legal restaurant use was not in place at the time that Mr. Swanson wrote that, in fact, there still is not, to my understanding, a legal full-line restaurant use for the business, at least in terms of a use permit. I understand we have business licenses and also building permits that have been approved. But our zoning in my understanding is uh created through and and um regulated through use permits that are are reviewed by this

body. Whereas a business license for instance and um and I believe that was the context within which the planning director was making these statements that is a ministerial approval the business license but it is not a zoning uh change that the planning director um cannot uh independently make a zoning change that that must come before the planning commission. And so since that didn't happen, since we didn't have a legally operating restaurant in place back in 2023 when this legal non-conforming well-intentioned statement, but but that this was made. Is this truly a legal non-conforming situation or is it actually um uh something else perhaps a non-compliance? Well, the answer to that is depends on who you talk to. Um there are some views that um it um would qualify as a legal non-conforming use because it was um operating as a restaurant based on the building permits and the business license and the actions taken by this planning commission in 2015. So there are arguments on both sides of that issue. swell

and and the other side would dispute that.

I hear you. Um All right, that's my first question. So, I have another question for you. And and this um this does also have to do with um the the planning director and the planning director um again well-intentioned um stating in in the email about memorial memorializing the additional cooking equipment and and that which created this non-conforming situation. Um, can that statement by the planning director um can that actually then direct what this body does in the future? Does that does does those statements and email and those actions ministerial actions by the planning director um does that bind the actions of this planning commission?

Same answer depends on who you talk to. Um there's arguments that are

not not helpful. I I I know I'm not what I and I don't mean to be glib of course and I don't obviously we can see that we have multiple legal arguments that are being presented by the attorneys for the various parties and there's a dispute on that very issue as to the impact of the building permits the business licenses the action taken by this commission in 2015 the email from the planning director and those uh facts are all referenced in the various correspondents and there is a dispute among the parties um with respect to whether or not um uh the as to what the what the outcome would be which is why I made the comment when I began my uh discussion on this issue is that um the outcome would be uncertain if there was a legal challenge and and I also said that if there is litigation it's going to take time it's going to take money and and there's an uncertain outcome so all of that is still true.

One one last Thank you. And one one last question. Um and this has to do with the abandonment of use. Um and because that has gone back and forth about whether or not um there has been an abandonment of the use of the drinking establishment permit. Um we did hear at at previous meetings um where this use permit was heard. Um, we've heard from the owner that they're operating as a full-line restaurant. Um, not a drinking place with with a limited food service. We have the we've heard that from licensing documents, their their business license calls out a full-line restaurant. Their um liquor license is a full-line restaurant, not not an alcohol uh license, bar type license. Um, we also heard from the owner that their revenue structure um is supported by the full line restaurant, not by uh a drinking establishment. All of this seems to confirm that the primary the current primary use is as a full-line restaurant and so which is actually outside of what the use permit authorizes. Doesn't that constitute an abandonment of use? I give him the same answer as I have before, so I'll rephrase it, but it means it gets down to the bottom line. There's a dispute on that issue of whether or not um the use has been abandoned. Um there's legal arguments on both sides of that issue. They're set forth in these lengthy letters from the lawyers. lawyers tend to write lengthy letters and I've reviewed them and you have arguments on both sides of the issue as to whether or not um they would be permitted to continue to operate in the manner that they are now based upon and I don't want to repeat myself but the the let me call it the um the record

u that's before you uh in terms of the building permits business licenses previous actions by the the commission all of that is viewed ed by uh attorneys with a different conclusion. Um and and I can tell you what my conclusion is, which is that if we were in a court and with that that being the legal challenge, there would be an uncertain outcome. I cannot predict how a court would rule uh if this case were presented to them. But I do know that uh litigation is something that takes time, money, and there's an uncertain outcome. Um and alternative two does give an opportunity for um u the restaurant to continue to operate as it has um with an amendment to that use permit. And if you choose option one, you can do that. Um I've just tried to give you the best advice I can about um what the um potentials are.

Thank you. Sure. I have another question for you. Um, isn't it true that if they were to amend the use permit to Fullline Restaurant that they could continue operating exactly as they are today and that that they're really that having that drinking establishment use permit actually does not impact how they're operating.

That's right. That the the the restaurant would there the the business would continue to operate as it is. the the assumption would be it would continue to operate as it currently operates uh as a drinking establishment and then as a full-line restaurant as an ancillary use under what we're call what I'm calling alternative one and by the way I should mention that there was a a comment made about um the liquor license um and that's not an issue that's relevant to your consideration today that is an issue for the ABC um and it's not something that um is within your um jurisdiction. Um and I think I've covered all the points now, but if there's others.

Okay. Thank you. We may uh ask you further questions as the discussion proceeds. Okay. Um is staff done with their presentation or I just have a couple more.

Okay. Go ahead. Please continue. I did want to touch on um there's additional correspondence that was received um as of today um in summary some of the correspondents agree that the use has been abandoned um based on the conditions of approval for the original permit how the AW shucks operates and um recommends the planning commission consider uh the draft resolution in attachment one there's also correspondence um that was received in summary summary stating that the use has not been abandoned based off the history vested rights and recommends the planning commission consider the draft resolution in an attachment too. And then in case um during deliberation um the commission needs a a breakdown of what's written in the staff report. This slide shows the actions in attachment one and this slide shows the actions in attachment two. That concludes our

Okay. Thank you. Questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. All right. At this time, um, I'd like to invite, um, the property owner or the business owner to come up and make their comments before we open it up to the general public and any legal representation that they may have. Give me away.

Pardon? I give you a legal representative. My name is Christina Golesman. I'm an attorney with Hudson Martin, the law firm that represents the land owner tsd Carmel Properties LP. Um, based upon the comments that were already made earlier today, it's clear that you've had the opportunity to review the letters that were submitted by our firm and the legal arguments that were presented therein with respect to the two alternatives that are being uh considered here today. I'm not going to belver the points in those letters since you've already had the opportunity to review them and consult with the city attorney regarding them. But for the purposes of ensuring a clear record, I will note that TSD Carmel Properties LP does object to the proposed adoption of draft resolution in alternative one that is um also labeled as draft resolution attachment one in the agenda packet for today's meeting. TSD has continuously asserted that it has never abandoned its use permit, that it has in good faith relied upon communications with the city in ensuring that the use permit was being carried out in a manner consistent with the existing laws, ensuring that it was renting its property to tenants who would be able to use the drinking place use permit. And it was in on it was in reliance on those representations from the city that tsd worked with AWS Shucks and their new owners on a transition of that business in 2023. The bases for TSD's position are set forth in the letters that you've already received. They were detailed also in um another manner in communications that were sent by AWS Shuck's legal representative with Fenton and Keller as well as in prior statements that were made on the record in the prior uh public hearings. The underlying facts are also well established in the record. They were reviewed again here today. And just

again for the sake of completing the record, the legal arguments that TSD is asserting include those relating to vested rights, estoppel, and an improper government taking if there were to be a deemed abandonment of the use permit and potential um reissuance of that use permit to another business. Similar concerns of course were also raised by AWS Shucks in its letter. We also indicated in the letter that was submitted earlier today that TSD agrees with the adoption presented in alternative 2 and that is the adoption of the draft resolution that would provide for the continuation of the existing drinking place use permit and the amendment of that permit to omit the limited food service and at a fullline restaurant as an ancillary use that is greater than 10% of the primary use. That amendment, as already discussed today, would require the consent of both TSD and AWS Shucks. That consent has not yet been provided, but certainly this is an option that TSD and AWS Shucks are both interested in pursuing. They are on the same page. They want to be able to continue with the businesses in operation. They want to be able to continue with the use permit that they have been benefiting from. TSD has held this permit since 1961 and again is interested in continuing with the same sort of discussions that it has had previously with the city in ensuring that it can maintain that drinking place use permit. There were several questions that TSD had with respect to uh the draft resolution alternative number two and that would be what next steps would be envisioned by the city and by the commission in terms of being able to pursue that alternative. We want to ensure that to the extent that there are additional conversations that they are held in good faith that we have a clear understanding is what as to what the path is forward and that we're able to move forward productively with respect to ensuring that the use permit can

continue on as it has been with the amendments that are being contemplated in the draft resolution. And that is the extent of my public comment on behalf of TSD properties today though the property owner is also present. Thank you. Any questions for the uh attorney representing the property owner? Yes. Good evening. Thank you. Um would you please speak to what a little bit more to what you mean when you say vested rights?

Yes. So this was detailed in the two letters that were submitted by the law firms earlier today. So I apologize if what I'm going to say may seem repetitive what may have already been covered in those letters. But what you have here are two businesses that have been in operation for a number of years. They have a legal right to the continuation of their businesses and they should be able to continue their operations as they have for the last several decades notwithstanding the fact that AW shops had recently changed ownership in 2023. To the extent that the city is looking to come in and take away a use permit that would impact their operations, um that from the perspective of our client, TSD Carmemell Properties would constitute a violation of the vested rights that they have with respect to their operations, to their business, and to that use permit. Again, they've had it since 1961. And so this isn't as though they have come up to the commission for the first time seeking in seeking uh the approval of an application that had not been otherwise previously considered.

So it sounds like your your um your position is that um somehow there the business would would change if there was a ch if the use permit was actually normalized to the way that business is being operated today. There would be a change in the value of the tenants space that our client TST Carmemell Properties operates. They are the landlord of the building. They rent the space to tenants of a certain type that meet the profile for the drinking place use permit. That is why the owner of the business contacted the city prior to the change of ownership from the previous owners of AWS Shucks to the current owners. there was an interest in ensuring that if they were representing to that particular tenant that they would be able to operate under the use permit that that would be correct. If the city were to now come in and say, "We're going to be deeming your use permit abandoned even though you've consistently indicated you want to retain it, even though you've consistently communicated with us regarding it, even though you've continued to lease your property to a tenant that you in good faith believed actually had the right to operate under the that permit. If you just come in and say that's abandoned, then our our client can no longer focus on letting that space to the types of businesses that would fit the profile permitted by the use permit. And since they're already in a contractual relationship with a tenant regarding that space and based upon the prior representations of the city, let that space to that tenant. Of course, uh there's an interest now on behalf of our client to pursue the second alternative that's being presented today, which is to amend the use permit to allow that tenants's business to continue. Otherwise, there could be harm that could come to our client.

Thank you. I have a question on that just follow-up question. Um you did say how would that that it would impact operations. That is correct.

Okay. So, specifically, how would it impact operations of AWS? My client is not AW Shucks. My client is TSD Carmemell Properties. They are the land owner of the building. They are the ones who let the space to a tenant business who is able to make use of the use permit. If the use permit, drinking place use permit is removed. That will change the operations of AW I'm sorry, of TSD Carmemell properties in terms of whom they can let the tenant space to. It may impact the ability of them to let for the same amount of rent to which they have been letting before. There's a certain amount of um attraction in having a drinking place use permit in Carmemell when there's currently only three allowed. And certainly the fact that there's scarcity with respect to that use permit does give it value to our client and can make that particular tenant space of interest to other business who would want to make use of that use permit. In fact, it seems as though we may be here today because there may be other businesses who are interested in having that drinking place use permit. So there's there's certain value there and there would certainly be an impact on the operations of my client which is the land owner. I can't speak specifically to AWS Shucks. I would need to defer to them and to their legal representative.

So I have a follow-up question. Um what is the term the lease term with AW Shucks? Uh that is a wonderful question. I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head but the owner of the business is here today and when he comes to the podium he can answer that question for you. Thank you. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you for your time.

Just just just a minute. I think the the uh the property owner let him come. We'll kind of keep these Thank you. keep the arguments together.

Evening commissioners. Uh John Plastini. Uh I represent TST Carmemell Properties, the property owner and landlord of AW Shucks. I'm sure you're well aware this is our fourth meeting. Okay. Uh I'd like to say that when we first looked at this, staff contacted us and communicated that there was a problem with the paperwork and we needed the fixed paperwork. Uh option or resolution two, whichever one does that. Okay. And I think our attorney explained the reason behind that. We're talking about, well, how are you affected? The property value itself. Our tenant here, they purchased it in 2023 for a great deal of money. And I've checked that use permit. It's worth about $250,000. Do we want to go out and start bidding that? We don't. The mere fact is an individual that wants it so badly should tell you there's a value. Uh we've counted on that representation as far as a drinking establishment. We had it for 65 years. When we market the property and we lease the property, everyone knows that when they purchased the property, they did that. As far as we follow the rules, we acted in good faith. I even went to the extent when the purchase happened to make sure we were okay. The only reason we're here because one individual, okay, needs that permit. That's what the value of it is. What began as a simple inquiry regarding a land use permit transitioned into a campaign to take away our land use permit. Uh for over 65 years, we've had that permit. Okay. Using the closing of Sades as a reason to strip us of our

land permit, okay, is not a viable legal option. I think the attorney said, "What do we have? What's going to happen here? We're going to all wind up in court." That's what's going to happen. And I'm pretty confident. I get there in front of a judge and I said, "Your honor, we've been here for 65 years. We followed the rules. We acted in good faith and they stripped it away from us. And it has this value. Talk about damages. The legal costs on all ends. The city's burden. Have no idea. you've been here four times. We want to continue this. Anyway, in addition to that, I wanted to notice beyond that the problems that we've had with our tenant. She can't even come up here and speak tonight because she's so upset. She's been intimidated. I believe you have that letter that she sent in. Okay. of the behavior of the intimidation I have received also only because we want to continue to operate the way we've had for 65 years and be left alone. We've been ridiculed in the paper. We're the victims. Okay? Sades isn't. We're not responsible for Sades closing. If you want a path to save Sades, change your regulations. That's where we need to go. That's the proper path. hurting someone else and taking it and giving it to somebody else is not the right thing to do. And I think if we go to a court, I think a judge is going to look at that. I don't want to go there. But just just to document a few things here. Parker Logan after the first meeting that we had in October sent me a number of texts. To me, they were intimidating. Okay, I expect it as a landlord. You get that. You rep it away. But I just like

to share with you a few of where we're at here. He said, "Everyone wins if you endorse the fact that AWS Shucks operates as a full-line restaurant. Otherwise, there'll be a big fight what eventually leads to a courtroom because it's clear the planning commission is going to side with you that will be appealed and have this process drawn out and it could mean bad press for AW Shucks." That's already happened. Have you seen our name in the paper? No. But these poor individuals that came here and bought this business in 2023 don't deserve that. And what I didn't deserve after the commission meeting on the 21st of January to have that lady come in my office crying because of the incident that you have. Okay. Uh it just goes on and on that if we don't if we don't uh give this up, we're going to be reported to the state and then we're going to be looking at ADA violations. Come on. Really? Anyway, um, couple other things. The last thing I wanted to read was after the incident on January 21st, Parker Lo sent me a text and this is what he said. Well played, sir. Dirty, unherooic, slimy, but still well played. That's an insult. All we are doing here is having our rights defended by our attorneys. We didn't bring an attorney in until 2021. I mean 20 times January 21 because we were getting all slammed here and we have vested rights. We've been in the community so long and all we want to do is operate the way we have. It's it wouldn't even come up unless Sades needed it. If he wasn't here, we'd be operating. It wouldn't become before you anyway. So in in kind of going through that last comment there, it's

clear that we have a a different definition what a hero is. Okay. I believe a hero stands up for its vested rights, which we have. He stands up to intimidation, which we're doing. Okay? We stand up against bullies and we protect the innocent because those people don't deserve this. And it's all because of what's happening because of a desperate individual. And that's wrong. Anyway, uh I believe, you know, the resolution number two is in the spirit and the intent of what we talked about. I've trusted the city. I've worked with the city. I love working with the planning department. They even recommended. Number two, these people work so hard and try to sort through this stuff. I don't know how they do it. To me, when they recommend something, it is hard on you. I understand that. But when I look at this and I say, uh, let's just fix the paperwork. That's what you told us. Well, acting advice, we will work with the city. We can make the land use and the business use match because you have a problem with that. It's legal and nonconforming and we can make that happen together. You don't need to strip our use there because we will wind up in court and it's going to cost a fortune. And according to Parker Logan, it doesn't matter. He's going to appeal it anyway. I don't know what rights he has to appeal. It's our application. Makes no sense to us. So, I guess finally, you're going to have to decide who do you want to see in court, us or him? But it's going that direction, and it's going to cost a lot of money, and it's going to be probably years. But I hope you look at it and go uh and approve. Uh number two there and I thank you for your time and I look forward hopefully to work with staff again.

Mr. Palestini. Yes. Will you please respond to my question which is what is what are the lease terms in length of time? I believe there's nine years left. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. And that doesn't mean that we would renew it. They're good tenants. Um any other questions? Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate Thank you for your comments. Okay. Uh, at this time I believe uh I'm sorry I forgot your name. Derek Oliver. Right, Gar if you'd like to come up.

Chair Le Page, commissioners, council, and staff. Uh, my name is Derek Oliver. I represent the owners of the um Ashocks establishment. Um, and sadly, I guess I now have a better understanding of why drinking can lead to fighting. Um, but as the property owner correctly stated and I think was stated in the staff report, the use permit runs with the land. So, uh, the my clients are sort of sit are passengers on on the train of of the land owner who is sort of driving the train in this dispute. But with that said, um, my clients certainly agree with as set forth in our letter um, the position that the landowner is taking. Um and for all those reasons um you know as to legal non-conforming um what is it? What's legal non-conforming? Legal non-conforming is a a legally established use. A use that was established under the laws or in the absence of laws at the time the use was established. And that was the case here. So the drinking establishment use was established before the codes that said a drinking establishment means this, you need a use permit for that. So it was legally established. What's interesting is the use permit that was issued relates to the addition of food. It doesn't have anything to do with the drinking service. It it it relates to the addition of food. So, it doesn't modify the legally established drinking use. So, I think that's just an important thing to point out. Um, and I went over there the other day, took some pictures that I included. I mean, just look at the the at the photograph of the door of the sign out front. What's most prominently displayed? Oyster Bar, cocktails, lunch and dinner are the smallest words on that, which is consistent with what you see when you walk in there. When you walk in there and you look, not even walking inside, you see a giant bar with beautifully displayed lit up liquor and wine. Um,

and the whole bit. I mean, that I mean, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, that's a freaking bar. Um, and the Oyster Bar in the corner is also a bar. Um, so there's no need to go beyond um the legal arguments made in the letter, but I I happen to have had the coincident benefit of being here uh at the December 10th hearing on another matter. And so I had the benefit of that 2-hour discussion. And it struck me that both sides ha have have competing interests and both are valid competing interests. And it just seemed to me that there ought to be a way to solve the problem. Um and as the last speaker just suggested and as I tried to explain in my letter, this shouldn't be and doesn't need to be an eitheror. Um there is a win-win here and and there is a code section that specifically talks about uses that don't fit into one bucket or another bucket. Um, and if the city wants cities to have um, a license to operate as a bar, I certainly do, well then the city has the power to review its codes, amend its codes and create either a fourth license in this same category or create different license create different categories perhaps uh, categories based on the type of liquor license. So if you're 21 and over and it requires a ABC48 license, that is the drinking establishment. But to take away a drinking establishment license, just because they're serving more food doesn't mean they've abandoned that use. Um increase of one use doesn't mean abandonment of another use. And the last time I checked, having more food options at a bar isn't ever really a bad thing. Um, so I would just humbly submit that, um, as has been said before, uh, my clients, as with the property owner, um,

ask that, um, you strongly consider and adopt resolution number two, um, for all the reasons that your council explained to you. Um and and then beyond that to take a look at those codes and try and conform the codes to the realities on the ground and the existing conditions that are designed and implemented to meet the needs and desires of the city and its residents and its and its business and property owners. So thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Um, like to invite anybody else from the public that'd like to speak to the commission regarding this application.

Good afternoon. My name is Bob Rosenthal. I'm here replacing Jason Reerer, who had a a family matter come up at the last minute and couldn't attend. I'm Jason's partner and um I want to address a few things that were said today and uh a few things that were said in the letters that were received. Unfortunately, we only received the two letters today about an hour and a half, two hours ago. So, I I'm not prepared to address some of the comments in it, but they're pretty much repetitive. So, um I think I will I will be able to attend to them. Um this case is about a use permit. It's not about It's not about uh uh litigation or threatening litigation. We're not here to threaten litigation. The frustrations of my client have been expressed. He's frustrated, understandably so, but we're not threatening litigation. Uh, I hope you've had an opportunity to review Jason's letter that he wrote in response to Janette Whitten's letter that challenges the claims and legal authority that Miss Whitten set forth in her letter. Contrary to a narrative that's apparently being asserted by some both in the town and around the community, it needs to be made clear, I think, to at least to the people in this room, I know it's clear to you folks that no one is asking to shut down. Shucks. No one is asking to keep it from selling alcohol or food. Not the city and not my client. There'll be no change and no harm to Shucks whatsoever by adopting the proposed resolution number one. None. Now, Miss Whitten and her letters and the letters from all the attorneys, they all talk about the harm that's going to be suffered, that there will be harm, but they don't tell you what that harm is. There's no harm that's going to be

suffered. Shucks is going to continue to operate exactly as it has. If you take if you adopt resolution number one, there'll be no change. There's no taking as the lawyers for for TSD and Ashucks have have claimed. First, there can be no taking as a use permit was abandoned when Shucks began operating as a full-line restaurant. And I respectfully disagree with council. I don't I think that there is an abandonment. I think if you look at not just the facts that they they being shucks went and asked the building permit asked for a building permit to to build this kitchen. When they did that, that was an abandonment of their use permit for for a drinking place. Your statute on abandonment says a restricted commercial use that has been discontinued for a period consecutive months shall be considered abandoned. A restricted commercial use that restricted commercial use in this case is drinking place permit. That's the use. Failure to maintain a valid business license shall be considered substantial evidence of abandonment. The business license that we're talking about, as was pointed out by by I think Miss Lockach, the business license is classified as a fullline restaurant. That's the business license. The drinking place permit business license has been abandoned. Your own statute supports abandonment. The fact supports abandonment. I agree there is a fact. There's a dis disagreement, but I don't agree that a court is going to rule in favor of of

there being no abandonment. And I'll talk about that briefly in a second. There's no taking the resolution amends the fir the first proposed resolution amends the use permit to allow Shucks to continue its business. It will continue it as I said unchanged in any way. And third, for there to be a taking and this is most important. For there to be a taking, the law requires there must be a substantial economic impact or loss. What What is the substantial economic impact or loss? The lawyers say there's one, but what is it? Shucks will not close. Shucks will not change operationally. Shucks will not lose $1 by adopting the first resolution. TSD asserts that the proposed resolution would, and I'm quoting here, interfere with Shucks and TSD's ability to continue their business. So, the city should be as stopped from amending the use permit. How is that resolution going to interfere with Shuck's ability to continue its business? It specifically states it's going to continue it. It's going to amend the the the use permit to allow it to continue. It's just simply not true. It is not the law that because a city historically has allowed a business to operate as here Ashucks beyond the use permit restrictions that that shucks can therefore have continue to operate in violation of the of the conditions of the permit. That's not the law. Just because there's been a mistake made or they're violating they're violating it doesn't mean we get to continue to

violate it. The city has a duty to enforce its code. You can't be a stopped from enforcing permit conditions or the code simply because you failed to enforce or use permits terms in the past. That's the law. The staff says in its report that the city attorney believes finding an abandonment might subject the city to a legal challenge. Well, anyone can make a legal challenge. I think that was pointed out by by council. But there can only be one prevailing party. If there is a legal challenge, the court's going to require a review of the city code and specifically a review of section 1756 050C. That's the code I read earlier part of. But it'll also require that TSD and shucks prove substantial prejudice. Prove that they will suffer substantial prejudice from the adoption of that resolution. There's no substantial prejudice. As I pointed out, they're not going to prevail in a legal challenge. Jason is a land use lawyer. I'm a litigator. I've I've tried hundreds of cases. I can tell you that my opinion differs from councils. They will not prevail. And I believe that Miss Whitten knows that. And I believe the threat of litigation that you heard here today is simply that, a threat, a veiled old threat. There's also unintended consequences I think the the commission needs to consider by adopting the second proposal. The second proposal retains as the primary use the drinking place and converts the ancillary use from limited food service to fullline restaurant. Well, the result then is going to be that you're going to have two primary

uses attached to one permit. That's not what the code intended. When your code when your code uh defines the limitations on restricted commercial uses and and lists them, full-line restaurant is one of those uses as is drinking places. Those are primary uses to suggest that you can adopt a a resolution that effectively eliminates the distinction between a full-line resident restaurant and drinking place is just going to cause havoc. The the other thing I think that that might occur is think about if if you adopt that second resolution whether it would provide precedent for the city's two other drinking places to now claim they have the right to have a full-line restaurant as an ancillary use. There's a few other things that were that were com that were commented in in front of you here today on the vested rights. C

can I can I just interrupt a minute? How much more time do you think you're going to need? 30 seconds. I'll wrap it. Oh, perfect. Okay. Okay. You know, try to get a lawyer to I'm not trying to restrict you. I'm just trying to define uh our time agenda. So, if you need 2 minutes, whatever. I do not want to I'm fine with that, but I don't want to bore anybody.

Vested rights are limited to those rights that are contained in the use permit. Operating outside of that use permit does not extend those rights and make them vested. Finally, we've talked about ancillary use or accessory use. Your your code section 1770.020 defines an accessory use as a use that is secondary to the principal use incidental to any permitted use made on the premises. It goes on to say that a drinking place is defined as businesses serving beverages for consumption on the premises as a primary use. and restaurants. It defines restaurants as full line restaurants as restaurants providing a full line of prepared food and drinks. That's what we have here. So to ex to adopt the second uh second draft resolution flies in the face of your code, flies in the face of common sense. And to think that you're avoiding a fight on the issue of abandonment, I don't think you are going to have a fight. I think there's abandonment here. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. All right. Uh like to invite anybody else who would like to come up and make comments about this, please come forward.

Good evening, commissioners. Um just wanted to make a quick comment. as a president of over 40 years of Carmel by the Sea and a payer of a lot of taxes here. Um, as a citizen, I view uh a use permit uh as a civic asset uh and one that uh uh ought to be generating tax revenue uh for the city uh and all the other entities. Um, and you know, the fact that just just listening here to the presentation of of AWS Shucks and TSB, um, it comes off to me that they're hoarding a civic asset that ought to be working for me as a citizen, producing taxes so that mine don't keep getting raised. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Any more speakers like to come forward? Okay. Um, any hands up online? We do. Yes. Okay. Can I switch my screen over so I can see them? Just one. Just have one. Yeah. Just one. Lindy Dow. Okay. Miss Dow. Miss Dow, do you want to uh speak? Yes. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Go ahead.

Okay. Um, I'm Lindy Dow. I'm one of the owners. Um, and I appreciate your time. When my grandfather built the Dow Arcade 65 years ago, the space that AWS Shucks now occupies was Whitney's, a true dive bar right in the center of downtown Carmel. I never saw the inside of it since no one under 21 was allowed, but I did have to pass by it every time I visited my father at work after school as he was a dentist practicing on the second floor of the Doubt Arcade. I held my breath to avoid inhaling the strong cigarette smoke. My uncle Bob Fiser was a policeman in Carmel. And I grew up hearing the stories of the late night calls to that location to break up fights, pull over drunk drivers, or haul someone who had passed out into the station to sleep it off. Cigarette butts littered the sidewalk out front. Well, times have changed and the evolution from Whitney's to Maxwell McFly to AWS Shucks is well documented through all the permits through the city every step of the way to its current legal nonconforming use status. The city has applauded this evolution. Management of the building passed from my grandfather to my father to my brother-in-law John Plastini. Whenever a problem has arisen that needs solving, the overarching management ethos has been what is fair. John has been a proactive hands-on manager, always keeping up with the city codes, communicating with the city, making sure everything is fair for the tenants and that all the shops comply. When Michael and Michelle Sapon retired after many years of owning AWS Shucks, Karen and Randy Bassie purchased it in 2023 with

all paperwork in order and confirmed by the city. So when this item appeared on October's agenda to straighten out some paperwork at AWS Shucks, it seemed a simple but perplexing matter. It soon became apparent that the driver behind this was that another bar, Mercedes, was losing its lease and its owner had come to the city looking for a solution, pulling AW Shucks into the fray. Now, four meetings and many lawyer hours later, hopefully a resolution will be agreed upon today that is fair. But what is not fair is what has happened in the meantime. It is not fair that the Bassis have been bullied and pressured by Parker Logan. It is not their fault that he lost his lease. It is not fair that Parker Logan has sent threatening texts to John Plastini. It is not fair that Parker Logan has continued to rile up his former customers with untruths such as that relinquishing the use permit will cause zero harm to AW Shucks and that the owners of the Doubt Arcade are just sitting on our use permit. This has got to stop. In closing, I hope this commission will agree on resolution two and will work to address this behavior and restore civility. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Uh I see another hand up there. It says Patrick's iPad. Patrick, you want to unmute yourself? Thank you. Can you hear me? We can. Go ahead.

Thank you. Uh you have my uh correspondence posted. Uh but we are here because of what some call sloppy permitting, but for a local business owner, it's called following the rules. For 30 years, AW Shucks didn't hide its kitchen. The city permitted it in 1998 and in 2008. The city licensed it as a restaurant in 2023. You cannot ask a business to spend decades building a life here with your explicit permission and then suddenly tell them their foundation is illegal. This is exactly what the California Doctrine of Vested Rights is designed to prevent. This drinking establishment permit is more than a menu choice. It is a property entitlement that stays with the land. Revoking it is an illegal government takeover of a valuable family asset. In the Goat Hill Tavern case, the courts were very clear. An existing business has a fundamental right to exist. If the city moves forward with a taking, it is just hurting one. It is not just hurting one restaurant. It's exposing taxpayers to multi-million dollar liabilities for inverse condemnation. The city's claim of abandonment is false and fails the simple test. AW Chefs has never stopped drinking has never stopped serving drinks. You cannot declare a use abandoned when it has been continuous licensed and explicitly protected by the property owner at every turn. Using the closure of Sades as a reason to strip a license from another successful business is not planning. It is regulatory favoritism and it will not hold up in court. Staff has provided a path for reconciliation that cleans up the record without destroying a business. That is the only legally safe path for Carmel. Let's match the paperwork to the reality

that the city itself helped create over the last 30 years. Let's support our local businesses by providing a consistent and fairness they deserve. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay, we have another hand up. Uh Larson Hol, you want to speak to us? Yes. Can you hear me? We can. Go ahead. All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Larsson Hol. And while I'm not a resident of Carmel by the Sea, my fiance Sarah and I are both regular visitors. We all Uh, you've muted yourself, Larson. Okay. Can you hear me now?

No, we can't. Yeah.

Okay. Um, we almost always bring friends and family with us to share the beauty and joy of Carmel and we were also regular patrons of Sades and went there during every single time that we visited Carmel. I am participating in your planning commission meeting today to support option one, the amendment or removal of the drinking establishment or drinking place primary use for AWS Shucks. While I understand that they are allowed to run their business however they choose, I do not think that a drinking place that closes at 8:30 most days of the week constitutes the average person's definition of a drinking place or a bar. There are three drinking place permits in Carmel for a reason, which is so that in addition to all the beautiful restaurants and cafes in Carmel, there are three drinking places for the enjoyment of residents and visitors. If the commission chooses not to declare Shucks permit abandoned, it means that the commission is effectively allowing TSD properties, the landowner, to squat on Carmemell's on one of Carmel's oh so precious three drinking place permits. It would mean that the commission is depriving Carmel of one of the drinking places that are expected to be in Carmel for the enjoyment of Carmel residents and visitors. And it would mean that the commission is allowing tsd and shocks to hold on to this permit for zero public benefit and solely for the purpose of propping up tsd properties values. This leaves Carmemell visitors with fewer offerings and leads to fewer evenings and fewer hotel nights spent in Carmel. I also do not think it's appropriate for the commission to not choose option one solely based on the threat of potential litigation if it is truly the right choice. Altering this use permit in option one will enable Mr. Parker Logan or anyone else who the commission might grant a drinking place permit to to open up a new bar establishment somewhere in town that will enhance Carmel's nightlife without creating negative impacts. Provide the three drinking places that Carmemell residents and visitors are legally entitled to and help create even more wonderful memories in Carmel by the Sea, bringing more visitors and business and keep them coming back. And we believe this will improve the experience for Carmel's residents as well. So, I'm

here today to request that the planning commission make a determination that the use permit of drinking place has been abandoned. Thank you for your time. Thanks for your comments. Okay. Um, number of hands up online. Oh, no. Neil Cruz. Neil, speak to us. Have to unmute yourself, Neil. Uh, yes. Can you hear me now? We can. Go ahead, Neil.

Okay. I I just want to thank Larsson Holt. He basically said what what I was thinking about here. Long time tradition in Carmel. uh you all know of three bars and uh that means a bar you know where where you can go and already on and that is all and that has been uh a fairly tight certainly don't want to take it down to two so three is it and it's not going to grow and what you're effectively doing is reducing those three bars down to two and that's a significant reduction of drinking places in Carmel uh and I I think we have always felt, you know, I was I was involved with some of these establishments over the years and we always felt that even three was too too strict of of a limitation. This should have been four or five. But as it is, this would this would cut it back down to two. And so, uh, the other sort of a thought experiment I had is if somebody came in and asked you for both a bar and a restaurant, uh, uh, use permit, would you give it to them? And uh I'll stop talking now. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Neil. Okay, we seem to be Oh, come on up. Thank you. I have some words to share with something. Good evening, commissioners.

Um, as a concerned and engaged member of the community, I appreciate the responsibility you carry in upholding Carmel's municipal code. and ensuring the land use decisions reflect fairness and consistency. Permits are binding legal authorizations. They are meant to reflect active exercised uses, not um dormant designations. Land use entitlements are not spec speculative assets to be held in reserve. They are operational permissions um intended to function in alignment with the code and the the community's planning framework. The location at Oshocks has operated as a standalone drinking establishment decades ago. However, for more than 20 years, it functioned exclusively as a full functioning uh full service restaurant. The property was remodeled to support this use, including installation of a commercial kitchen and a fire suppression system. When the city later limited standing alone uh drinking establishments to three, this location continued to count toward the cap even though the drinking establishment use had not been exercised during that time. I understand the entitlements uh typically run with the land as the uh as at the same time they remain valid only as long as they comply with the municipal code. standard planning uh principles, including uh the six-month discontinuence uh provision, recognizes that prolonged non-use may constitute abandonment. Given the standalone drinking

establishment use has not been exercised for decades, it appears that this designation no longer reflects actual use. This does not feel like a policy debate. It feels more like uh a matter of applying the code consistently and ensuring that limited entitlements reflect real active operations. If you use this effectively, um, if a use has effectively been abandoned through long-term non-use, it seems reasonable that it can no longer apply one of the city's limited positions and instead be available to someone prepared to actively exercise in accordance with the law. I offer these thoughts respectively and appreciate your stewardship of Carmel's planning integrity. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments.

Please come forward.

I'll keep it very succinct. Um, so obviously there's a lot of big feelings in the room and a lot of um, rhetoric that I know you all been hearing for months and thank you for your time and listening to all of it. And um, I guess I just want to just be a voice of common sense and reason. Um, you know, you hear threats of litigation, you hear threats of non-compliance, you hear, you know, we hear all of this over and over again. Um, slander this that accusations, slander this, but at what point can the commission consider a fourth use permit? and and I don't know if that's something that you can openly answer or if that is even ever on the table, but um that seems to be if if if things are going to continue to go this way and more attorneys getting involved and more this and more that and and what's to stop a fourth use permit under these special circumstances? I guess that's That's all. Just wanted to be a voice of reason possibly. But thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Okay. Anyone else in the chamber and no hands up online, so I'm going to close the public comments and open it up to the commission for their comments, discussion. Commissioner Lock, you've been riding over here furiously. Would you like to uh Thanks. Um you made yourself a target. smart.

Thank you. I am a target, right? Um, no, I first of all, like I've said at all of these discussions in the past, um, I love the food and the service at AW Shucks. I have been a very big regular customer for many, many years. And actually, I can go back and say I was at Maxwell McFly back in the day when I was a minor. Um, but, uh, thank you. I I actually um on this one um I really believe that the operation the restaurant is a full- serve restaurant. It is not a drinking establishment. It's not a bar. Um, and I think that when AWS Shucks change, Maxwell McFly changed to AWS Shucks, um, and they added food service, they put in the Oyster Bar, um, that changed the use from the smelly cigarette filled bar that was there. um and it became a restaurant and it has only morphed into um a great restaurant through the years. I think that the um fact that it is not primarily a drinking place um is unfortunately kind of an oversight that staff uh should have amended that permit earlier um so that that was not a part of it. But I do not believe that it has been used um as a drinking establishment and that I would consider it to be an abandoned use on that. I don't think you can lock up um something that's not being used. And I have to also say that this has nothing to do with the discussion today that has to do with um Mr. Parker. Um that that that to me has Mr. Logan, that

has nothing to do with my comments. Um I think that um when we have a situation in in particular in this case when you're limited to three um of these types of uses in our village that um you have to look at it as what what is really happening on this site. And my specific questions about how long is this lease had to do with the question of is this just going to be locked up for the next 9 years or the next 20 years and um and that is concerning and so I appreciate the comments that were made by some of the members of the public um but I am not supportive of option two. I would be supportive of option one on this. Commissioner Keratka, your comments.

I think that's a really difficult one. On on one hand, we have this long history u of uh sharks having u a designation as a drinking place and history does matter and tradition does matter. So we have a two traditions here like one tradition is shak being designated as a drinking place and but there's even bigger tradition of carell having only three drinking places. So we have to figure out which one is more important for the community and decide that way. Um I'm against adding a fourth permit or four drinking place to Carmel. I think that is one of the things that make Carmel unique and we're seeing lately that we are losing some of this uniqueness with you know housing house addresses etc etc. We have to be very careful not to lose everything that makes Carmel unique and special. So I would say having three drinking places is is part of what Carmemell is and we should keep it. And I agree with Commissioner Lo that when you only have three you have to compromise. It's not easy. There's always a trade-off. Um if you, you know, you have three people in a desert and only one bottle of water and you have to share it, um you cannot just keep it for yourself and say it's mine. I'll keep it for later. Uh we have to figure out a way to do that in the community. And I think for the benefit of the entire community, we have to uh figure out a way to uh free this uh drinking place designation for more efficient use. Um again, I do like AWS Shark. Uh I enjoy visiting it and the food is excellent. I haven't tried the drinks yet, but the food is excellent. Um I do not see that there's any direct harm by uh you know designating it as a

full full line restaurant. Um I understand that there may be some additional consideration in terms of you know what people expect when they um rent that property from the property owner. But um these are these are things that we cannot really fully control and we have to make a decision now. Now if in 10 years for example AWS shock changes and becomes a drinking place again they will be welcome to come back to us and ask for permit to you know use this designation. Maybe at that point we will say because of the history of this issue we'll create a fourth drinking place. Maybe that would be a argument strong enough to do it but right now we I don't think we're at that level. I don't think we need to do it. So I would be with Commissioner Lo on um supporting um um the designation as a full line resolution

resolution number one.

Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. Um Commissioner Allen, your comments, please. So, I'm really torn on this because um uh the business has gone through the channels. They've communicated with the city. They've they've gotten approvals. Yes. maybe they're not um you know the approvals that that were required for this business or for this land use. But at the same time like if our word isn't good then I mean don't we have to stand by what a city official has told these people? And so um so on the flip side of that, I really want to bring this into compliance. And so I mean number one, I I would not say that it's abandoned as of now. I would say that I would give an opportunity to come into compliance. Um but but I don't know. I'm torn on this one because um from all indications, the paperwork shows that they were communicating with us uh with the city and they were they were given the go-ahhead to do all of this stuff. So, um Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Alurn. Your comments, please. Thank you, chair, and um yes to everything that's been said so far. Um

the the go-ahad that the um restaurant received was all ministerial. It the go-ahad did not happen here at the commission and at the zoning level. It happened at the ministerial level. Um, does that does that um exonerate it? No. No. But it w it did happen at the ministerial level. And I I I do not I do not believe that prior staff level statements um bind the planning commission to to those statements. Uh and I but I don't I don't think that they have. I think that this commission is doing a um its due diligence to try to evaluate this situation in the most neutral u way possible and I think that's essential. I think it's extremely important and I as with my fellow commissioners I don't I don't take this decision and this um this consideration lightly at all. Um I' I'd like to highlight what what one of the things that we did receive in our packet was uh the letter uh that was sent to Miss Bassie um on August 8th, 2023. And this this was um uh her business license approval. Okay. So this goes this is what what she received and um it says on the first page the proposed um name is the primary use is of a fullline restaurant. Um and then on the the second page for approvals and conditions, uh it states that this bis business license authorizes the use uh primary use is as a full-line restaurant and the ancillary use is a

drinking place. And then another paragraph down, paragraph three, it it cites the use permit, use permit 93-45. And it states, "All conditions and findings of the use permit, which was reviewed and approved by the planning commission on December 8th, 1993 shall apply to the operation of this business." So it we have in our business license conditions of approval a both and and a conflict at the outset. Um I have a question because I like my fellow commissioners would like to see this um I would like to see the use permit for this business reflect the operations of the business. Do we have the option of having a use permit that has a primary use as a full-line restaurant and an ancillary use as a drinking place? I mean, we know that ancillary means that it is it it is secondary to the primary. And that does appear to be what the operations are. the operations at this time and at the time that the Ms. Bassie purchased the the the business, the primary use and all of the applications and licensing related to that are as a full-line restaurant. Can can we do a use permit with that as primary and a drinking place as ancillary or is that not possible in our code? Real real question, folks. through the chair. I am looking up that information but going off of memory I think um only the reverse is possible. Believe that the drinking under the

definition of drinking establishment it has to be primary. Yeah, that was my understanding as well. Um well in in in that case um to summarize my comments I I do believe because of what we've heard the the business license the the revenue structure the way that the business is operating is indeed in conformance with its business license um as a full-line restaurant and the use permit does author authorized the drinking place with limited food service, right? Seafood and oyster bar. And that's very narrow language. That's very, very specific. And I think it's too specific to to be able to expand it to include that fullline restaurant. I think it's just too specific. Um I do believe that characterizing what's happening what um characterizing the characterization from 2023 that the uh this is a legal non-conforming use that the the planning director had used that phrase. I I do actually feel that that's a mislication of the term in my understanding of a legal non-conforming because um and and I hinge that on the fact that my understanding is that there there was not a legal full-line restaurant use that had been permitted. So therefore, and there was not a change in the law that would that would cause that legal non-conforming. So I believe we're non-compliant, but we're not legally non-conforming. I also don't believe that this commission is bound by that those previous statements by the planning director, though those were ministerial statements that are

could not apply at the zoning level that the planning commission is required to hear. Um and uh my last comment on the estoppel that is um that is above my that's definitely above my my pay grade in the in the legal understanding of estoppel. Um but in I'll say in in in general uh and especially with the comments that have been given related to harm. Um I think that what the commission is trying to do here isn't at all punitive. I think it's corrective. I think that we're trying to match the use permit to the actual operation of the business. I don't believe that there's any injustice that would be done if we did that. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Albert.

Um, yeah, I just want to make a few things clear here. First of all, uh, it is the duty and responsibility and the authority of the planning commission to make decisions based upon the admissible code. Um, in this case, we have a restricted use, the drinking place. It's incumbent upon the city when they have a restricted use to make sure that the use is being is fulfilling the conditions of that use. And in this case uh the city acted with u misdiscretion in this uh sort of cascade or continuing approval of permits to allow a fullline restaurant to develop there. But we the planning commission are not uh bound by those decisions because what we are bound by is making decisions based upon uh the land use documents municipal code in this case what is the definition of a drinking place and what is the definition of a full line restaurant. Um we are not to be influenced by time, money or uncertain decisions. That is for the courts to decide. So, it's pretty clear that this business is operating as a fullline restaurant and for us to uh pass resolution two to expand the uh to change the balance of the ancillary use of a drinking place where the full wine restaurant becomes the main use and the drinking place becomes an ancillary use. That's a definition of a full wine restaurant. that is not the definition of a drinking place. So, I think it's pretty clear here that we can't make that that decision. I do want to say I would never do anything

that I believe would harm this business or this this property owner and I'm sure that they could go into court and they're going to argue that they have damages here and that's for the court to decide. But within the context of our authority, the admissible code, what we're proposing here is not a taking. We're not taking this business operators right away to operate exactly how they operate. We're not taking this property owners right away to maximize the income from the use of their property. The property owner has acted in good faith and I think the business owner has also acted in good faith. I really feel that most of the blame here lies with the city and it is responsibility of the planning commission to correct those types of imbalances and it is our responsibility to make decisions based upon what the land use law says. So having said that, I believe that really the only action that this planning commission take is with resolution one where we need to require that we make a decision that the the drinking place use permit has been abandoned and that a use permit needs to be applied for for a full wine restaurant. And I would also encourage that there shouldn't be any cost to the business owner or the property owner with regards to this change because I do feel that most of the responsibility lies with the city and the decisions that they've made and the fact that they did not pay attention to this restrictive land use and they even ignored conditions which they placed on previous building permit. you know about the full line kitchen and allowed it to continue it to expand.

So, it's I'm going to make a motion that we accept resolution one. Uh I'm a little still a little bit questioning about the language in there that the applicant, the uh business owner and the uh business operator have to agree. I guess that's that's that's just uh implied because obviously they will have to agree to pull a permit. They will have the use permit and they will agree to that at that time. So I I think it's kind of u overstating it but it it it it uh it is part of the uh the process of uh applying for a new use permit

consent. Excuse me. Could you could you please explain then what the consequences are of of uh this draft resolution? I don't quite understand. So resolution one which would be declaring um that the use permit um has been vacated. What happens next? Are you saying that the business owner then needs to apply for a new use permit? Yes. as a full line restaurant. Yes, that's the second part, the written consent. Yeah, maybe we need to go through this to make sure that

I would very much like us to be crystal clear, especially on the part of the um both the business owner and the property owner so that we have that crystal clear. I think I think that's something we should do and that we can streamline. Yeah. So we have we have uh we have possible

conditions here which are set forth um or u if I'm these are these are the findings the findings the facts set forth in the recite this number one uh set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated here and by reference two find the proposed action by the commission is not a project under SQL as defined in the public resources code I'm not going to go into that any further Uh three determined that drinking establishment ash cocktail and oyster bar uh has been abandoned for more than 6 months in accordance with the carill municipal code. The code is stated based on the facts and the following findings. The use permit was adopted on December uh 8th 1993. This is just establishing the history. Uh condition two or finding two was that the sale and service of food shall be limited to the menu submitted. Uh permit shall not authorize establishing a full kitchen. This was a condition of one of the previously issued permits. Three. Condition eight. The use permit shall become void and no uh no further force or effect upon termination discontin continuence of the use of any uh period time exceeding 6 months. For since 1993, building permits have been issued in this business to this business for a commercial uh kitchen, including the installation of salamander, boiler, griddle, burners, fryer, pot burner. This was the expansion of the kitchen. Five, August 8, 2023. Business license

was issued with authorization a use classified as a fullline restaurant as a primary use and a drinking place uh as an ancillary use six. For at least the last 6 months, Oshucks has now operated as a drinking place establishment with the sale of limited food as approved by use permit 9345. Seven, the use uses of the property where the business is located are subject to the conditions of use permit 93-45. Eight, the use permit may be amended upon application to the city is approved is approved by the planning commission. Nine, use permit 9345 has been amended since December 8th, 1993. 10, the building permit does not amend a building permit does not amend a use permit. 11, a business license does not amend a use permit. Further this the the uh main findings of the uh resolution. Number four uh amend the use permit number up UP9345 to convert the allowed use from a drinking place to a full wine restaurant subject to the written consent of Oshuck's business owner and the property owner and subject to a return to the planning commission with the proposed amendment to use permit 93-45 with appropriate findings. Okay. Five. If Oshucks, business owner and property owner submit to the city's written consent to the amendment to the use permit stated above 9345 to convert the allowed use from a drinking place to a full wine restaurant. Then staff is direct to return to the planning commission with such amendment to the use permit 9345 with appropriate findings.

Um, may I ask a question? Um, would we allow an opportunity for the owner to switch the business model? Well, this this this resolution states that the use the drinking place use permit has been abandoned. Okay. and that a an amendment to the original use permit UP 93-45 would need to be made to make the primary use of full line restaurant and the and be which would can have an ancillary use as as serving alcohol. Um

and that would come back to the planning commission for approval. That would be an application made by the uh the business. Is is it also required that the uh property owner make that application? Property owner um also property owner and the and the business owner would both have to make that application. I have a question. Um would it be amending the 1993 permit or would it be a new use permit? Yeah, I was I was curious about that. That is it seems cleaner to me just to a new use a new use permit. use. Our code doesn't technically have an amendment section, but looking at it as a whole.

Well, and it seems like things have changed so much over time, too, that it would be appropriate to have a current number on it um reflecting when this action Yeah. I would suggest we eliminate the language amendment. Yeah. And this this this resolution just confirms the abandonment and that the the applicant should apply the uh the business owner and the business operator should the property owner and the business operator should apply for a use permit for a full line restaurant.

That I think that addresses partly my question on number four. Number four says, "Amend use permit UP 9345 subject to the written consent of the business owner and the property owner. What I'm uncomfortable with the written consent part for I given G given what we've heard, I would imagine they would opt to not consent. So, is this the correct language for us to have or should that be rewritten?

I don't think it's appropriate for this resolution. It's their decision whether they want to apply for the full line uh restaurant use permit, but they will need to apply for some permit if if this permit is right. Or they they can challenge this. They can they can appeal this decision to the city council or they can decide that they want to uh file a lawsuit with the courts. That's my my understanding. And those those are all their rights of course you know and I think findings four and five should be deleted. I I didn't get that last part.

Uh four and five both should be deleted in this case. The action really is that the that we're saying that that use permit no longer and that they need to get a new use permit. Okay. So then um on the very first page on the poll Mhm. is it the desire of the commission to strike out the second part um where where it says and amending use permit and amending. Yeah.

Yes. So has been abandoned strikeout and amending use permit up until the finding that the planning commission action is not a project under secret. Yes. Okay.

Okay. We So, basically, we're striking all the amendment language out and we're going to strike conditions for um four and five. Four and five. Four and five, which are those are uh main conditions, not the uh subcategory conditions of of condition number three. Yeah. They're not findings on that. No findings. Okay. Is that is that clear? Yes, sir. Agreed upon. Yeah. And I'll second the motion. And with the also that there are not fees charged to um for a new use permit for this use.

I think that Oh, well, wouldn't that be part of the uh application for the use permit? Oh, when it comes to us, although they probably have to pay money up front. Well, they would be refunded. We can make that a a condition. We can make that a condition of the uh approval. if they decide to uh apply for that use permit.

I make just a quick point of clarification. Um the code allows the um city council to waiver refund fees if fees are in excess of $1,000, which would be in this case. So perhaps entertaining a sort of a condition of approval, but maybe a recommendation from the planning commission to the city council to wave a fee for a use permit, but it won't be it'll come back to us. I I think we can have this discussion when it comes back. I think we I think I don't think right now this should be part of this motion. I think we just it's just that's not part of this motion. Defeat.

Agree. So I have a question. Yes. Um if you pass this resolution without sections four and five, what um is your intent with respect to um the operation of this business after this resolution is passed? Uh our intent would be that the business can operate under its current use permit until they apply for the news new use permit within period of time.

Yeah. Within frame 6 months unless the council wants to advise us on that that uh that condition. Yeah, it's up to the commission. I just raised it because for the obvious reason that they're in business and um so if you wanted to give them 6 months to apply um for well I don't want to cause any harm to them. So what was your suggestion? I think your suggestion is fine. Okay. Go ahead. All right. Okay. So that would be u number four. Yes. And I just asked the director did you get uh the point that was being made by the chair on that?

Yes. But they'd be able to operate under their existing use permit until for a period for a period of up to six months unless a permit is obtained. And the six months running from today. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. So, since you amended the um resolution, I think the motion would be um for the adoption of this resolution as as amended uh by the commission. All right. Then I will this will be I make the motion we adopt the resolution as amended by the planning commission. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alburn, yes. Commissioner Allen, no. Commissioner Careco. Uh, yes. Commissioner Lock, yes. And Chair Leage, yes. Motion is carried.

Can we have a break? Uh, yeah. Let's um let's uh reconvene at 6:20. Yes. Introduce myself.

Oh, you were missing Aaron. Okay. Can I get some more water from you? Thank you. Okay, we will reconvene. Uh, can we have roll call, please? Commissioner Alboard here. Commissioner Allen here. Commissioner Carco here. Commissioner Law here. And Chair Le Page

here. Okay. The next item on the public hearings tonight is item number six. This is um two use permits. use permit 25178 and use permit 25303 and a design review 25184. This is for uh Great Valley Holdings Mama's Boy consideration use permit to allow a change of use to the front of a building from an office to a deli with no on-site cooking retail shop and use permit for change of use for rebuilding to a fullline restaurant and then a track to for exterior modifications. Have staff report please.

Good evening commissioners. Uh, I just tried to edit the error on the title page that says February 14th, but um, we don't have a license on this laptop, so it's an error.

Yes, I just had Valentine's Day spirit in heart in my heart. Um, I'm going to be brief with this um, as a forewarning. Um, so background and project description. We'll start with Mama's Boy. Uh, the application was for a specialty food store, Mama's Boy. It would be a delicateesscent at Dolores 2 northeast of Fifth. The uh it's in the lower level of the western building of the site. The site having two buildings on it as you saw at the site visit today. Uh the square footage listed in the plans for the lower level are 857 square ft. Uh the existing use is an office space and they are requesting a use permit to uh for a specialty food store. Uh, I quoted from their business description they provided that Mama's Boy evokes the spirit of an idyllic seaside sandwich shop you might stumble upon in a Sicilian village. Sunwashed, personal, joyful, and retro. Joyfully retro. Um, as we discussed briefly in the site visit today, uh, there was a proposal to have a red color for the trim and door. um that I added a condition of approval to the resolution to have that be a more um natural earth tone to align with our commercial design guidelines. The commercial design guidelines don't go into much detail on the color palettes that are allowed in the commercial zones, but do specify that uh bright primary colors are discouraged. Um but I believe it is uh at your discretion if you believe that it would be an appropriate color for this site. So we can strike that special condition regarding the color if deemed appropriate. Um besides that the proposal uh as part of the design review would be to remove the bay windows at the front and to install flush windows and then have a small seating area in front that is still on private property but adjacent to the sidewalk to allow um customers that are getting sandwiches to eat some

food um in front of the store. Uh next we'll be looking at Mimon which is the proposed fullline restaurant in the east building of the site. Uh this is a two-story structure that has a connected unit. The the upstairs and downstairs is all one contiguous unit. Um the total square footage for this building would be 2178 uh in his existing office space. Um again I quoted from their business description to give you a understanding of the um atmosphere they're hoping to create here. Um, Mimmon is the older, more sophisticated sister to Mama's Boy. A reverent, layered, and effortly stylish, the space leans into deep tones like burgundy and olive with unexpected pops of orchid and apricot. Furnishing patterns and lighting combined to create the feeling of entering a beloved, slightly eccentric Italian home. Design elements shift naturally from bright lunches on the patio to intimate dinners indoors. So, as you can see from the floor plan, there'll be dining space and a service bar um on the north portion of the property. Uh dining in the south portion with the kitchen and dish area in the rear and with patio seating in the center of the courtyard. As part of the design review, they're proposing to demolish the existing trash enclosure and shift it to the east as well as um align the patio space a little better to allow for the outdoor seating. Uh just a note um the property requested additional water from the city from the commercial water bucket that was recently got from the pure water allocation. Uh we had enough available and so with the approval of this use permit we would be uh allocating some of that water to this site for Mimon. I want to include the color palette here so you can see um what they're hoping to achieve on site. Uh for Mimona, they weren't proposing the same red for the trim and door. There is a a color palette that includes some primary

colors or brighter colors, but that wouldn't be reflected on the um exterior for the doors and trims. The doors and trims would be a more muted earth tone that fits with the commercial design guidelines, so that's not a concern. Um, on the right section of this slide, we show the upper floor plan where there'd be some secondary prep area, employee lockers, dryer storage, uh, some additional more private dining, um, and a restroom. Uh, some resolution changes. This is just a rata. Um, this is a air on staff's part for moving a little too quick last Friday. Uh, as part of the authorization, there was reference to a different business in town that is not associated with this. Um, there was I accidentally put PM instead of AM at one point. Um, and then at the request of the applicant, we uh adjusted the hours to 9:00 a.m. instead of 11:00 a.m. They thought there's no immediate plans to have a breakfast um have it specifically tailored to breakfast, but as the code would not prohibit starting uh opening the business a little bit earlier, they figured aligning it with Mama's Boy just in case for future plans would be an appropriate course of action. Additionally, there's amendments to the water or to the number of seats. Uh I when I was writing the staff report, I was writing it based off of a the original water permit application that they submitted to us, but there was a amendment to that in December that adjusted the numbers from 40 interior seats and therefore 20 exterior to 43 interior and 22 exterior. And this is all um in their water permit that was filed with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and would be uh subject to them finalizing that permit as part of the building permit process. With that, uh staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolution attachment one with the revisions outlined in the previous slide. um finding the project categorically exempt from SQA, uh approving the use permit for Mama's Boy, approving the use permit

for Monae, and approving the design review for the building as a whole. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. Thank you. Questions for staff? Any questions? I I only have one I only have one question because this is um unusual situation. I I don't think we have discussed anything like that. So the mama's boy is not going to have any cooking. It's only food that is packaged there, right? But the cooking will h if there any cooking happens, it will happen in the building in the back in the m. Is that correct?

Yes. From the descriptions that were submitted to us, the Mama's Boy would just be a um specialty food store. You could buy food and drinks there and get uh pre-made um food or or pre-prepared foods uh from the delicateesscent or have sandwiches cold prepped there. I believe um there wouldn't be any cooking in Mama's Boy. It would all be in Mimon as a and there are two separate businesses from from my understanding from the business proposals. Mimon the the facilities for Mimoney wouldn't be used necessarily for prepping food for Mama's Boy or if it was it would be um because they're by the shared owner and so it maybe prepping some sides or things of that nature

but it's not there they'd be two independently operating businesses. Yeah, they they should be kept separate because Mama's Boy is not allowed to cook and Mammon is not allowed to uh do takeouts. Uh well, Mimon could do takeout, but not as part of their not as their primary business. If someone, I think, wants to take a a doggy bag home after um dinner, that's acceptable in all of our full line restaurants. There's nothing. It just has to be fully contained. Part of the code requires that any to- go food be fully contained um except for frozen desserts uh when leaving a space.

Um and yes, they are two separate. That's why we um directed the applicants to file for two separate use permits because they would be operating as two separate businesses with two separate requirements. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Yes. Thank you. Um could you speak again to the red color? Does that appear on the exterior for Mama's Boy? That's why the for either

uh not for Mima. For Mama's Boy, there was a reference to the door and trim o of the west building, the one that's facing the street having that red color, which is why I added the condition of approval that they would prior to building permit issuance for the design review work that they would uh choose a different color for that trim that would be more aligned with the commercial design guidelines. So, do we have um a rendering of what that might look like?

Um it's in this color palette. I know it's not perfect on the screen just because the the colors can kind of um change a little bit when they're they're thrown on display like this, but if you look at Mama's Boy, it's that red the third from the left uh on the right side of the slide under the Mama's Boy section here. And I can actually I think it's a little bit larger here. So, you can see that that red there at the bottom, a tomato red. All right. Thank you.

Yes. Um, and then there's uh two I think very very valid questions that came in through an email um from Miss Wilson. Um, she she says uh street parking is already a challenge for seniors uh 2 to three hour regular parking and 3-day disabled parking. Um she says that with existing demand from Noir restaurant and forthcoming demand from um the pastor project, how many Dolores street spaces are anticipated to be lost to residents due to the proposed project?

I don't have that information available. There has been not there has not been a traffic study that was done in association with that application. I see. And do we have any parking requirements related to restaurants in town? I don't have the code in front of me, but I believe that all commercial spaces are required to have each unit uh roughly one space per commercial use. Um I can pull up the code to to look into that further for you. And um ah thank you. man a table.

Okay. So, it's uh for all uh commercial zoning districts and for all commercial retail or service uses um there is one space per 600 ft of commercial floor area or per business shop uh whichever is greater and is do we have that satisfied in this project? There is no proposed parking in association with this project. Uh the site currently doesn't have any parking available for the existing commercial spaces.

I see. All right. Thank you. And one last question also from Miss Wilson on noise. Uh Dolores between Fifth and Fourth is currently quiet with residences on either side. The proposed project outdoor dining and drinking in the courtyard with an entrance and exit onto Dolores may increase nighttime noise and perhaps disturb the quiet. Will this occur? Um part of the review of this application, u there's an additional use regulation section of 1714 that requires a um traffic study to show that you'll have less than a certain number of vehicle trips per day if you want to operate with your outside seating past uh 8:00 p.m. Um instead of going for this traffic study, the applicant uh uh chose to go with an 8:00 closing time for Mimona. So that's reflected in their um use permit and the conditions that they need to close at 8:00 p.m. Uh that would be the the closing time to accommodate that.

Perfect. Thank you. All three of my questions have been satisfied. Okay. Any further questions for staff?

Okay. At this time, I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and make their presentation. Good evening, commissioners, city staff, and my neighbors. Thank you for allowing me a few moments to speak before you. This moment is a long time coming. I have dreamed about creating Mama's Boy and Mammon for many years meant as an homage to my family history and my very fond memories of growing up here on the Monterey Peninsula. My family on my father's side originally immigrated from Carlini, a small village in the province of Sierra in Sicily. Growing up surrounded by packs of cousins and always a busy kitchen helmed by talented nana, aunties, and my mother, it makes perfect sense that I would end up seeking out that nostalgia as a restaurant professional. I could have chosen a less demanding career path, but the emotion you feel in a well operated restaurant has a sense of magic about it like nothing else. I love caring for people in this way and intend for these new concepts to be a place where we feed not just the belly but also the heart and the head. My wife and I are locals since birth and have lived in Carmel by the Sea for the past 8 years. With our three young children, we are so grateful to be a part of this community and take great joy in operating a thriving restaurant called Stationary uh which we gear toward local families specifically. We source from local farms and ranches and pride ourselves on creating an everchanging menu that celebrates the bounty that we have at our fingertips. We will continue to hold these very high standards and philosophies at our new establishments. In advance of changing the use permit

for our property and in an effort to open the space to the public, we actually created a business for the business. For several months, we opened the doors to say yes mama, uh, which is a fun reference to a refrain we encourage our children to repeat to make sure that they're listening to their mama. The store itself was a retail concept we did in collaboration with many of our talented friends here locally. If you had a chance to visit, you would have observed us engaged in lively conversation with our guests when we asked for a genuine feedback on the hospitality concepts that are to come. I learned a long time ago that clarity and communication is the key to a good relationship. Therefore, we sought to assuage any concerns our neighbors might have. Thankfully, the feedback was primarily positive and some folks even gave us good ideas for what they were would be excited to see uh on our offerings. There were only two gentle concerns we received and they were as follows. In regard to the ongoing parking difficulties that we are all familiar with and in regard to potential late night noise issues. to the first concern. Uh we respond that as Carmelites, one of our very favorite parts of being local is the ability to walk everywhere from our home. And what a happy moment it is when we're walking into town and to work uh or to do shopping and see a fellow local to have a a smile and a chat. In fact, now that our eldest is eight, we even send him to Bruno into Neielson's on foot to pick up groceries. And when he and our daughter hop off the school bus at Carmel Youth Center, they can walk right over to our restaurant. Every day, people arrive at stationary having just walked into town with their dogs. As far as our staff are concerned, uh we encourage car pooling, public transport, and the use of the Vista

Lobos parking lot, all of which they participate in. As for the out of town guests, if they've already parked a hotel property, they can enjoy walking about town. Um, we know quite a few um hotel hotel uh and they say their their guests park once and then enjoy the rest of their time on foot. As far as the second item, as the parents of young children, we uh decidedly do not want to operate a late night establishment. We're too tired to do so. Uh now that's a bit tongue and cheek but practically speaking the physical setup of our space is ideal to contain noise. Whereas the deli uh will be grab and go with only four seats up front two top tables in front of the windows. The main restaurant is set back from the street uh behind the first building which will contain the deli uh and it's surrounded um uh forgive me uh from back from the street uh and it's surrounded by buildings on three sides. So two of them are ours. The third is a wall to the hotel with no windows in it. Uh these three sides serve to contain any noise that might be disruptive to our neighbors. Further, the fourth side uh of the patio looks out at the post office parking lot and therefore won't be disruptive in that direction either. Really, it is ideally situated for noise abatement. I should also like to mention that even before signing the lease, uh we made the effort to tour various city officials through the property to explain our project goals. They included, but were not limited to, our acting city manager, the city planner, building inspector, and fire marshal. They were all very gracious in offering their counsel. I stated then, and I will mention again now that we intend to be good dance partners with the city, and we are eager to be communicative. Additionally, I should mention Jacob's many hours in

answering our questions, doing research, and correspondence guiding us through this very complicated process. We made sure to adhere to all code requirements, made sure that our design considerations were appropriate in the context of this neighborhood, and that the concept itself acts as a very positive force to support the spirit and charm of Carmel by the Sea. Before you now, I will state that you will find us forthcoming and good faith actors. We welcome any feedback that you might have, and we will do our best to make sure that this process continues to go smoothly. We are thrilled with the prospect of offering Mama's Po and Mammon to the village and I assure you that we will make it a heartfelt favorite of our residents. Thank you for your time and your efforts on behalf of the community in your consideration. Thank you.

Okay. Uh any members of the public like to address the planning commission regarding this application? Good evening. My name is Carrie Ty and I live directly about a block from um this proposed location. So, I'm here to support this great idea. For those of you that remember the Mediterranean market, I think this is going to be a smaller version of that. And it's something that um as a longtime resident, we've missed the Mediterranean market. So going into a place that has that smell of Italian meats and cheeses, um I think that Anthony and his wife have really put a lot of thoughtful um pride into what they're doing. They're also proven. They have stationery. It's a well-run business. It's consistent and it's very considerate of what Carmel is about. So, I'm here to say that um as a neighbor, I would love to be able to walk down to this restaurant and deli. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Carrie. Uh any other members of the public like to address us? Adam, come on up.

Good evening, Chair Leage, members of the commission. I'm Adam Jesselnik. Um, I'm here tonight just to support a fellow business owner in the village. Um, uh, I think that what Anthony and Alyssa have put together, um, in this proposal is something that, uh, our town really needs. Uh, you can tell that it's been exceptionally thought through. Um, with a lot of consideration given to their neighbors, uh, and to the needs of our town. Um, I'd also just like to mention that over the last year we've lost a number of uh longstanding local favorites um restaurants and so um this will definitely fill a void. Um so I just would urge you to to support their proposal and um bring this uh great new restaurant to the village. Thank you.

Thanks for your comments, Adam. Uh we see we have a hand up online. Uh Mon'nique, would you like to unmute yourself? Hi there. Are you able to hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Um, so my name is Monnique Black. Um, I actually live next door to this project and um, my daughter's room looks into it actually. Um, we also, uh, operate the restaurant that's just caddy corner to it, uh, Shane Noir. Um, so in some ways I feel like we're uniquely suited to speak to it. Um, and we're very happy that it's happening and we're really happy to support it. Um, Anthony and Alyssa have been remarkably supportive of us and of other business owners in the community. Um, Anthony very directly uh through his previous leadership role through Restaurant Improvement District, but also more anecdotally um just through genuine and continuous support um of us and others. uh he often says, you know, rising tide lifts all boats. And um I'm very excited as a neighbor to have this business here uh for us, for my family to enjoy and also another wonderful place for me to recommend to my own guests. Um, I think it's uh important to have a variety of different offerings um from people who also residents in this community and um it's hard for me to think of anyone who's more committed um to Carmel than Anthony and Alyssa and so I'm very happy to support them in this project and uh look forward to being their guest.

Thank you for your comments. Okay, I don't see any other hands coming up online. Uh, nobody coming forward, so I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to the commission for discussion. Uh, Commissioner Auburn, you want to begin?

Uh, yes. Thank you, Chair. Um, we had a chance to tour the property uh and see both locations plus the the patio. I I for one am thrilled to see more outdoor seating in Carmel. Um, I wish we could have more of it. I recognize there were some changes to the numbers of the seats, but I I presume that um that the applicant is uh understanding of what those that that new seating arrangement will be. Um the menus look awesome. So, I would be very much in support of approving all of the both both use permits and also the design review. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Allen. Yeah, I feel the same.

Okay, Commissioner Lock. Me, too. and Commissioner Keka. Yeah. Um, a couple of comments. So, the it is interesting when you take a property that was used as a office uh legal office I guess uh and convert it into a restaurant. There must be some checklist what needs to change in the building to make it a restaurant, right? I believe that'll be part of the building uh permit application. Um they'll review for change of occupancy and any upgrades that are needed in association with the change.

Yeah. Because you know when you when you build kitchen for example you need additional power new panel electrical panel for example you know for for this additional appliances something that is not required in the in the office usually. So I assume that this is all going to be taken care of. We don't need to think about it. Right. That's my understanding. Yes. If there is anything that would contradict what was approved in the design review, they would need to come back to planning uh to get approval for that and depending on the scope of that work, it would need to be heard in front of the planning commission again.

Okay. So, so two two concerns. One is uh emergency exits. If something happens in this restaurant and there are quite a lot of tables in there, will there be emergency exit maybe to the parking lot or some other way to get out instead of going through Obama's boy?

Um, currently the there is no uh egress to the parking lot. But again, that would be something that a building would review as part of that. I guess fire would review as part of that to make sure that they were compliant with any uh safety standards. And there is uh I believe uh as we got there today, there's a path that goes along the side of Mama's Boy that takes you back to Mimon. So you don't need to actually go through Mama's Boy itself. Uh but you do have to exit on that street.

Okay. Thank you. Uh and then the parking issue. Um I'm trying to understand if the fact that the property is next to the parking lot for the post office if that is a benefit because the post office is closed in the evening, the restaurant is open. Can that parking lot be used in any way shared between the post office and the business? Um, I'm a little I'm a lot very concerned about not having enough parking. I mean, I'm all for walking and I do walk in the city, but I know a lot of people cannot walk everywhere. So, you still need to have some accommodation for people who need to park at least for a short period of time. And also delivering supplies. Uh, I would love to understand the logistics of delivering supplies to the restaurant. Is there a back entrance or some other way to get in?

Based off what's in the plans, there isn't a back entrance for the delivery of um supplies, but I would let the applicant speak um more to logistics on on how they get their produce and any materials they need for the restaurant to this location. Okay, my question. Did Did you want the applicant to speak to that? Yeah, that would be nice. Yeah. Thank you. You want to come up, Anthony? Thank you,

Megan. Uh, no, I'm happy for your question. So, it was about, uh, logistics, uh, specifically. Yeah. So, we actually have experience with this at our current restaurant at stationary. There's no back entrance to stationary. So, um, and thankfully, we were not one of the restaurants that has the larger vehicles that deliver. I mean, they're commercial vehicles, but they're not like the big big guys. um based off of the way that we source. So what happens every day when we get deliveries is uh the delivery vehicle pulls up in front. Uh typ typically it's going to be earlier in the morning. Um not crazy early but earlier uh such that uh traffic patterns won't be adversely affected. Uh they make it to the delivery. We're fairly small restaurant so the deliveries are never particularly large and they're in and out within a matter of minutes. It's pretty quick.

Okay. So, so the everything you need for the kitchen will be brought in through the front entrance. Yes, it is. Mhm. Okay. Okay. Um I think that is and the parking lot. Do you have any insights on sharing the parking lot with the post office? How how what happens with the parking lot at night or in the evening? Yes. So uh I I know that the parking lot in the evenings once the post office is closed all the residents or people who are patronizing businesses will uh use those parking spaces. Yes. So there's no restriction using the parking. M okay. No, it's pretty convenient. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Any other questions? We're I think we're good. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Um that concludes your comments, I assume. Okay. All right. Um, yeah, I'm fully in support of this application. Uh, we have an experienced restaurant tour, opening up a couple of really nice businesses. I love delies. I'll be there first and then the restaurant. And I am looking forward to kind of a new medo Mediterranean market. That would be that would really be nice. I remember those days. Love med market. Although they had they got you got to have a really crappy guy behind the uh making the sandwiches. They had this guy in Medark. He never smiled. Very shortteered. Okay. Um any we have a resolution. Um I think pretty standard uh conditions of approval. Um

I can I just really quickly and I know your questions have been satisfied, but I just wanted to verify for myself just to try and get some more information to um so I'm in Google Street View right now looking at the parking lot for the post office and it specifies 10-minute parking only from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. So after 5:00 p.m. that parking lot would be open to the public. Thank you. Yeah. Is there a special condition on the color for the door? And I know you mentioned Yeah, it's conditioned. Uh I didn't see it. Let's see. What is that? It's

uh special condition number 23. Uh 23. Okay, thank you. There's a T missing from paint there. So it says boy paint. So that's we'll add that to the ATA slide for fixes. Jake on on number one is that that's the if we go back to the Arata slide that if you're talking the authorization the where it references a a restaurant is not an association with this. That's one of that's part of the arata. So with the adoption of this resolution with the amendments from that slide that line will be stricken from the resolution. Okay. I was like, did I? Yeah. Okay. Unfortunately, purely staff error, and I can put blame on no one else but myself. Might be. I mean,

yeah. Okay. So, we're u we're omitting um condition of approval number one uh or modifying. Let me pull up the slideshow again. Uh there is going to be I included the strikethroughs here

just so we we are clear on this. Uh, can you ask it to switch screen? Uh, just one moment. The slide will come back up, but it shows I' I've showed the proposed edits to the resolution uh that would be um changed in the resolution as part of the adoption of it. Um, and that includes the strikethrough of any references in the authorization to other businesses. Um, it would include a fixing of the Here we go. So, it strikes through um I thought that that line got deleted as part of the editing process, but it did not. So, again, staff error. And then changing the 11 to 9, the PM to A.M., the 40 to 43, and the 20 to 22. And then I'm going to add to this list is special condition number 23 will now read mama's boy paint and not instead of mama's boy pain because that is

okay typo. All right. So I'll make a motion we accept the uh resolution as per staff with the corrections. Can I ask one other question? I'm sorry. Go ahead.

No problem. Let me second the motion and then but um the seating for the restaurant um and this is just a proposal for you guys. Um I talked with Jake earlier today and it appears that that there actually may be more water available on site than was calculated in the plans. Um, and I know you've got this odd number of interior seats, and so I'm going to actually propose that you make it an even number. Um, and go go with um what is it? Uh, 44 interior and then that would allow 22 exterior seats, which also may reduce how much water is needed from the city's allocation. Um, so I'm assuming that I'm correct on my calculations, but

and we do too. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we're uh we're going to um amend the u the the seating. Yes. I think u I believe there's an earlier condition in the use permit that states that the authorization of this use permit does the approval of this use permit doesn't authorize additional water. That would be part of the um water permit itself. So we can do the 44 and 22 and then just make sure that's reflected in the water permit. Yeah. And any additional water would come from the city's any additional needed. But I think it's less than what was proposed per Yeah. Per our conversation. I I think that that's correct. And if not, there is still commercial water available that would be able to accommodate the additional seat. Yes.

Okay. My motion is amended. I second your motion. Okay. Any with those changes? Yes. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll call, please. Commissioner Albour, yes. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Carco, uh, yes. Commissioner Lock, yes. And Chair Leage, yes. Motion's carried. Thank you.

Congratulations. Okay, that brings us to item number seven on the public hearing. This is a design study 25139. This is the Kershaw property investments consideration of concept design study demolition of existing home and the construction of a new home. We have the staff report please. Thank you, chair. Okay, so this subject site is located at Monberty Street, 4 southwest of Third Avenue. It's a 10,000 square foot lot currently developed with a 1,440 ft residence. Uh the all site improvements are proposed to be demolished and the applicant is proposing to construct a 3,292 square ft uh project uh that includes a 449 ft excuse me attached garage um as well as a um 800T detached ADU is also shown on the plans. So, at the December 11th, 2025 hearing, um the planning commission did consider the project. Uh the staff report at that hearing um identified issues with concept finding uh number 2, 3, 4, and six. Uh the commission deliberation um identified additional issues including

this number and size of doors uh the glazing and the number of curtain walls. The compound-like appearance uh the size of the skylight proposed impacts to the uh of the proposed clear story windows. The use of uh or suggested the use of natural features to achieve privacy. the driveway material, the amount of exterior lighting, um, and the general building form. Uh, the item was continued with direction to the applicant to then modify the project. Looks like duplicate slide there. Uh, so today's consideration, uh, the applicant has revised the project. Um and the commission uh should consider do the revised plans adequately address the concerns of the commission at the previous hearing as this is a continuation of that hearing. Uh additional considerations are do the revised plans meet the findings for concept acceptance and are the revised plans consistent with the residential design guidelines. Uh so this presentation is largely a uh duplicate of the staff report. the staff report was a lot of uh images um and this presentation is largely the same. Uh so I apologize for any uh repetitiveness. Uh so the applicant stated that uh the large skylights have been reduced to three smaller skylights. Um, so as illustrated, the applicant has replaced the single uh 9'2 in x 14t skylight with three uh 9 ft 2 in by uh 4'8 in skylights. Uh it is noteworthy that the the sum of the three skylights is the same square footage as the singular skylight. Uh the applicant has also stated that the door header heights have been reduced from 10 ft to 8t and below. Um so you can see this change

um here. This was the initial proposal with the door which breached the top of the the building wall. This is a glass door and then this was a solid wood door. So the doors have been reduced. Um although the the glazing is largely the same. Uh this is the east or the front elevation. Uh similar treatment here. Oh, I apologize. So in on these figures, the top was the existing and the bottom is the proposed or the uh the revised. So this is the courtyard elevation or the south. So the the interior of the site. Uh this is the north elevation or the the side closest to the uh nearest property um or adjacent property. Uh so similar treatment with those door heights coming down and then on the west or the rear there were no doors. Uh the applicant has also noticed noted that the finished floor elevation has been raised 9 in. Um so that's illustrated here. Effectively the the 9 in raise is just shifting the entire building up uh 9 in. So, while the finished floor elevation was raised 9 in, the the roof was also raised 9 in. Um, according to the applicant, the front elevation was adjusted so a horizontal band now extends around the garage. Um, that's illustrated on the screen there. Uh, the front stone wall was reduced and a fence was added to create a more woodsy feel. Uh, that's as uh described by the applicant. Um so on the left side of the slide as you uh face the subject property the front wall has been changed from a stone wall to a cedar fence. Um and then also some modification was made to the front entry gate. So now that height is in line um instead of uh dipping down um adjacent to the wall.

Uh the applicant has stated that the stone cladding has been reduced on the building facade and horizontal cladding mimicking wood has been added to create a more mid-century feel. Uh so this is the front elevation. Um substantially similar between the two. Um but we do have a new um horizontal um header uh located above the garage door. So that's the front elevation. Um, again on the courtyard elevation, there has been some changes made. There's a a new wood return located at this uh rear corner of the building. Um, this is the uh north elevation or the side. Um, so there were some fenestration changes which added um wood to this building element. And then the uh this is a storage projection, storage room projection that's attached to the garage that was relocated adjacent to this other uh wood element on the residence. And then at the rear of the building, there was a stone element added uh that did not previously exist. And then the rear of the building uh there were significant portions of stone that have now been replaced with uh wood siding. Uh in respect to the lighting plan, the applicant stated uh that architectural lights have been reduced to what is necessary for building code plus a few extra lights in the patio. Uh the applicant also noted that landscape lighting will be reduced in the next submitt. Um because I'll be provided by a consultant. Uh so staff notes that there's not been any change to the total number of light fixtures proposed, but the style of fixtures and general locations have been slightly modified. Um and as noted, there's been no change to the total um number of fixtures and then that the light uh landscape

lighting plan has not been revised yet or updated. Uh the applicant noted that the site coverage has been rearranged and that the drivable grass has been removed. Uh so the drivable grass driveway has been replaced with pavers. Uh and while staff's concern was initially that the drivable grass should be included in the site coverage calculation, due to the construction method and assembly of the subject's features, the commission was less supportive of the material altogether. Um, so should the commission elect to accept the concept design study, staff recommends the following conditions of approval be included in any forthcoming resolution for concept acceptance. Uh, as these were discussed in detail at the previous hearing. Uh, the commission is not limited to these conditions. However, these were included in the staff report um for the previous hearing or were included as standard or are uh standard requirements. Um and just as reference, these are your uh findings for concept acceptance. Um so with that, staff recommends the planning commission consider the project and provide direction to staff and the applicant accordingly. Um, recommended options are to motion to adopt a resolution of intent to accept the concept design study with conditions of approval and direction to the applicant as appropriate or to motion to continue the concept design study with the direction to the applicant as appropriate. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Questions for staff? No questions. Mr. Mr. Albert question.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Um Mr. Court, the um the the wall that is along the front of the property. Yes, thank you. Um so this uh the previous design was all stone and now with a gate um at what is to our far left. The new proposal is partial stone, partial wood also with the gate and then an additional return of fencing. Um can you please remind me when we have walls and fences in the um the front part of a property for the design guidelines what is the recommended height? Um so the zoning code allows for um within the front setback which this wall is outside of a fence is 4 ft a wall is 3 ft. So this wall is removed from the front setback. Um in that case the wall there there is no prescribed height limit um once you're outside of the front setback. Um excuse me I might be mistaken. So within the the side setbacks then um a fence and a wall could be up to uh six feet.

Um the planning commission can authorize taller fences and walls. However, the design guidelines which is then we're moving into discretionary. So that that's from a zoning perspective. um when you have a fence visible from the street along the front of the property line, then we're getting into discretionary territory where it says um you should be able to see into the property.

So that this is something we discussed at the last hearing where the the codes and ordinance prescribe maximum and minimum height or maximum and minimum limits. Um, and those those establish the the range that you have, but they aren't effectively guaranteed. And through your discretionary review and and looking for compliance with those design guidelines, they they might be altered. But if if the guideline is that we should be able to see through to the property based on the way that this proposal is cited on the land, it seems as though we actually are seeing through quite a bit through the front setback. Um would you think that that's a true statement?

I can pull up the design guidelines and we can evaluate that closer. I don't know that it's necessary. Let me see what my other commissioners think. Thank you. Hey, Evan, can you pull up the door schedule? Our little iPads are not loading the plans. Yeah, they keep crashing. Oh, I I think it's a pretty large Yeah.

plan set. Yeah, I I'll get the the actual plan set up on the computer. won't even switch to switch. Okay. While you're doing that, I have another question on this and that is um it appears that the new proposal actually has the fence closer to the street just based on the number of trees and location of trees and how close that is. And I'm sorry, Commissioner Allen, you said you wanted the door schedule.

Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. It might be actually easier to um look at the illustrative schedule. Well, they went Oh, actually it's not they don't have

I mean the the schedule is fine, but they went from like 10 to 8,

it looks like. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, and I'm sorry, Commissioner Lock. Did you Did you want the Do you want the door height? I found them. Yeah, they're listed here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They went from like 10 to eight. Yeah. Well, they go from 78 to eight now, I think. Yeah. I guess in the last review you uh they were at Eight. Eight is now the highest that I've seen. Yeah. Right. And Commissioner Lock had a question about the I don't know if it was a question, but a comment about this the location of the That's the garage doors a little higher. Okay, we got We're good. Yeah. Are you looking at the fence? I I'm going to uh going to attempt to pull it up. The

f the fence said the fence is back 15 ft. You're looking for the setback, correct? It's 15 ft. It It's dimensioned at 15 ft or actually a little bit maybe within maybe a couple inches back behind 15 ft. So, it's just outside of the front set back. Yeah, it's not it's not in the front yard. It's set back. Okay, every questions answered. Good.

All right. Uh, I want invite the applicant or the applicants architect to come up and make their presentation.

Uh, good evening. Uh, my name is Eric Miller. I'm the architect on the project. Um, and um, I want to talk about a little bit about uh, what we did uh, relative to the design. And we talked about this last time. This is a pretty rare opportunity to take a very large lot which is 10,000 ft and um it's a really nicely wooded lot. The trees are beautiful and the whole idea here um is u we decided not to build a two-story house uh and uh really wanted to make a very dimminimous one-story house that was subordinate to the trees and the and the and the forest setting. So um that was the design concept. Um, and do you have my uh PowerPoint?

Uh, next slide. So, uh, one of the things that the, uh, some the commission, uh, was concerned about was some of the boxy feeling elements in the, uh, in the, uh, at the garage and some of the parapit areas. And because our, you know, design, uh, goal or design language is we want regional modern, uh, or mid-century modern uh, design, um, uh, we actually pulled the fascia straight across and, you know, no longer have a boxy element in the front. And I think it's very much consistent with the mid-century house that's two houses to the north. So if you look at the lower slide, you see the fascia. And uh as staff pointed out earlier, um it really gives much more of a horizontal feeling to the to the house. Um and we also um reduce the stone in the front. We talked about it earlier where um there's more of a wooden fence and a stone uh element there. And you know, relative to the location of that fence, it's there's a quite a nice distance between the street and the property line that the city owns. Uh and then beyond that, we're 15 ft 4 in further back for our our fence. So, um, we think it's, um, we think it's, uh, consistent, uh, with the design guidelines because it's so far back from the street, and we're trying to get layered landscaping from the city, uh, median to our property while maintaining all the trees in a forestlike setting. Um, we also soften the elevations and added a feeling of mid-century modernism, uh, with some more wood. Staff pointed out the west side uh has significantly more wood and um we we think it was a nice addition to the design. Can you go to the next one? So with regard to glass um so the skylight um the you know plan commission

was concerned with the size of the skylight um and you know we did reduce the glass in the skylight by having three uh units mold together. So it slightly reduced the amount of glass. But remember that the glass gets um um at night time the there's a shade that automatically closes. So there's no dark sky effect, but during the daytime it really makes a difference in that house because it brings light deep into the house where the living room and kitchen are dining room. So we hope we can keep it, but we are willing to reduce it if a planning commission uh feels strongly about it. Maybe you could tell me 10% or 20%, something like that. Uh we'd like to keep it because we don't think it affects anyone else. Um and uh especially since uh I don't think any other um houses uh will see anything from the east side because there's so many trees and we were out at the site today and I I think it was well demonstrated then um uh so also we reduced the doors. So the the the entry door now is 7'6 and is a wooden door at 7'6 with a transom above it. And then the the courtyard doors uh are 7 feet nine. The eight foot doors you're talking about are interior doors. So I think there might be one on the garage that's eight feet, but so the the the courtyard doors are 7'9. And um uh we did reduce the clear story windows on the on the west side uh as staff pointed out earlier. So um can you go to the next slide? Uh so um relative to the site um the exterior lighting is the minimum amount of lighting we can have by uniform building code. Each door has to have a light. So we put um lights around the perimeter of the building. We're happy to at the next meeting talk about the reduction of landscaping uh

landscape lighting. But um I don't think I can reduce the lighting on the house any further. The first application package had more lighting. we reduced it and so um we can't I don't think we can take any more out um we also reduced the cut u staff pointed out earlier that we um bench before we were 8 in deeper for the cut and uh we think that you know raising it the 8 in uh is reasonable that makes less of a cut fill issue but also the reason I would like it to be 8 in higher is because when you're tall and you're looking at that site um I can almost see the roof. It's so low. Uh so 8 in higher means that a tall person like me can't see the roof cuz we don't want to see the roof cuz it's going to be a flat roof or we'd like it to be a flat roof. And um you know, I think it's better just a little bit higher. And if you look at this house, it's so much lower than the house to the north. The house to the north of that one's a twotory and one's a onetory. And then the house to the south is much lower. So I mean it's taller. So this is really the lowest house. And I just I thought it was getting pushed down a little bit too much and I thought less grading would would be a positive thing. Um uh also uh we removed the drivable grass as staff pointed out and we we we think we're fine with that. So next slide please. So you can see how really low that house sits on that site. Um you know we we had some design guideline uh uh I think we're consistent with that because we all know that you know we want human scale um we want innovative design in a forest setting you know um privacy sunlight shared views human scale I think we achieve all that with a low profile of the massing uh and I also feel like the um uh you know the the

trees are all maintained and I think we're we're Um, we're developing a mid-century modern feeling to this with that horizontal fascia. If we go to the next slide. So, next slide. Next slide. Okay. So, here's the um location of the fence. The red line is the property line. So the existing plan shows uh a 6ft fence right on the property line all the way across. So you can see how much space is between the property and the street. So that's a significant amount of space. It's probably 20 22 ft. And then if you look at where we're moving the fence, so it's 15' 4 in. Uh that's the new fence. Uh and so we think it and it's 5'6 high. So, we think that you're going to get such a beautiful layering of landscape. Um, it'll really um feel uh like it's more generous than than than most houses around it. In fact, across the street, all the houses have sixoot fences on the property line. So, um or many of them do. So, I think it's um I think it's going to feel um like a park-like setting that's um subordinate to the trees around it. Can we go to the next slide? Um so, uh the you can see how we carefully um saved all the trees. Uh you can well most of them and you see the front yard where the ADU is. There's that oak tree right there. That's a raised bed. So, we're not changing the natural grade of that tree. And uh all the other trees in I'm in a quote unquote park-like setting are really adding the layers of interest to the site. And that's what we that's the whole exercise we're going through here is for this to feel like a a house

in a forest instead of a trees around a house. Um next slide please. So you can see this is uh if you look at the site plan um if you stand where we stood today and look north you really see no houses at all. Next slide. So this is looking um uh to the east and it's the same uh condition with no no really no houses visible. And then next slide. So that's the souththeast view. Again, you really see nothing. There's a roof in this in this slide. And then next slide. So there's the south. So this lot just naturally is so um private. Uh, and I think it's um it's a real opportunity for us to do something other than a two-story house. So, we've been working hard to maintain it as a more of a forested lot. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, so this is a video um showing the house there with a pin on it. I don't know if you can run the video. I think Yeah. So the house has that yellow pin and you can see the trees and so you can see that it's so well you know you know um protected from any other uh views uh anywhere around the site. And you can see how much higher the other houses will be compared to the one we're proposing. You can see the mid-century modern house on the left to the north. So next slide please.

Okay, thank you. Any any questions? Um questions for Eric? Go ahead. Thank you. Um, because I'm still pretty new at this, the skylights and they have some form of automatic uh, screening. How does that work?

So, uh, it has a soda a photovalttaic cell. So, when the sun goes down and there's no light available, the shades automatically close. And that's why I think that having a three three separate panels for that skylight would be better because then I can have a track on the molions of those panels and I think it would be more uh reliable. Uh but in the daytime when they're open, the only person that would benefit is us because that's a lot light deep in the house. Um, also I think based on the um, you know, the video I just showed about the the privacy in that house, um, you know, even if the, uh, shading failed, u, I don't think you would see it because it's just so hidden behind those trees.

Thank you. And is that the photovalttaic cell, is that hardwired? Yeah. And then could you speak just briefly? I know there have been comments about the Claris story windows and uh the neighbor to the west. Is that was that correct? And you made some adjustments. We did. We um we took one out completely and just put a standard window in. We kept the one in the master bedroom, but that's uh further north on the lot. Remember the day we all stood on the fence and that's that old tree stump there? Yes. That was the yard. So, we took that window out completely and um the only one we kept was the one in the master bedroom. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to address us about this application? I don't see anybody in the chamber. Any hands up, Shelby? No, sir.

Okay. Okay, I'm going to close the uh public comments, bring it back to the commission for discussion. Commissioner Ketkco, you'd like to begin? I I think um all the comments we made last time were taken in into cons consideration and the changes uh were made in the project. So, I cannot see anything that was missed. We discussed the size of the windows. They were reduced. Uh we discussed the type of a front fence that was changed. Um I think the overall improvement of the project is visible. Um yeah, I don't I don't have any additional comments. Only the only curious thing I noticed is that there's no garage there's no door between the garage and the living room. So I'm not sure exactly if that is a new design concept. Usually, you do want to have a door to walk from the garage into your house, but uh you know, maybe people don't need that. So, yeah. Uh no, no further comments. I think the changes are very positive.

Okay, Commissioner Lock, your comments, please.

Sure. Um I think that yes, there were definitely some changes that were made. Um raising the building definitely is a plus for the trees. Um, I am still concerned about the skylight and I think that the direction that was given or at least my recollection was that our standard approval of skylights are usually 2x3 or 3x4. And as you've said, granted, you may have split it up into three, but it's still substantially the same big huge skylight. So, I have a concern about that. Um, I'm also concerned about the number of exterior lights. Um, I realize that you've said that that you're meeting code, but you also mentioned that there's um what's necessary to safely light the covered patio. And so, I know I saw some um lights up on the uh ceiling area. um that's a concern to me because we don't allow other people to do exterior lighting like that for their um outdoor areas. And so, and given the fact that this um home has a great deal of glass, which means there's going to be a lot of interior light flowing to the outdoors. I really don't think you need a lot of exterior lighting. And that goes also to what is not covered in this, which is the landscape lighting. And I would like to I couldn't pull up the plan, so I can't see what the landscape proposal was, but um that should absolutely be minimal um in this case because again, I still have a concern that there may be um light impacts at the hill. So those are my comments.

Uh Commissioner How, your comments? Um yeah, it looks like uh he was able to address um all of the concerns that I was not at the meeting um in December. So it looks like he was able to address um all of the concerns. I do share some of the concerns that um Commissioner Lockach just shared around outdoor lighting and um and the size of the skylight. Uh, Commissioner Alurn, uh,

Ditto, the difference in the size of the skylights we ordinarily approve and the size of these skylights, um, gives me gives me pause. Um, that said, I do understand the the reasoning behind the larger skylight in this particular project and the uh, automatic closure based on a shade. So, um I'm less concerned than I was. Um I'm pleased that the Claris story window seems to have addressed the concern for light that would uh spill to a neighboring property. I'm also concerned about the exterior lighting plan, but I know that that was I believe one of the conditions of approval that Mr. court had included um as well as the site coverage and making sure that that site coverage is in conformance with um the city's guidelines. Um other than that, I'm I'm absolutely good with uh the changes and uh that have been made and and grateful that um that they were made. Thank you.

Uh yeah, I think um Eric made he listened to us. You made a lot of changes and and um I I think it it looks better. It it looks more like a mid-century modern. Um I mean I think some of the exercise you did on the other one was interesting in terms of just the positioning of of massing, but but this is more u true to a mid-century modern. The thing I really compliment you on is the way that you have you don't have a fence on the property line. you've got this stepping and tiered uh you know setup and and that's really something that the the guidelines really encourage and we don't see it a lot um and it really contributes um and and connects with the history of Carmel how it developed and uh you you have a unique situation here because you got a big lot and it really is going to I think add a lot of uh really u beautiful um tearing of the landscape. aping and the building is very subordinate to the landscaping as a as a as a consequence of that. Um I don't have a problem with the skylight. It's the issue with skylights typically is is night sky and the shade takes care of that. The other one is seeing it from the street. And I think Eric was really um showed his uh just observance as an architect that just by raising it eight or nine in then you don't look at the roof, which I agree is you don't want to see that roof surface. What you want to see at this house is these strong horizontal lines. And so uh not seeing the roof I think is really key to this design. And um before he just had it down too low, but you realize that and I think that is I really compliment you on that. So I don't think this the skylight um is going to you know it addresses a nice sky and you're not going to see it. That's the main thing. You're not going to see the whole roof which is nice. So

um as far as the lighting, uh most of the lighting is egress lighting by the doors. So, the only two the only lights that I see that are not egress are the ones in the overhang. And then there's there's two on the um the fence at the courtyard. Is that correct? That's correct.

Yeah. So, and they're all down lights. Um so, I'm not I'm I'm not that concerned about it. Um, you know, what we don't want is we don't want light projecting out into the street and washing out the uh, you know, the night sky and the darkness of our neighborhoods, which is really a historical uh, characteristic of the neighborhood. So, um, I think these this is pretty pretty minimal lighting. It's all screened. You can't see it. So having said that, I don't have any other compliments or any uh comments on it other than to compliment the architect. I think he really uh took a interesting concept that was going in the right way and just made it better. So uh we have a we have a resolution which has um as conditions of concept acceptance acceptance. We just have the volume study number one. Uh the landscape plan um submitt requirements uh schedule final detail and review. Applicant shall work with staff to revise plan set to include re uh requisite information necessary for scheduling final details. Unless you want to add anything.

No. Okay. I make a motion that we accept the resolution as presented by staff to approve. All seconded. Great. Any further discussion? I I just have a a point of clarification. There was no resolution. Um it was a I apologize. Not a resolution. No, it was a motion to for the intent. Motion to intent to accept. So we would come back with a formal resolution. All right. Okay. Am I? Oh, okay. Okay. Um, and then was there a reason for that? Do we normally have a Is that We We didn't have one prepared at the the first hearing.

Uhhuh. Um cuz we we're seeking direction. And then the the question was, "Were the plans adequately addressed?" Okay. So, we have an intent. So the correct title we could oh um the director just made a suggestion we we could also come back you can motion to have the I would still be a resolution we we we could intend to accept and then come back but they combine concept and final. Yes. Yes.

Okay. I I do recommend including the conditions within that motion just so we we take care of those things before we schedule for final details hearing. All right. Well, I'll amend my motion to be to uh conform to that. Second, right? Okay. Uh further discussion? Yes, sir. Further comments? Uh roll call, please. Commissioner Alporn. Yes. Commissioner Allen. Yes. Commissioner Careco. Yes. Commissioner Block. Yes. And Chair Leage. Yes. Motion is carried.

Thank you.

Okay. That brings us to item number nine. Am I correct?

Eight. Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah. Was Yeah, we just did. Yeah, we just did uh Gersh. Okay. Item number eight. This is a design study. another uh 25272 Gartner project consideration of a concept design study for demolition of a existing uh one-story residence and construction of a singlestory or 18,2800T two-story residence and inclusive of a 200 foot detached garage. Can we have a staff report, please?

Thank you, chair. Excuse me. So, the subject property is located on I don't believe that's the right address. I apologize. The address is incorrect. Um, Dolores to northwest of 10th. Uh, just to correct that for the record, uh, it's a 4,000t lot currently developed with a 1,718T residence. Uh, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence. Um just to note it it is um by definition a demolition but the applicant is proposing to largely maintain the existing uh residence in the same footprint and and add on to um the the building within largely the same footprint but again by definition is uh demolition. um and construct a 1,800 ft² um single family residence inclusive of a 200 foot detached garage. Uh the plans also show a 800 ft attached accessory dwelling unit. Um so staff is concerned regarding consistency with the design guidelines and is seeking commission feedback regarding consistency with the design guidelines uh specifically pertaining to a significant oak tree uh that is located in a very close proximity uh to um the proposed structure. Uh as you can see in the figure, um we do have limbs that encroach into the area of development as well as portions of the canopy um that likely would need to be uh pruned uh or branches trimmed. So we do have design guidelines that speak uh to preserving uh significant trees and minimizing impacts on established trees and preserving uh trees throughout construction. Um so what staff is asking the

commission to do is consider the location of the proposed building mass. Uh the options could be to require redesign or modification to avoid impacts to the significant tree. Uh to make a finding that the project is consistent as proposed with the residential design guidelines with evidence that the tree will be protected throughout construction. Or option three uh is to require the applicant to apply for a pruning permit. um finding that uh pruning is not a significant impact to the tree and is consistent with the design guidelines. Um if the pruning permit is denied by the forester um finding effectively that it would be detrimental to the tree, the project would then need to be modified. Um and then again here we have our uh concept findings for um acceptance uh which relate to forest character. Uh number two being that the project use of open space, topography, access, trees and vegetation will maintain or establish continuity of design both on site and in the public rightway that is characteristic of the neighborhood. And then seven uh the development does not require removal of any significant trees and then all buildings are set back a minimum of 6 ft from significant trees. Um so as it relates to privacy and views, staff has not identified any view impacts with the project. Uh we also don't have any correspondence relating to um the project um from any neighbors. Uh design guideline number five does speak to organizing uh functions on a site to preserve reasonable privacy to adjacent sites. So notwithstanding any lack of correspondence, we still do still excuse me, we still do need to consider privacy um and view impacts. Um so the proposed second story is located in close proximity to a uh neighboring site. Um

so we do have the neighboring uh residence outlined here with the proposed second story shown in red. There's also uh a deck which is outlined in blue here. Um so the commission should consider uh the proposed privacy impacts um of the uh the new second story. Uh staff is less concerned regarding the the proximity to the uh neighbor to the north um purely based off the uh the setback. Um so again concept number uh concept finding number five for the commission to consider is the project is consistent with the objective for public and private views. Um and then retaining a reasonable amount of solar access and then the placement and location size of windows doors balconies respects the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites. Uh similarly for the commission to consider um this relates to uh uh scale and building and roof form. Uh these are design guidelines that we often uh site relating to uh human scale and uh simple building and roof forms. Um so again staff is asking the commission to consider uh consistency with these design guidelines. Um these are purely discretionary. So um staff is asking the uh commission to uh review and consider these items. Um so just uh additional elevations and then the uh design guidelines that were cited in the staff report are are just on the slide for reference. And then we have our our findings that relate to these sections of the design guidelines. Number three, the project avoids complexity using simple building forms, a simple roof plan, and

restrained employment of offset and appendages that are consistent with uh with neighborhood character. Um, and then the project is adapted to human scale in the height of its roof, plate line, e lines, building forms, and the size of windows, doors, and entryways. the development is similar in size, scale, and form to buildings in on the immediate block and neighborhood and that the height is compatible with its site and surrounding development will not present excess master bulk to the public. Um so there is a detached garage proposed to be located in the front setback. Uh there are six findings that need to be made. Uh the ones highlighted in green um the boxes are are effectively checked in the staff report. the highlighted ones in red um have conditions included um or supplemental findings. So number two uh a landscape plan was not uh included in the plans that demonstrated uh 50% of the adjacent rightaway be landscaped. So there is a condition of approval that speaks to that. Uh staff also did include uh an additional landscaping requirement for this area um which is currently an asphalt area now um but there is a condition of approval that identifies that this area should also be landscaped um citing uh consistency with our residential design guidelines. And then for number five, um effectively a finding that the project meets um our previous finding on uh finding number four would meet finding number five for the detach garage. Um I I believe in the past we've said that the garage is in scale with the the sites. So therefore this is appropriate. But what finding number five is actually saying is all development on site is in scale with adjacent properties. So that's not just that the garage is in scale with the property, but the garage is in scale with everything as well as

the rest of the development is is appropriately cited. Um, and then other findings that aren't specifically addressed through individual design guidelines. Uh, number one, the project conforms with zoning standards. Uh, so staff did take a look at that. Everything appears to be in order. If we did miss something during our review, we'll be sure to address that as we continue to work with the applicant. Uh number six, the design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies related to residential design in the general plan. Uh so there was an excerpt or an attachment in the staff report which highlighted uh those sections of the the general plan. Um again, these largely relate to findings that are implemented um through uh the use of the residential design guidelines. Uh so a finding for consistency with the design guidelines would effectively you know you could use as a finding for number six. Uh so with that staff recommends the planning commission consider the project and either one make a finding for approval to adopt uh a resolution being an attachment one or continue the project with the direction to the applicant. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Uh Aaron, you you mentioned those um uh two policy statements about uh complexity in the and in or yeah, project avoids complexity, project adapted human scale. You you're uh you just brought those up. You didn't have any discussion about your opinion that it meets those particular guidelines or not, or are you just pointing them out to us? It it's it's a a it's a determination for the planning commission based on the the residential design guidelines. It it's it's going to be the same discussion that that regularly

comes up regarding having a you know being adapted to human scale um the the grand entries uh complex roof forms. So you're suggesting that this this project is uh the discussion of this is pertinent to these particular I I highlighted I highlighted the design guidelines that that I I felt warranted discussion. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh any other questions for staff? Yes.

Um Mr. Court slides nine and 10. Uh perfect. Here's slide nine. I like that. Um so in the lower um illustration there is a what appears to be a second story deck and my question has to do with comments about uh the second story and privacy and views. You know design guideline 5.1 is because the the current home we weren't able to see a second story. So, we actually don't know what that view might be like um to its neighboring property to the south. Can you speak to that at all? So, the finding is through the placement, location, and size of windows, doors, balconies, the design respects the rights to reasonable privacy. It's not absolute. It just needs to be reasonable. So, can we presume that or find that the deck provides reasonable privacy? And that again, it's it's a discretionary decision for the commission.

I see what what is reasonable privacy? I see. Thank you. I'm getting a lot of these answers tonight. Um, and uh, one other question on the roof color. We saw a pallet, didn't we? Somewhere in here. It It's in the It's in the plans. It's not in my presentation, but it it's it's not black, is it? Or or deep gray, you know? I I don't recall. I I didn't do an analysis on that for this concept staff report. Oh, that's more final. It's a it's a final detail. Okay, then never mind. Uh thank you. That ends my questions. Uh actually, I have it right here. It's the color is called weathered wood. Um

it's brown. Yeah, it looks it looks to be like a a pretty dark brown maybe. You know, I I I don't know if anyone might be still listening in the back, but we we I'm sure we have that sample. Okay. All right. I'm going invite the applicant to come forward at this time, make their presentation.

Thank you. Good evening, chair, commissioners, staff. I'm Harlon Bradley. I own Masterwork Builders. I'm the designer and the builder for the applicant. I have my client Scott and Diane here with me this evening as well. And um just to answer that question right off, this is a inspiration image with the the color palette of all the materials. And this is the actual sheet plant set. So I wanted to address the few concerns that have been raised with the project which are one the oak um the massing and the privacy and we were very deliberate in the design of this addition um with respect to the oak tree and I think you probably saw when you were on site today that the addition tucks in really nicely behind it. Um, it does barely encroach into the canopy. We would defer to the forester and have spoken with him that a pruning permit would be necessary and we would accept his guidance on how best to preserve this oak. It is a very large multi- trunk oak. And so the site plan, you can just barely see the the center where all of those trunks come up right now. Um it's about a 40ft diameter canopy and the second story that we've proposed just barely touches the edge of that. Um I think that we're so far from the root zone as well that there's very little risk posed to the tree long term. I also think with respect to the massing because that tree is so prominent on the site, you really can't even see the

seconds story edition. I think if you were driving by, you probably wouldn't even have noticed the story poles that we had up other than the garage where the proposed um acacia is proposed to be removed. So, one thing to note on that as well is that we we we cited the second story in that location because it sits over an existing depressed area of the floor plan. And so that allowed us to keep a lower height overall. If we had shifted that to the north or to the east, we would have been over a higher plate height and therefore it had a larger mass overall. So Scott and Diane were okay with the existing kind of split level floor plan that exists and that allowed us to put the second story over that area. It will provide them a modest ocean view. That was the original catalyst for the project was to put a primary suite upstairs where that could be enjoyed. and we believe that the privacy concern will be negligible, but we're open to adding a privacy screen or a um raised planting bed on that deck if needed. So, we hope that you like the design. It's classic Carmel. It's a beach cottage shingle. A lot of the elements are drawn from the existing um Carmel Delight cottage that's there now with the shingle exterior, some of the arched lattice work. Um a very humble character and we believe we've maintained that while making it relevant to the modern day and a modern lifestyle.

So can I ask you a question? Yeah. So the way we're looking at the house right now is that south elevation. We're looking at the house from the south, right? Yeah. Because it has all this shadow or Yeah. shadows on this side. It kind of implies that the sun is coming from a different direction. Okay. Um, is there any particular reason why you do you didn't put bigger windows on the south side to get more light in for the privacy concern? For the privacy because there's there's a lot of house.

That's correct. So, the the two windows that are there, the one that's um further west is like a clair story window that's in the bedroom. That would be a high window maintaining privacy to both neighbors. And then the front window is actually bathroom. So we've noted that it would have a motorized shade and we're also proposing that that be opaque glass again maintaining that privacy for both neighbors.

So really the if the idea is to get light from the south, wouldn't you move the house the living area where the garage is? Because the garage seems to be getting most of the sun right now, right? It's it's further away from the other house and it is facing south and you have space in front of it. Correct. So the house itself is just behind the the front yard setback.

So we wouldn't have been able to bring any living areas further east into the front yard. Although that would have been that would be nice in practice. Um but the zoning guidelines don't allow for that. And as far as shifting that second story mass north so that it would have more southern exposure, the primary reason was because the um the height of that floor would have pushed the second story up too high. So we're trying to keep the mass and the overall height within the the additional guidelines for volume and massing. And that was the primary driver for keeping it down on the on the southern side over that depressed floor area. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Harl, I had a question for you.

Yeah.

And please forgive me uh if I'm being presumptuous here, but I you know, I'm just looking at this for the first time and and I know that you've been working this a long time and you've uh you've had certain challenges here that I'm not aware of at all. Uh, I guess what when I'm looking at it, I see a little bit of Well, first of all, I see your design has a repeating uh gable with this round vent, and then you've got the returning eve, which is kind of a classic treatment. And and then the entryway, u there's a there's a shed roof that goes into this lower pitch entryway, and it just seems to create a little bit of business in there. So, I'm kind of wondering what what happened with the shed roof. Is that necessary? Is there another way? Is there another way to, you know, clean this up? Like I say, I I'm just looking at this for the first time. So, I mean, what what was what was what caused what why was there a need to have this shed roof in there? So, the the existing roof is very shallow and so we're really just trying to accomplish enough drainage out to the front of the roof line. Uh that's really the only reason.

Is it Is it just a It's not a vated ceiling in there. It is. It is a vated ceiling. Yeah. So, so we're trying to maintain where that shed is. Are you looking at the bottom of the No, the shed would just be actually on the top. So, it's added over the just for the purpose of drainage. Correct.

Yeah. It just kind of it just kind of competes with a lot of the other um the gables and so forth. It did, you know, just in and I know this is a two-dimensional drawing too. In three dimensions, it looks different. But um and I guess it's set back with that that shed. Is it shed even with the uh the gable right next to the right of the um the entry? It's tucked back a little bit. We did originally have the porch coming out further uh but we took staff's direction to to u reduce it in order to reduce its overall. But that shed is primarily over the entry, right?

Correct. So, is is the line of the shed pulled back from the front of the entry there? That that's about u looks like about 2 foot six 3/4 or something. I see that dimension. The idea is that line of sight. It will basically probably got a roof plan. I probably should look at the roof plan. Yeah, the trailer page. If if you um look at the the monitor, the laser pointer shows where the the edge of the shed is. Oh, yeah. You see a little cut there. Yeah. Yeah. It's hard to see it. Yeah.

I do think that in in reality when you're standing at the front of the property, you won't actually be able to see that. Yeah. I guess the other issues I'm always looking to see that the pitches are consistent in the entryway has a a lower pitch. If you raise it up, I guess that would cut into the uh second story window line. Correct.

Yeah. And we are trying to preserve that front room. So um as uh Mr. court pointed out this is technically a demolition, but there is quite a bit that we're going to save of this property and that front room is the the primary part that will remain. Yeah, but the new the second story that's all new, correct? That's all new. But anything you do on that entryway uh where it butts into that uh like I said, I say east facing the east elevation. Yes.

Yeah. kind of a kind of the ridge would become higher. Either you'd have to lower the uh the columns which could have other consequences. That's why I say when I'm just looking at it the first time, you know, I don't see all the consequences of you do one thing and then it affects other things. Appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Um any other questions for designer? Yeah. The the other comment I have is so the tall part of the house on the left is now very close to the house on the south. Right. It is.

Is there any way to move that map to the back and to the north and that corner way is nothing? This I I saw there's nothing on the on the behind the house is nothing. Right. The next house is far away. And on the north side, I don't remember, I think there's not a big building on the north side as well. The reason for that, we we've pushed it as far west as we can. Mhm. Um for the height of the floor. So again, that the bedrooms that are west of the second story on the first floor,

they're at a higher level. And so we we basically run into, you know, about a six foot, five and a half, six foot plane if we were to bring that upper floor further west. Uh so that's the reason for it. It's kind of boxed in, if you will, between these adjacent higher first floor areas.

It's just that our design guy talks about the fact that you do not want to have this tunnel effect. So that you don't want to have two tall buildings next to each other. and they're pretty close. And then also it's talk about the fact that the second floor should be offset so that you don't have like a one straight wall going from the ground up to the second story or to the roof. So, we're trying I'm trying to figure out how we can move that mass so that a we can get it away from the other house and b get more light into the into the new house because right now they're so close to each other that there will be uh some privacy issues obviously because they're very close to each other and also it impacts your design. That's why you're keeping the windows small which is kind of counterproductive because this is the south side where the sun comes in. Um and then at the same time you are you creating that wall that is aesthetically not that that pleasing. That's why our design guy talks talks about you know break it up move it somewhere to the middle distribute the weight in a way that you know the taller part of the house is in the middle and then everything else is subordinate right so that's what I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to do

we felt like the articulation that we did add where the the bathroom of the upper floor which is closest to us here it does articulate to the south and then the the portion of wall that is continuous from bottom to top is very short. That's essentially the bed wall of the primary bedroom. It's really only about a 12 or a 13t wall. And then the deck has a little articulation as well. So although it's very difficult to see this side of the home, we agree with those design guidelines and we feel like the elements that we added here speak to that and and do have some articulation and interest.

So we we have seen many projects like this where the slope is exactly like that and most of the proposal end up being split level. So you walk in, you walk down to a living area and then you like a half story down, half story up. Yeah. And that's how you get closer to the light on top and you build push the mass towards the the other side of the lot to the back of the lot. And that may work actually may work well actually. It it would um and if we were truly starting from scratch,

I would absolutely recommend that to my client. However, we are trying to retain a lot of this existing structure and so we are we do have a split level design. It's just that the the small portion of the existing first floor that is split down is only the footprint of the upper floor that you see. So that is that's literally you know the thought process and how we landed on putting it in that spot. It's really the only place where we we can build on top of. If we shift it north or west, we're we're too high. The mass has gotten too large. So, we just tried to tuck it in right there. So, what you're saying that so you have this lowered like living room.

Exactly. It's like a family. You put the master right above that. Correct. And the and the setback on the uh south side is 6'5. I'm sorry I gave uh plans to reference. I'm looking at the proposed site plan. Looks like the looks like the house to the south has a uh part of the structure is right on the property line. It is. So it's a little deceptive when you when you look at it on site. You may have noticed today the fence line is actually significantly into Scott and Diane's property.

Um, so that's, you know, something that we'll have to to deal with as construction and permits continue, a conversation that they'll have with their neighbor. But it is worth noting their neighbor is in town. Um, I saw them today on site. They're they seem happy with the design. There was no objections raised at all. So, they didn't have any privacy concerns or anything. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we're running out of people in here. Did the owners want to address us? Hi, Scott Gardner. My wife, Diane,

come on up. Thank you. Hi, I'm Scott Gartner with Diane. Uh, we've owned the house for about 11 years. I'm a professor at Nava Postgraduate School where I just recently stepped down as provost and chief academic officer and our goal is to um uh be able to accommodate our expanding family of our adult children whose families are expanding um with a little bit more space. So, thank you. Appreciate your uh guidance and what you do for us and for the city. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. U any hands up online? No, sir. Okay. I'm going to close the uh public comments, open it up to the commission. Uh, Commissioner Alurn, you want to begin?

Uh, sure. Thank you, Chair. Um, overall, I u after visiting the site today and seeing the proposed plans um and seeing the way that the uh the architect and designer have fit this into um a rather challenging site given the size of that stunning tree. Um and they have used a very sensitive treatment to protect that tree. Um, and we heard that they've spoken with the forester. So, there are plans to discuss possibly a a pruning permit if if need be. I am uh very comfortable with some of the conditions of approval that Mr. Court has suggested and I recommend that we simply accept this uh design study concept.

Okay. Commissioner.

Um, yes. So I would like the um uh to explore the pruning situation first before um we move forward just to ensure that um we're aligned with what the forester would suggest in terms of um what you can and cannot do with the oak tree. Um but otherwise I'm um I I like the design. It's super interesting how it kind of just like fits like a Lego piece where the big piece comes in and then the L shape matches the on one level. Interesting. Um so yeah. Um and uh and so and then I really like the fact that you brought an inspirational photo because that answered my questions about the French doors down at the lower level. So, yeah, I'm I'm good with the design.

And Commissioner Lock, I don't really have anything to add. I think it I think it's just fine the way it is. I'm actually looking at the neighbor house online right now. Um, and I'm glad you reached out to them or at least you'll have the opportunity to talk to them.

And Commissioner Carco. Yeah, I like the inspirational photo. And um basically the question is then what happens when you have this inspiration and you put the giant oak in front of it, right? That that's what what happens. You have to adjust you have to adjust your inspiration according to the oak. Um so um I I still think that we can no that that there are some things that can be improved in the house in terms of moving the mass around. um maybe not completely move it to the other part of the lot. I understand the limitations of the lot but um avoid having this straight wall on the left side on the south side. Um moving a little bit away from the neighbor, maybe having it centrally instead of having it on the left side. Um, and also in terms of simplifying the roof, um, especially in the twotory section, uh, maybe if the roof is just a simple gable like the one here on the inspirational photograph, that would that would help a lot. Uh, right now it's more of a two gables meeting each other and it becomes bulkier and it becomes more complex. So maybe that simplification will bring some improvement. Um I understand the limitations of trying to work on a small lot um and uh with a JM 3 on the lot. Um so yeah and in terms of design elements there are a lot of design elements in this house and um our design guide is and I I agree actually with the um the planning department uh suggesting you know simplifications. I think we can we should look at simplifying the roof forms maybe standardizing some um some

of that right now we have different kinds of roofs some some of them are like look like 312 some of them are 412s 512 so I want to make sure that there's some consistency in there um I guess this little design elements around the edges of the roof is something that comes from the inspirational photograph so they cannot go way. But the arches, for example, they are very well synchronized. Here on the inspirational photograph, you have an entire section of the house that has three arches next to each other, and they same size, same material, same color. That makes a lot of sense. In the plan that we saw, they are arches, but they are not exactly aligned, and they are a little bit off. And it's it's really in in design it's it's really noticeable when you have slight deviations from a pattern. So uh either we make the they should be similar to that maybe look the same same color same material or uh or maybe go away you know just don't use arches at all uh if if that doesn't uh doesn't work. Um, yeah, these are the these are the comments I have. Uh, hopefully we can have a some improvements to the plan. Um, I wish there is a way to use the lot more efficiently, but with this giant oak, I don't think you can do much. It's basically taking one of the best parts of the lot. So, you cannot really build on that, and I don't want to see the oak damaged or cut in any way. um digging into the ground maybe to address the issues maybe some excavation uh I'm not sure if what they're planning to do in terms of keeping the foundation but one way to reduce the bulk and mass is

to excavate and we are not very happy with that but if that's the only way to kind of solve the problem maybe excavation in the north part of the lot is an option so I'm just just brainstoring Yeah, maybe some ideas that uh we can look into. Thank you. Okay. Um it sounds like we've got three commissioners that are pretty good with the design. And can I ask you a question?

Um so on that second story and in your opinion, chair, is there a way to simplify that simplify that roof on that um on the second story? Uh well, I was looking at it and it I mean it's interesting because you have um you've got the gables. The gables are are kind of decorative. The ones facing um east and west

and and and the the east facing gable really does contribute a lot to the consistency of the d design. Um it looks like the plate height at the um at the east I mean it's it's significantly higher than the plate height on the west. So it's almost like a salt box in a way. Oh yeah. Yeah. And um

you know because because of because of the uh the height difference uh if you ran if you just ran a straight uh ridge line east to west you'd actually end up with more massing to the south. I think the way it is now, he's there they're they're there. Um I understand uh Commissioner Katakov's concern about large twotory elements, but there actually is articulation there. You've got you've got an offset there and um and then you've got a lot of different heights. So there's there's quite a bit of articulation along that that um that property line. So, uh I would the only direction I would give to the designer is maybe explore uh some ways to simplify the roof a little bit. Um I I it's it's it's a challenging design because you have uh done something which we really encourage and that is you've got the the house following a slope and that that's very important and that that that um that contributes to reducing grading. It also re reduces height and massing and that's something we encourage. So and that that you when you start with that that drives the design you know and so you end up you know with what you end up with plate heights and so forth and because it's following the slope down you've got different plate heights and and so that that you've responded to that in the correct way. So a lot a lot of these um guidelines about how to build the form on the lot, they determine what the the the the eventual form above the lot, you know, becomes and then the designer takes his his, you know, takes your uh creative creative inspiration and you you apply that to the to the design and that's how you

come up with this. So, um, I see the way you've gone and I think you've come up with a pretty coherent design, but you know, there again, this is concept and maybe take a look at the roof form and see if there's something you can do there to to simplify it. Other than that, I think it's a very, you know, and I think um, you know, you might when you're looking at the root form, think about uh, the two elements which are pretty dominant are the second story and the entry. So, if you did something there, you know, uh maybe or looked at that in a creative way, stay true to your design because I think you're you're on the right path there. So, so that would be I think that's really the um the only uh direction that that I've heard that that uh the designer can take a look at and it is concept So that we have a uh a resolution up here. I looked at it and I did with it. I brought the roof up. The uh the weathered um the weathered wood presidential. It's a real nice variegated color. Yeah, it's got it's got a lot of dimensionality. It's got some light flex in there. So it's not it's not a high contrast kind of thing. It's it's a very nice looking uh composite roof. And it has a the presidential comes up with a very nice uh butt shadow groove which adds a lot of dimensionality to it. It's also got that staggered kind of offset which I think uh creates more of a cottagey informal look. So it's it's a nice material although we're not really getting into that now but it was it always comes up. It always comes up. Okay. I think I have the right

So once again we have a this is a draft a a design concept draft consideration. Is that the correct phrasing Evan? I want to get that right. It's a uh concept design study. Concept design review acceptance. Yes. You're accepting You're accepting the concept design study. Okay. All right. Well, I'll make a motion we accept that with the direction to the applicant to explore simplifying the roof forms. Anything else you want to add?

Um yeah, and this is based on the pruning situation, right? Yeah. This is would be contingent upon it receiving approval reporting the oak and the the east east elevation oak. Yeah, correct. The the resolution doesn't have specific direction um as a condition. So you can you can add the condition to apply for a a pruning. Okay. Okay. The condition will be added number four that the uh applicant will apply for a uh a pruning permit with the city forester. Perfect. I I'd second that motion. Okay. Any more discussion? Okay, roll call, please. Commissioner Albourne, yes. Commissioner Allen, yes.

Commissioner Carco, uh, yes. Commissioner Lock, yes. And Chair Leage, yes. The motion is carried. Thank you. Thank you.

What's going on over there? Yeah, this is this is the hour is definitely getting late. Uh, can we get some of that caffeinated water? We got to revive a commissioner. What is this? What do you think? A Oh, that's for you. Oh, it just keeps going. You'll never see that glass again. Okay, coming back your way. Don't worry, we got you covered. All right, where are we? Oh, we got all we got left is

number nine. Number nine. Number nine. Uh, where is that? God, I can't this new format you guys have. I have a hard time. Here it is. Okay, number nine. I got to get this thing loaded here. I'm sorry. Got to open it up. Okay. Is this the uh is this is this a the Kougler? Right.

If I got that right. I make sure I'm just Okay. So, uh this is a design study 25357 Krugler. This is um track one design study referral for request to amend conditions to approval of a uh previously approved track 2 design. Staff report please.

So in October 2021, the planning commission approved a design study application uh via the adoption of resolution 2021-54-PC. As part of that resolution, the planning commission included condition of approval number 29. Uh that condition is described on the slide. Um notably uh the condition required for the applicant to submit revised plans which include landscaping on the south side of the garage that grows or climbs at least halfway up the south facing wall uh that wall of the garage. Um and that landscaping be maintained in good health for the life of the project. Um, this condition was included uh following deliberation of the planning commission as a means to uh air I'm quoting um to soften the south side of the garage. Uh so in November of 2023, staff inspected the site uh and found uh landscaping had been installed consistent with the building permit application. Uh obviously it's not at a mature height. Uh the planting's rather young. Uh it's difficult to see in the photo, but there is a wire trellis um that is installed that that is located approximately halfway up uh the garage. Um at some unknown point in time, the landscaping failed to be maintained. Um the subject uh so I apologize. This this is a climbing hydrangeanger in this photo. Um so the land the hydrangeanger failed to be maintained and it was replaced with bogan bailia. Uh it's estimated that this replanting um occurred in the summer of 2025. Uh so staff inspected the site uh in September and October of 2025. The photos from September are on the left. Photos from October are on the right. Um

so it's just a comparison of each individual plant documenting the the health of the plant from one month to the other. So staff with the concurrence of the city forester um identified that the the plants were not growing and being maintained in in good health and provided a compliance notice um to the property owner. Um, as part of that compliance notice, uh, staff outline options to the owner, uh, being that they can amend the planting, um, submit evidence that the landscaping is healthy and in compliance with the condition, or submit an application to amend this condition, uh, condition being condition 29. Uh, in o in November of, uh, last year, the owner submitted a design study application requesting to amend the condition of approval. Um so the applicant has as part of their application proposed to replace the landscaping with a fence. Um as described by the applicant it would continue to meet the intent of condition 29 being to soften or break up the massing of the garage. Um the benefit of this as described by the applicant is that there's no biological maintenance or uh biological uncertainty. Um so the options before the commission are to rescend the existing condition pertaining to landscaping. So that's condition uh 29 and approve and require uh fencing on the south side of the garage to match the existing fence at the front of the property. Uh your action here would be to adopt a resolution adopt the resolution uh provided by staff. That's attachment one. Um notable conditions included in that resolution are to require um the fence be maintained uh much like that

landscaping was required to be maintained. Um and also um identify that the fence is required to match that of the existing fence. Um option number two would be to rescend the condition altogether pertaining to landscaping. Uh this effectively is a finding that the project without any additional softening um or other design treatment is condition is consistent with the residential design guidelines. Uh so that was the initial issue was um consistency with the residential design guidelines. Um but here re-evaluating the project once it's completed um it would effectively be a finding that the project is is fine and consistent with the design guidelines. Um as part of this action, you can make a motion with findings pertaining to the project's compliance with the design guidelines striking condition 29 from the resolution um and directing staff to amend. Um the the resolution here isn't clear, but what would we would do is amend a new um the resolution we prepared attachment one effectively striking um the requirement for a new fence and um addressing the uh the elimination of uh condition 29. And then option three is to uh uphold the original decision. uh the landscaping would be required to be maintained and the original approval remains in full force in effect. Um if you wanted to take this action, you would motion to deny the request and direct staff to um prepare a resolution for denial. Um additional options, you could provide direction or suggestions for alternative planting or uh direction to staff regarding enforcement of the condition.

Um so staff's recommendation is option one um which is to adopt a resolution um amending condition number 29 which is effectively striking that condition and requiring the installation of the 4ft tall fence. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Questions for staff. Okay. uh would the applicant like to come forward and make their presentation.

Good evening. I'm Claudia Ortiz representing Eric Krueger and Erica Krugler on this project. Just a very quick brief uh story. I know it's getting late and I want to go home and I'm sure you all want to go home. So um it's a the project started as a remodel and the existing residents had a parking um parking pad in the front and the concept evolved to remodeling the home doing minor additions and in that process um uh building a detached garage in the place of the parking pad. So that's how we came up with the parking pad or the garage concept. Um, as you can see the um the site itself there's really no other places to uh propose a garage. So that was uh at the time when we were designing the home that was that's the best uh that was the best uh decision and location for the garage. In that process Mr. Kovic um you know has some concerns with the garage and rightly so. Um, and he brought up concerns with um the the south elevation of the garage being too plain or boring or um I'm sure he can you address those concerns. Uh but in that process he he wanted to soften the elevation and uh he wanted to or he asked if we can propose a window and we we couldn't we can't uh you can't propose a window within 3 ft of property line. It's a it's um building code requirement. And so the alternatives were to you know come up with a solution to appease Mr. CO at the time um you know not thinking of all the scenarios and the outcomes of any decision but at that time the best decision was to um find a solution that would appease Mr. Kovic and my client and that solution at the moment was to propose some landscaping. We figured landscaping would be a pretty alternative. they'll be you know

adequate for uh his suggestion and so we decided to you know move forward with the landscaping process. Unfortunately um you know not knowing all the um scenarios and not studying all the details at the time we just went along with with a concept to maintain you know u um to appease the neighbor. So I would like to um pass these uh diagrams and plans if I may. Uh can I pass these around or Okay. So there's um let me see here I stapled a photo and a landscape plan. And what I want to demonstrate is that you know as we do more research and you know revisiting this whole concept the there was a concern there was a concern with privacy and um I I believe I have enough for everybody. Um, so there's concern with privacy and you know the more I look at the project the the the way the build and you'll see this in my site plan the way his building is situated and his views are oriented there to the rear of the property and he has um down the hill if you if you I don't know if you recall but when you were standing there looking down the hill he has a window there's a kitchen so he's concerned about you know this building being an obstruction construction or an eyesore to him. In my opinion, you know, um you only see that garage when you drive in for a few minutes, a few seconds, I should say. Uh he parks the car, he goes to the bottom of the the hill to the home and moves moves on. So, my point that I'm trying to make though is that, you know, how often is he looking at this building, this detached garage, right? It's only maybe when he's standing in front of the kitchen. And I'm not trying to argue

that this is not an eyeshole to him. I'm just trying to demonstrate that if there was a situation where this garage was seen from a a habitable I mean from a living space uh all the time then I can see you know really fighting hard to to um come up with other solutions to to find uh you know an alternative that will be to keep all both neighbors at peace and um so I just want to simply demonstrate that you know there's there's really no um privacy concerns or views that are being obstructed or that this structure is is an eyesore to his full-time living uh when he's at the property. Um with that said, I also so you know, at the time we didn't study any of those details. We just went ahead and decided to put the landscaping. What I also want to demonstrate is that I went I drove around town looking at a detached garages and I found quite a few but I also focused just mainly on the detached garages that the neighboring property had a driveway almost similar condition that he has and every single one of them you know every single one of them has a fence there's really no landscaping around it and all of those project out of those five you know three of those are my projects that I've done So, I can say as a fact that none of the neighbors ever complained about that, about the detached garage being placed in front of the property and being an isore or an obstruction to their everyday life. So, I just want to just demonstrate that what we're asking for or what we're proposing is not something that hasn't been done before or something that uh we're going out of our way to, you know, create an an obstruction to our neighbor. And I and more I mean I can add more so that you

know I think what he's asking is probably something that is never hardly I've never seen any neighbor ask before. Um, so I I feel that the fence is a really good solution because again at the time not knowing all the, you know, issues with the site, um, issues that we were going to have between the neighbors, um, because you have to think that landscaping requires going into his private property, maintaining it, and also you have to take into account, not that the that the Krugergers are planning on this, um, but if they were to sell the property and 10 years or 5 years down the road somebody buys a property how does the city enforce um the landscaping and how does Mr. coic and uh enforce that to the new neighbors. There's always going to be disputes and I think for having or bringing peace to both neighbors. I think the fence is a really good solution. It it really achieves what he wanted originally which was to soften the elevation by providing a fence. It breaks the elevation. Um it was very apparent that at the hearing it was said that only half of the height of the wall needed to be obstructed or softened. And I think the fence is a wood material, natural material. It's used throughout Carmel to, you know, provide privacy and safe parade property properties and so on. Um, it's a material that meets that criteria. But more importantly, that fence is something that doesn't need to be maintained else.

Claudia is is I read the letter from Mr. Kovak again. So he's he's not um specifically requesting landscaping, right? Right. He just as he he says here um I've spoken with the owners and the architect and they are working on a solution uh that will be will be done to address my concerns. So has he said he doesn't want the landscaping? So my when Oh is is this Mr. Kovac? Yeah. All right. Well I'll wait to ask you that. I'm sorry I didn't I will ask you that in person.

Go ahead. So at the time the the the the concept was to soften it and the conversation between neighbors and all of us it came to landscaping to be a solution and like I said before originally at the time um in in that position we were in we felt that that was the best you know solution you know we were trying to appease the neighbor and and provide something that would be you know a great solution to his concern again not knowing that landscaping would be very difficult to maintain. And I think in my opinion, I'm not a landscaper by all means. That's one of my I'm horrible with plants. But the one thing that I can say though is that because there's so much asphalt in that area, it heats up. It probably produces a lot of heat. And so landscaping is probably very difficult to maintain. I know I think he mentioned something about planting some sort of um evergreen trees, but my concern with evergreens is that they're going to have roots that are going to invade his driveway or our footings or the structure and it's going to become an issue down the road. I think the best solution, and it's a solution that has been throughout all of Carmel, which I demonstrated in the photos that I provided, is that a fence is a, you know, acceptable solution. It breaks up the elevation. Um, it doesn't require any maintenance or any uh ne necessity from Mr. Kruger to send landscapers to his property because I can assure you something like some issues are going to come up later on in the future if we continue doing landscaping. And I'm not trying to avoid the whole thing, but I just I'm trying to find a solution that is, you know, practical. It's reasonable. it's, you know, makes sense for everybody and puts it to rest and we move on and because I my gut feeling is if we continue with landscaping, it's probably going to fail down the road again and we're going to come back

and we're going to be requesting hopefully to amend it again. We're going to continue this process. So, okay, we we are proposing defense. I would like to have the fence. Yeah. Okay. Let's hear from Mr. Thank you. Good evening. Trying to keep you so late. I'm seeing double.

I got to commend you guys. Evan Court, everybody, his staff. I couldn't do what you do. I I would be drinking a lot more red wine than I'm drinking. I didn't want to be here tonight because normally I volunteer to teach a self-defense class at the youth center along with other black belts. Uh we teach kids and and we volunteer our time. We charge $20 a month. We never take a salary. You may have heard four months ago one of our girls defended herself from a mugger in Carmel. that was one of our students and it went nationwide and did more for this people looking into selfdefense than we could have advertised in a lifetime. That being said, I wasn't going to come. But my dad was from the old country. He was Yugoslavian. He was a mountain man. And he told me, "You shake a man's hand. That's all you need. Your word is your bond." Okay? This has been a complete opposite of that. Okay. At the planning commission meeting, uh you were there, chairman, but you all agreed we needed to soften the wall. Okay. If we didn't have enough room to do the planting, we were going to move the garage a little north. That was going to be a discussion between me and Mr. Clauddio Ortiz. That never happened. So now we're that ship has sailed and here we are. Okay, this is a second home. Okay, I bought this home uh in 1983. It was our first home. Uh it was during the big first El Nino. One week after we bought the house, I lost 20 feet of the backyard.

It was just a mess. My neighbors at the time, old military, they helped me out. I was hoping the same thing would happen with this neighbor. It hasn't. When they planted the first planting, and I mean they did nothing other than dig a hole and plant the plants with a gardener, not a landscaper. They never fertilized it. They said they had a drip system. Why did they come and water it every time they came down? They never took care of it. it. The plants died. I wasn't supposed to maintain it. I would have. I sent an email and a letter and that's what brought this all up because nobody was aware this was going on. Okay. That after 3 years I still have a white wall. And Mr. Ortiz is incorrect. Not only do I view it from my kitchen looking up the driveway, I view it from my bedroom. There's a chair that looks directly on it. Okay. this. If I had it over to do again, I would not have the garage. All it serves is a little EV station charging. It blocks the view. Okay. When I if you' noticed and you took the tour, you'd notice all my cars are parked so we can drive off because now when you try to back out, people zip down that street and I've almost been hit twice. Okay? So, it's not only is it dangerous, it's cumbersome. Now, what they are proposing, I can't imagine in my wildest dreams that this is going to soften the wall. What does a low fence that's dark against a white structure soften a wall? The wiring that was uh installed, my son came up with the idea. They had no clue how to do it. Okay. When the second planting of the bogan vas, my son

noticed that the rabbits were eating the plants. He went out cuz he's a studying to be a master gardener and bought plants that deter uh invasive little guys, right? And he put little screens around each one of the plants. Mr. Krueler came down and said he wanted him removed because he we were trespassing. Where does this come from? You have to cross my property to plant the thing. How do they How do they plant the plants in the first place? In the second place, they never asked permission. I would give it. It's It's common sense. He's got to come on the property. And as far as this radiation of the concrete or the asphalt, that's ridiculous. There is a self-planning oak tree there and it's doing fine. All you have to do is dig up the soil. They just use the existing soil, put in new soil. I'm not a landscaper and and and garden and maintain it and fertilize it. And once it is a and you even suggested uh what was it a pair something pair planted pair?

Yes. Okay. And it's all coming back. Yeah. Right. Exactly. So which I still have.

Yeah. Okay. And and all I'm asking for is a vining evergreen that maybe could be flowering that's drought tolerant. Once the plant is established, nature is going to take its course and water it. We can water it. I can take that off his plate if he needs to. They rarely come down. They never see the wall. They don't do anything. If you guys Okay. this fence then all this is for not. Okay. I see the detail you take Evan and his staff. It's amazing the hours that you guys put in to make things right. And now to put up this little the fence. What does it what does that actually do? Okay. I'm going to close with I had this long thing I prepared last night. 12:30 at night. Okay. I've got it all riled. I pushed the wrong button and it all went away and I'm going I can't do this. Okay, I can't do this. So, I just going to go off the cuff. And the only thing I was going to my closing is to give you a vision. Okay. And I'm going to read this cuz I couldn't remember it. Uh vision you're driving north on Cresby and you see a small grape steak fence along a bare white surface. Do you think what is the purpose of that fence? Is it deterring the garage from any intruders? Now the same vehicle driving the same course and they see a wall with greenery and flowers. Maybe they think, "What a pleasant way to hide a giant white box and they feel the charm of Carmel. Isn't that what we're after? More greenery." I don't if you have any questions. So, I I I'm I'm at I'm at a loss. I've been

dealing with for three years. So, I have a question. Um if it's the color of the box of the garage, would it help if the garage is painted in a dark color? No. I mean, you the whole garage is white now. Okay. Okay. And you can't paint it because it's a shingle that you can't paint. So, it's all the back, the front, and the house is the same thing. You can't you can't change that. Well, the garage can be in different color. There's no rule that

Well, that's still not going to So, what we're going to have a black black instead of a white garage that reflects the heat anyway. When you look at the design and no remarks on his design, but to move the structure six more inches would not have affected anything. As you look at it now, you destroy the beauty of the entrance because what you focus on is a box with a garage door. So, how about planting something in the back of the garage so that it's it's in front? You don't want to plant anything anywhere.

No, there's no door. I think the door to the garage is on the side. So, the back of the garage No, the door in the garage is right in the front as you as you drive in it. Side door. There's no side door. No side door. Um, and what is in the back of the garage? Nothing, right? Nothing. No, you can't plant behind the garage. There's no space. My son tried to prove a point and planted, if you went on the tour, he planted some plants to the east of it going down the driveway.

How is that possible? Is that a miracle? Same kind of situation, same soil, but he what he did was change the soil, nurture the thing properly. Yeah. You can't just ask a a quote unquote gardener dig a hole and put four plants in. No, clear clearly this plant's not going to survive if you don't. This is boganilia, right? Yeah. And boenilia requires acid acid soil. So you have to buy special soil with acid in it to but it's going to take forever for that boen villa to go halfway up the wall or partially up right now. They they're almost dead. That is true.

You know what? Bogen Beauty isn't going to grow. Every picture we've seen at all different times is shaded and it's so it's not going to grow there. I can guarantee you. And if it did grow, it's going to be dormant half of the year and I'm going to be looking at dead vines. Just do the simple thing. Four evergreen vining plants that grow fast. I'm sure our city forester can recommend it. But whining vining plants will go underneath the shingle. Pardon me. Did they go underneath the shingle? And and

no, there's wires that my son devised. They wouldn't let us put any spikes or anything in the wall. So my son says, "How about this idea?" And it works if it would work. I think you answer the question. You are in favor of the landscaping and not in favor of the fence. Correct. Yes. Okay. All right. Let's discuss it and we'll work it out. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I can sit down. You can sit down. You did you have a question before for me? Um, you answered it. Okay. All right. I I wasn't sure how where you stood on the fence. Okay. But now I am quite clear. I'm totally clear. I have complete clarity. Um All right. So, no hands up there. You you want to respond?

Yeah. I mean, we know you want the fence. If you have if you have anything new to offer, otherwise let's let's just talk about this and work it out. Okay. All right.

Okay. Commissioner Lock. Um I I would stand for the condition of approval on this and I'm sorry that um this has happened. I I I was there so I remember the approval of this project. Um but I think and coming from somebody who actually just wrote an ordinance about landscape water use uh that there are ways to determine what's wrong with the soil. If there's a problem, you can amend the soil, whatever. Uh it sounds like that may be the issue. And um I would also suggest that whatever the appropriate plant is to go in there that they are larger plants than these teeny tiny little things that have been put in in the past. That's my position.

Commissioner Allen, I'm with Commissioner Lockach. Um I do feel like this these pictures don't reflect this situation. It's just one white wall down the whole thing completely bare and um and a fence does not um solve the problem. So um I would like to see a solution with some beautiful greenery. Commissioner Alburn.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I think that the fence solution is a solution for the property owner. I I think that the fence will be easier to maintain and more sustainable. Uh, I think the landscape solution is in keeping with our design guidelines. And uh what I my my question is to I and I'm not I'm not familiar enough with how far the city goes in encouraging a property owner to uh comply with conditions of approval with things like landscape. Um I would be inclined to prefer seeing landscape there than a a fence. a fence usually is is used to denote um an enclosure and there's nothing there to enclose. Um I I'm I'm I don't want to see more landscaping if it's going to fail. However, maybe the city has means of co-compliance where it can encourage the property owner um towards methods of landscaping that will be sustainable. I I have questions.

And Commissioner Cartoff,

um I'm also for landscaping solution. I don't think that the fence is going to make it nicer. It's actually going to get worse. Um so what kind of landscaping? There's already water. You saw there's a plastic pipe. So I suppose it's connected to a timer so to get water periodically to this plants. But the problem is that 80 is not enough space for them to develop a um a root system because it's only like uh say six seven ines of of soil there and then the soil has to be changed. Now, if the neighborhood situation is better, I would suggest removing some of the asphalt so that there's more space to develop the root system. So, for a normal plant to grow and uh maybe putting some trelli attached to the wall so that the plants have something to climb on, not climb on the uh shingles because plants touching shingles is never a good idea. They're going to rot really quick. I mean, it does it just doesn't work. It's just a thin layer of wood. If you have a plant touching it, every time the plant is wet, it it makes the shingle wet and in two years, 3 years, you have to replace all the shingles. That's that's what's going to happen. So the only way to have a persistent kind of permanent solution is to have a trail maybe 6 in away from the wall something on which this climbing plants can can go up. But that requires an agreement by the neighbor because the garage is on the property line. So I I hope there is a way for the two neighbors to agree on that. Remove some of the asphalt, put a trailer and let climbing plants climb. Uh otherwise I think it's just going to be a consistent trying to plant something, watching it

die, planting something new, and in 10 years we'll have the same situation. So um yeah, I I remember this project now. I remember this by a fair uh which I I had in my yard and and you know I uh I'm sort of an amateur gardener by just by circumstance because um I have a gardener but you know like most gardeners he's kind of a blow and sweep kind of guy and u we were having varied success in our yard and and the the thing about caramel is it's a very challenging environment because it's basically cool and we have very alk alkaline soil really have very thin soil. soils. So, what I've discovered is you've got to fertilize regularly, like once a month. You really have to do that. And you need water. Now, there's a drip system there. I don't know if it's on a timer or not. Uh but if it was on a timer where you have a deep watering cycle once a week, that means 20 minutes to a half hour you run your drip once a week, usually that will provide adequate. Theoretically, that bogan ought to do well there. That's a south facing wall. It's warm. So that's the best opportunity you're going to have in Carmel. Any north facing wall

shaky in every picture.

Well, that's that's has to do with local conditions. And if it isn't getting if it isn't getting enough uh direct sunlight on that wall, that south exposure to warm up here in the day, Poke V is not going to work. And it looks to me like that's I I think what I saw there was the plants are undernourished and um they're just not thriving. You know, they're alive. They're barely alive, but they're not thriving. So, you need to go to a different species. And like I say, I, you know, I'm not I'm just an amateur gardener. Basically, I try things, they die, I don't try it again. I get something else. I go down and talk to the guy at the nursery. And I found things that are working pretty good in my yard. So, I stick with them. One of them is Lenton rose. That stuff will grow anywhere in Caramel. It's got a beautiful little flower. Comes back every year, but it doesn't climb up. This is not This is not something that's going to solve your problem. Although I think anything that was thriving along that wall would would would would soften it even if it wasn't terribly high. So So I but long long story short, I think we should we should stick with the original uh approval. Um it's incumbent upon the owner to make sure that those plants have what they need. I would recommend that he uh consult um a nursery around here and they'll they'll give you some suggestions. You might have, it might take a little experimentation. Maybe you buy two different types of climbers, see which one does the best. But I know from experience, it's got to be watered regularly. Deep watering. It's got to be fertilized regularly.

And and I know that the neighbor wants landscaping. May I say something? Come on up. In regards to the shingle thing, these aren't natural shingles, okay? They're a they're composite. Oh, it's a composite and nothing's going to stick to them. And the second part is there's a vine, I mean a wire. Once it climbs that, it's going to keep going. Also, Mr. Krueler, I think, has employed a full-time gardener. She's a nice lady, very knowledgeable. She comes every week to put his trash cans away. He doesn't want me to put them away or my son anymore. So, he has somebody that can do this. Okay.

Sounds like Sounds like he does. And and if he's the drip system, I don't know if it ever worked, but you could attach a fertilizing system to the same thing on a timer. He doesn't no mess, no fuss. The burden's off of him. Yeah. There there's there's a lot of ways to automate the the watering, the fertilizing. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. So, um can I add something? Sure. Come on up.

So, based on what I was said and what he uh Mr. CO wants, can we at least, you know, move in that direction? And if if we do everything exactly by the book, like exactly like you guys were saying, if it fails and we come back, can we revisit another alternative? Well, that's that's that's, you know, that that'll just that's not part of our motion tonight. No. No, no, no. I And I'm just want to I mean, there's something to say. Something will work. I

I would hope so. But I mean, what I'm saying is what if what if cuz he cuz he did hire I mean I I wasn't there but from what I was told professional you know landscapers that know what they're doing that they remove the soil and change the soil and did all of that. Now I wasn't there to to to see all that but that was that's my understanding there were professional people who did that work. Now all I'm saying is if we try for a third time do we continue a fourth time and a fifth time? I I don't know. I don't know. We we we need to I just want to we need to you know All we're deciding tonight is that uh you know it sounds like where the commissioner is going to the fence is not going to uh be acceptable. Okay.

And it wasn't the original decision of the planning commission and um you know the the owner needs to take responsibility to find something to work. Now there's there's ways to do it and there's certainly plenty of knowledge about our local plants and what works in particular climates, you know, right? So, we'll just have to work on it, but uh we may we may be talking to you again if Mr. Kovak feels like you're not meeting the you know the uh the intent of the motion and and I would also I would also hope that uh the neighbors don't turn this into a big thing. You know, we don't need that. You know, let's just let's just realize there's some challenges here.

You know, this is a challenging area to grow things. Everybody acknowledges that. uh and that we just, you know, need to work on this together. And and I think let's avoid this, you know, you're on my property stuff. That doesn't that doesn't solve anything, you know, and I think Mr. Kovac pointed out correctly that there's this is so close there's no way that you're going to be able to not go on each other's property to solve this problem. You know, I share a fence with my neighbor. I let him know when I'm coming on. He says, "Fine, right,

do the work." But I always let him know. and um you know I just want to respect his property, but he's totally open to it when I go I go in his backyard, you know, work on the fence cuz we've got this fence we share. And and I think it's the same kind of situation. I hope all neighbors do that. Let's just, you know, let's don't make the property line some kind of line in the sand that if you cross over that, oh my god, you've you've violated me. It's not about that. We're neighbors here, you know. We're all sharing this this property, you know, this this experience and living here together. let's let's kind of promote that type of thing. So, um I don't I just think that I would hope that you would send that message to the neighbor that he needs to be

to be, you know, and if you and I know he's a part-time resident, but even as a part-time resident, he needs to uh to keep in mind that, you know, we need to have a neighborly cooperative uh attitude about stuff and it takes a while to work things out. We understand that. Chair, one final comment. Um the there is a recently planted very narrow um median garden. Uh the Stillwell Hotel at Fifth and Mission and it is on Mission on the east side. East side the east side of the street. It's rather narrow. I know they water. There's like a climbing fig and then this other

grass-like thing that I adore, but it's a similar but it's a very similar extremely narrow patch of earth. They've been very successful. Um because that's only what maybe 2 years, right? Yeah. Um and they've had they've had quite a bit of growth. So just as a suggestion, you might want to take a look. I have climbing thing on my my front yard fence. very drought very drought tolerant and it it it grows uh pretty quickly. Yeah. And this is in direct sunlight and same kind of thing. So So anyway, um great. Well, thank you. I think we let's let's let let us why don't you guys sit down? Let us finish this up so we can all go home.

So is there there's not a what is the action that we are taking because we're not making We have two resolutions. Correct. Uh it was one resolution which you will not be adopting, right?

Um so you will be making a motion with direction to staff. Um I do have a question for the commission though if if you'll entertain it. Um so in upholding the original condition um the condition does say uh landscaping that grows or climbs at least halfway up the southern facing wall. Um I I just I I'm asking this for clarification on enforcement um as well as direction on for the applicant. Uh it doesn't specify that the planting needs to be located within the ground. Would contain uh planting within a container be acceptable? Um that way it doesn't need to be physically attached to the building. Um, one concern that um, staff has, we we were just discussing this and and passing notes on it. Um, admittedly I'm a bit embarrassed that it wasn't included in the staff report was though um, we have forthcoming defensible space requirements.

So attaching landscaping to a building might be problematic as we um, have those requirements coming down the road. So I would recommend that we allow that because um, I live in an area where it's clay, right? and um and nothing grows. And so I've had great luck with bringing in um you know pots or or um you know raised beds or whatever. And I think that we should allow that. And Mr. Kovc, I think you're nodding yes that you would be agreeable to some kind because the spaces like this, right? It's very small space. So, you're going to have to make it. If you had a planter box that was maybe a

If you had a nice redwood planter box, a little taller, it might encroach on my property. I don't care. Okay. And then you could deal with this, right? Fresh soil. Fresh soil. Yeah. Uh I don't I'm not opposed to that, you know. But I'm not going to come back here for a third time that he wants to try to extend this. I'm Listen, I have a very sick wife at home. I'm tired of this. Okay? I really am. I shouldn't even be here. Okay. But just do what you said you were going to do. That's all I'm asking. You know, that's it. Okay. Thank you. I'm not in favor of a planner. I mean, why why are we putting the planner there? Because of defensible space.

If if for some reason it would need to be removed due to defensible space requirements, you Well, oh, it'd be easier to remove. It's easier to remove. And then also if it could remain, you don't have or a plant in a in a container isn't necessarily a plant that would be a growing vine. So then you don't have it attached directly to the building. Trees. It could be a tree or a bush or a shrub. Something that could be freestanding as opposed to directly attached to a building.

I think you're really No, it's not going to work. You can't there's not you you're going to have something that's going to have to be a vine or it's going to have to be a spalier. That's all there is to it. Now, defensible space has another issue. If you if it comes up defensible space, we're going to enforce that. You're just going to have to cut it down. You're not going to be able it's you're not going to be able to just take this planner and and and somehow move it away in time. I I think it's it's it's it's just not I'm not suggesting this planner, just a standalone a series of pots.

There's no room for pots. There's there's less than a foot. That's how much space is there. Now, if Mr. Kovac wants to allow a cutout there and and and create some but but there's there's a drop off too. There's no flat spot. The flat spot that's there is what has been created. They've got a piece of of a polyurethane or plastic bender board up against the asphalt and then they've got the space is less than it's I mean if it's you know it looks to me like it's about 10 inches. That's it. So and and I think the wires are there. the plant is, you know, you need something that's going to be a clamor climber that's going to grow onto the wires, you know, and and uh, you know, if we just stick with the original recommendation and let the um the owner get, you know, work on a plant that's going to work and then provide the necessary care, I think that meets the original condition.

There's a the post office has a climbing rose, been there for years. You can't kill the thing. Roses roses are very hard. Yeah, very hard. Just get it established and like I said, nature and I think I think that good it's a good strategy to train it onto the wires that I guess your son put those up or suggested they be put up. That's a good strategy. So, you've got you've got good infrastructure there. You just need to get some plants that are going to work. Okay. Oh, thank you. I'm going to go have a shot at tequila. I hope you do the same. All right. Let's let's let's get on to a motion here. Um I don't know if I've even got the right motion up here. You've got you got So the uh

the attachment number one resolution that is to amend, right? You you are not taking action on on attachment one. Yes. Would be denying the request. You're denying the request. Yes. I move we deny the request. We're denying the request for the fence. Correct. I make a motion that we uh go for it. Accept resolution number one to deny the We're just denying the request. We're just denying the request, sir. Deny the request. Deny the request for the amendment. Correct. Correct. Correct. And staff will prepare a resolution for deny. So yeah, the original condition stands. Yes. Correct. Okay. All right. I'll make a motion that we We already did. It's all done. Just call Just do a roll call.

Roll call. Roll call. Commissioner Aler. Yes. Commissioner Allen. Yes. Commissioner Car Pekov. Yes. Commissioner Lop. Yes. And Chair La Page. Yes. Thank you. The motion is carried. Okay. That concludes the public hearing. All we have the director's report. I don't really have a report, but what are you guys doing next week? What What are you guys doing next week? You want to hang out again on the 18th? Okay. It's a date. That's all. We want to give you all the time you need. That's it. Okay. All right. We're adjourned. Thank you.

I don't know. That kind of does sound good.