Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I think we're all here. I'm gonna call the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order. Welcome you all for being so patient. Can we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Alborn? Here. Commissioner Karapetkov?

Here.

Commissioner Locke? Here. Commissioner Ruse? Here. And Chair LePage.

Here. Okay, once again, we have the public appearances on the agenda. Any members of the public who would like to address the Planning Commission on matters of municipal concern that are not on our agenda may do so now and remind you that we're governed by the Brown Act. Anybody in the chamber that wants to speak to the Planning Commission tonight about any matters of municipal concern which are not on our agenda? Any hands up on the line?

No, sir.

Okay, we'll move on. I'm going to move directly to the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are considered to be routine in nature and don't require discussion and may be passed in a single motion, but any members of the public or the commissioners may ask for them to be pulled for further discussion. We have two items on the consent agenda tonight. the monthly activity report, this is for the Planning and Building Department, and the July 8th regular meetings for the Planning Commission. Any questions or anybody to poll? Anybody in the audience have any questions? In case, I will make a motion that we accept both items on the Planning Commission. Okay, roll call, please.

Commissioner Allborn? Yes. Commissioner Karapetkov?

Yes.

Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Ruse? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Motion passed. Okay, we're going to move directly to the public hearings. First item on the public hearings is a Coastal Development Permit. This is 16316. This is the North Dunes Habitat Restorations, consideration of a five-year extension of that Coastal Development Permit. Staff report, please. Thank you.

and commissioners. The request is to continue the existing program of invasive species removal, habitat maintenance, and monitoring and adaptation management. What staff is recommending? Staff is recommending two actions. First, that the commission find the proposed extension categorically exempt from CEQA under sections 15301, 15304, 15307, and 15308. and find that none of the exceptions under section 15300-2.2 apply. Second, staff recommends approval of a five-year renewable extension of CDP 16316. It is this continuation of the existing North Dunes Restoration Program, and the extension does not authorize new or expanded activities beyond the scope of the previously approved project permit. So in short, staff is recommending approval of both the CEQA determination and the five-year extension. North Dunes was designed by the city as an environmentally sensitive habitat area, Isha, in 1995. And I've just outlined some of the Isha and the important species that are identified with that. The restoration program has been in progress since 2016, and there has been substantial work completed, and this outlines some of the work that has been completed on site. And the five-year extension, if it's approved, the city will continue to essentially do the same types of activities that have been done on the site over the past years. And that has been occurring under the existing permit. So tonight we summarize that the North Dunes Restoration Program has demonstrated meaningful progress and continued management is necessary to protect and maintain those gains. And so we do recommend that the Planning Commission find that the project is categorically exempt under CEQA and second, to approve the five-year renewable extension of the CDP. That concludes my staff presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions.

Are there any questions for staff and the commissions? Commissioner Albarn?

I have one, too.

Thank you, Chair. Very small question. Thank you, Ms. Bilzey. Great work. 16 tons of invasive species removed. That is a stunning number. My only question is, is there any additional support Any additional resources or manpower or technologies that you in Public Works would find could do a better job of this task that you continue to do? Is there anything additional that we could be looking at? or any modifications to this permit that would improve what you're doing?

We do have money in our budget this fiscal year to do more of just a very progressive removal of the ice plant and the acacia. And so this year we really are focusing and getting a lot of our consultants to get out there and do it as well as staff. So that that is something that we're we're focusing on to kind of hope that that that helps and and then it's only more of a maintenance issue after this.

Excellent.

Thank you. Yeah, so I notice two things. One is in the budget, the capital investment budget for the next five years. we have $200,000 for 2026 for that project. Then it goes down to zero for next year. And then it goes 200K the year after that in 2028. So I was trying to understand what's the plan with this project. When is it going to sunset?

I think for coastal sand dunes, it's a matter of monitoring it and complying with the coastal development permit and having to do annual reports. We, like this year, like I said, we really wanted to, the Forest and Beach Commission had asked if we could really try to remove, get ahead of it because we were just kind of going along and not really getting beyond in some of the areas with some of the species and the invasives. And so they said, let's really try and tackle it this year. I'm not sure about the following fiscal year. I know that I had asked for a certain amount of budget, but I don't know for the following fiscal year that... You know, we typically in my environmental programs budget have money to do the annual report every year. So that's something that we do get in the basic budget, but this year it's something above and beyond.

Okay. My second question is about the whole designation as environmental sensitive habitat that happened back in 2003. North Shore or North Dunes were one one element of it. But we also designated, back then in 2003, we also designated the Delmardians as another environmental sensitive habitat. And I see no work on that one. Is that intentional? Is it a mistake? Is it a omission?

We don't have a coastal development permit for North Dunes. We have it just, I mean, we have it for North Dunes, but not Del Mar Dunes. It is something that is needed. And, you know, ice plant removal and the acacia, I mean, it's definitely something that's out there. But I think the city and the volunteer groups have really been trying to focus and get a handle on North Dunes. But it's something that if there was a volunteer group or someone that came up and said, you know, we'd really like to tackle that, we'd be definitely would be interested in that.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. At this time, I'd like to invite members of the public to come up and make any comments or any questions they may have regarding this item. Any hands going up online?

No, sir.

Okay, I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to the commissioners. Commissioner Karapetrov, did you want to start off? Seems like you had some concerns.

I wouldn't call it concerns. I just want to make sure that we're in sync. Whatever is in the shoreline management plan kind of corresponds to elements in our capital improvement plan. and that we have clear understanding when these activities are going to sunset. Because a lot of my understanding is that this project and maybe other projects start initially as a five-year effort. And then they get extended. And then they get extended again. And at some point, I'm afraid they will become permanent. because as Commissioner Ross said, you are basically working with nature and there's no end in that. The plants keep developing, new invasive species show up. So I'm afraid that if the goal is to always keep North Dunes clean of invasive species and inhabited by this protected lizards, the legless lizard and this other plant that is protected as well. If that's the goal, that goal is not going to change for decades, right? So my concern is that it will become a forever project.

But don't you think we have a responsibility as a community to take care of this sensitive habitat? And I think we need to designate resources for it. We do. I just want to understand. I mean, we kind of have to acknowledge it. You're right. It is an ongoing requirement because we are, you know, there's constantly invasive species that are being reintroduced. And as you also acknowledge, you know, we have sea level rise. We have other elements that are happening. So I'm just kind of surprised that you are, something you're kind of suggesting that we shouldn't be funding this on a,

What I'm suggesting is if that becomes a huge burden for the community and it becomes like a persistent part of our budget, we should go back to the state because the state designated these two species as endangered and put the responsibility for us to take care of them. and say, okay, so we will continue to take care of it, but the burden is too high for us. I think it's fair to ask the state of California to carry some of the cost, right? Maybe not all of the cost. Right? Okay. So.

Good point. Thank you. Commissioner Rouse.

Yeah. So I have a, it's more of a, Just sort of a general query here. I'm looking at the map and the summary that were performed, and it shows basically all these pathways. And I commonly walk the 4th Avenue access to the beach and cross the boardwalk there. And I had no idea there were this many pathways through the North Dunes. And I'm just wondering if it I don't see people walking through them that often. I'm just wondering if it makes sense to take those, what you call it, the cable and the little poles, if it makes sense to close more of that off so that just people can't walk through it without, you know, knowing that they're stepping over a line, literally. I mean, I understand why there's one right along just south of the Sand and Sea entry there. I understand why there's an access point there, but... It seems to me that if you can't go to that one, you can just walk down the corner and walk down Ocean. But it's just a thought.

Mr. Albert.

I have no comments, sir.

Mr. Locke.

Yeah, I fully support this project. I actually was on Forreston Beach when it first started back, actually, I think it was even, we were looking at it before 2016. And so I'd absolutely want to support continuing the project. I did find it very interesting about the Tide Streams loop and how that really hasn't spread, which is like just want to know more about what's going on. But I think this is a great project and that we definitely need to continue it.

Yeah, I agree. We have a resolution here. I just want to say that the history of the impact you know European cultures on on the coast of California initially was pretty bad and and you know we built all kinds of stuff we did all types of development and now we've we've come to a point where we're really trying to restore a lot of these and you see it you see it all along the coast over in Monterey when you drive along the frontage road there they've reintroduced all types of the native plants. They've gotten rid of a lot of the ice plant, although there's still a lot by the freeway. I worked with a group of high school kids back in 2016. We ripped up a whole bunch of ice plant in just one day. I mean I couldn't believe they just went after it. They loved it. But you know it just so I think it we just have to acknowledge that programs like this really help to protect you know, those areas which are going to interface with sea level rise and maintaining those types of plants that traditionally grew in the dunes and held the dunes and stabilized the dunes, that's a big part of it. So, anyway, I would make a motion that we accept the resolution as presented by staff. I'll second it. Okay, any further discussion? A roll call, please.

Commissioner Allborn? Yes. Commissioner Karapetka? Yes. Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Ruse? Yes. And Chair LePage?

The motion is carried, yes. Okay, that brings us to next item on the public hearings tonight. This is item number four. It's a Report on the Common Municipal Code Amendments. Consideration of resolution recommending City Council adopt an ordinance amending Common Municipal Codes. This is in relation to the General Plan Housing Element 6 cycle. And Marnie Waffle is a specialist on this. She's going to give us a report.

I apologize for not being in my proper seat. Okay, so the next item on the agenda is a housing element implementation item. And it's some select Carmel Municipal Code amendments to implement portions of our six cycle housing element. So just by way of some quick background, the six cycle housing element was adopted in April of 2024, and an amendment to our adopted housing element was just passed in July of this year. Both contain programs. Sorry. to amend certain sections of the Carmel Municipal Code to reduce regulatory barriers to housing development and comply with new housing legislation. All of the housing element programs are contained in chapter two of the housing element. Okay, I was like, what is going on? Sorry. So a summary of the programs that we're gonna be discussing this evening, there are six of them are listed here in this table. And these are the subject of the municipal code amendments for this evening. There are also five chapters that are affected to implement the six housing element programs. I'm not used to not being in control. So I'll start with the first one being the employee housing, which is program 1.3.B in the housing element. This program establishes a definition for employee housing and allows housing for up to six employees as a permitted single family residential use in the R1 district. AND JUST A REMINDER, SOME OF THESE ZONING CODE OR MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS IMPLEMENT STATE LAW, AND THAT'S WHY THEY ARE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. NEXT SLIDE. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2 FOCUSES ON MANUFACTURED HOMES, AND THIS IS PROGRAM 1.3.C. This amendment explicitly permits manufactured homes on foundation systems by right in the R1 district, subject to standards that typical single-family homes are subject to. Manufactured homes are not currently prohibited, so this amendment just makes it clear that this housing type is permitted by right. Next slide. Code amendment number three is under the program 3.1.E, which is titled Reduced Parking Requirements. It contains multiple actions, but just one portion of it deals with reconciling a code inconsistency that exempts apartments from providing parking in the Central Commercial District. This cleanup also just clarifies that apartments do not have to pay the parking in lieu fee. Next slide. Code amendment number four, is titled minimum densities and it's program 3.1.G. Again, this is a program that has multiple actions within it. This evening, we're only dealing with one component of this program, and that is prohibiting new single family dwellings in the service commercial, residential and limited commercial and multifamily districts. And the purpose here is to encourage higher density housing when properties redevelop. Next slide. Code amendment number five is regarding transitional and supportive housing. This is program 3.3.a. So this amendment aligns our definitions of transitional and supportive housing with state law and classifies them as permitted residential multifamily uses. One of the themes that you'll see throughout state legislation IS THAT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING THAT IS OFFERED, THEY WOULD LIKE US TO REGULATE THEM SIMILAR TO HOW WE REGULATE OTHER USES. SO A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING project that is configured as a multifamily building should be regulated similar to how we regulate multifamily uses. So we shouldn't treat it differently just because the population that it serves is different. Next slide. Single room occupancy units is program 3.3.D. This defines a single room occupancy unit and permits them in commercial and multifamily zoning districts. So that's the summary of the code amendments. That's before the planning commission this afternoon. With respect to environmental review, the planning commission's being asked to make a recommendation to the city council. Your recommendation is exempt from CEQA under section 21080 and CEQA guidelines section 15061B3, as well as 15378 as an administrative action. And staff's recommendation is that you adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance amending the municipal code to implement select housing element programs to remove constraints on the development of housing and comply with state law. And that concludes my presentation.

Any questions for staff? Yeah.

Mr. Halliburton. Go ahead, Bill. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I support all of these, the resolution completely, but I do have a few questions just for clarification. I promise to be fast. For the 13B employee housing and the 33A, the zoning for transitional housing, how is that implemented? Do those uses require a conditional use permit or any sort of notification to the city?

So for the employee housing, no. So it's capped out at six or fewer. So it's considered a residential use of the property. So permitted by right means no conditional use permit. For transitional housing, the way that it's written is that it's treated like, it's treated like, any other multi-family use, so it's gonna be based on density. So if the density requires a use permit and the transitional housing reaches that density threshold, it would require a use permit, otherwise it would not.

Thank you, that makes sense. And then my second question has to do with the 3.1.E on reduced parking. parking for apartments in the core commercial district. Yes, I recognize that no parking will be required and no in lieu fees will be charged. Does the program in any way address or consider where tenants will be allowed and or expected to park? It does not. I see. So that's a separate action by city council. Correct. Perfect. Thank you.

Mr. Roos, you have some questions?

Yeah, so this is in relation to 3.3.D about single room occupancy units. Does this have to do specifically with the hotel conversion idea? Not necessarily?

Not ours. Not our hotel conversion program.

Okay.

I mean, traditionally, single room occupancy units are known... to be part of hotel conversions in many jurisdictions, but that is not how our hotel to residential conversion program is structured. They're two completely separate programs.

Okay, so what I'm questioning here is it talks about it may or may not include private kitchen or bathroom facilities. Can you clarify that for me?

So a characteristic of a single room occupancy unit is its small size and that it caters to either one, at most two people. And so based on the small size, they often will have shared bathroom or kitchen facilities. And that's just a characteristic of that housing type.

Okay, so they would share those facilities with other units in the same structure? Correct. Presumably. Okay, it sounds kind of like a boarding house. Because it talks, okay, it is, basically, all right. All right, thank you, and that answers that question.

Okay, you have a question? So I'm just trying to imagine how these different things will work together. So let's say I have a three-bedroom house, and I decide to get six designated agricultural workers to live in the room. That would be permissible, right? Based on the rules of the single room occupancy. I can have six people live in my house in three bedrooms with common laundry in the kitchen and no parking requirements. Is that how it works?

Wow, it sounds like you just combined like three different... things into one there.

That's the point, yeah. You want to figure out what the combined effect is going to be.

So the employee housing has its own set of standards, which are much more extensive. And I don't have all the rules in front of me. Those are not single room occupancy units.

So I cannot use one of my bedrooms as a single room occupancy unit?

So you would need to define what your housing type is. You can't be all of them all at once. OK. So you're either employee housing, and then you follow those rules. or you're a single room occupancy housing type, and then you follow those rules?

No. Oh, okay. No. That helps.

Okay. Okay. That's good. Questions? All right. Okay. I'm going to open it up to the public for comments. If someone would like to invite any members of the public who would like to come up and make any comments about the proposed amendments to the municipal code. Any hands up online?

No, sir.

Okay. I'm going to close the public comments since nobody's coming forward. Open it up to the commission for discussion. Commissioner Roos.

I didn't find anything remarkable here to object to. It all made sense to me. I would support it.

Commissioner Albarn.

I support the resolution as written and would make a motion to that effect, but not before all of my fellow commissioners have a chance to speak. You can make a motion. I move that we accept this resolution as written. I'll second it.

Okay.

Any more comments? I don't have any other comments, no.

I don't have any other comments either. Roll call, please. I'm sorry.

One question. So on this page, is this table permanent residential use? I don't know which pages are on the report. I think it's like a fourth or fifth page. So you have this senior housing, right, which requires one-third of parking, right? And then you have the condominium that requires one parking spot, right? How hard it is to convert a senior housing unit into a condominium? Is that possible? So the idea is, can somebody build a senior housing and only provide one fourth of a parking spot and then convert it into a condominium?

They cannot. It is very difficult. Okay. Yes.

Okay. Okay.

Okay. Any further discussion? All right, hearing none, roll call, please.

Commissioner Alborn? Yes. Commissioner Karapetkov? Yes. Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Roos? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes, motion is carried. Okay, that brings us to... Item number five on the public hearings. This is a design study. This is DS24046, the Teresi project. This is consideration of a final design study and coastal development permit for the demolition of an existing 1,818 square foot two-story single family residence, inclusive of an attached garage, 414 square foot accessory unit, dwelling unit, and a 61 square foot shed. You have a staff report, please. This is located on Carmelo Street 5, northeast of Ocean Avenue. All right.

Thank you, Chair. So staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt a resolution finding the project categorically exempt from the CEQA guidelines section 15303 new construction and approving a final design study as the chair just described. Subject site is located at Carmelo 5 northeast of Ocean Avenue. It's a 6,000 square foot lot developed with a 2,293 square foot residence garage as well as a subordinate unit. The applicant is proposing to demolish all improvements on the site and construct a new 2,797 square foot residence inclusive of a 313 square foot attached garage. The project also includes a 800 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. THE CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY WAS CONSIDERED AT THE MARCH 9TH. I APOLOGIZE, I BELIEVE THAT DATE IS INCORRECT. IT WAS CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY IN 2025. or was it March? I apologize. For some reason, I'm second guessing that date, but the concept has been accepted at a previous hearing with the number of items to address prior to scheduling for final details review. The applicant has addressed all 12 items. I do want to briefly touch on a few of these. The height was brought into compliance with the height limits for the site. This was done by making modifications to the THE FINISH GRADE WHICH BROUGHT OR CHANGED THE LOCATION OF WHERE WE WERE MEASURING OUR HEIGHT AS WELL AS MAKING THE ROOF PITCHES CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT AND THE ORIGINAL DESIGN WHICH IS THE DESIGN ON THE TOP, WE HAD A VARIETY OF ROOF PITCHES. THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE DESIGN TO HAVE A CONSISTENT ROOF PITCH THROUGHOUT AS WELL AS REDUCING THE ROOF PITCHES TO BE CONSISTENT. with the preferred pitches for the residential design guidelines. So what you'll notice is the front facing gables are a consistent pitch, the cross gables are a consistent pitch, and then there's now a flat roof section towards the rear of the project. And those are all color coordinated. The grading plan has been revised to further identify the exact areas of grading. Originally, the applicant had proposed 702 cubic yards of grading and in the revised design, this has been reduced down to 671 cubic yards. Going back to this slide, this has been reduced by changing that grade at the front of the residence, as well as changing the entry to the ADU to the rear of the project site. The west elevation has been modified, reducing the amount of glazing, which was a concern of the commission at the first hearing. If you'll take note to the size and forms of the windows on the west elevation, there's been some reductions there. And then also to work with the neighbor regarding the privacy impacts. So going from top to bottom, that's the existing condition. The middle is what was previously proposed. And then the bottom is the revised design. So what the applicant has done is extend it out. A portion of the roof over the proposed west deck, which aligns with effectively the same condition as what's there now. So the deck is with an enclosed or a covered porch effectively or covering. And this is just an overlay of the two, what's currently proposed as well as the existing condition, demonstrating that the front deck, the west deck, doesn't project out any farther than the existing building. So our findings for final details review, finding one just relates to style and detailing, finding two, materials, finding number three, stonework, skylights, windows, doors, our consistency with the design guidelines, finding four relates to landscaping, So there are a number of conditions of approval in order to meet these findings. We do have our standard conditions of approval related to skylight, stonework, lighting, et cetera, that we apply to all projects. So those are maintained for the project. Conditions of approval of 22 through 26 relate to tree density, tree protection, and landscaping. Condition of approval number 34 is required to demonstrate that the west deck is a permeable construction. So the plans represent that the deck is permeable and will use a bison pedestal system to allow for water to percolate through the deck. However, it wasn't clear if these pedestals can be placed on an elevated platform or if they're only TO BE USED ON THE GROUND EFFECTIVELY. SO THIS CONDITION JUST ENSURES THAT THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS IS A PERMEABLE ASSEMBLY. 35 RELATES TO itemizing site coverage appropriately. So as you'll notice in the bottom right figure, the driveway is effectively a grass area with a grass walkway. This just ensures that any type of structural assembly that may be placed within these areas is accounted for in site coverage calculations consistent with our definition for site coverage and site coverage limitations. 36 relates to the number and location of lighting fixtures consistent with our residential design guidelines. 37 requires an encroachment permit for any improvements within the right-of-way because of the form of the driveway to avoid the significant tree at the south end of the property that about a I think a couple inch tall retaining wall is proposed. And then 38 basement heights. This is to ensure that the basement areas that have been excluded from floor area are constructed in a way that allows the subject area to be excluded from floor area. And with that, staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the resolution as described on the screen. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Questions for staff? Mr. Auburn?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Court. The door schedule and the glazing, you said in your report that, especially on the west face, that the glazing had been reduced. What is the height of the doors on that west face?

We could ask the applicant if you'd rather, Evan.

I can try to get that, the applicant might know quicker than I do.

Yeah, it's probably a better question for the applicant.

Okay, and then I'll save that then. Could you go back please to your slide that says conditions to meet findings? Thank you, right there. So we have a 6,000 square foot lot and the floor area, allowable floor area on that lot would be how much? That I know you can answer. I know I should know myself by now.

On the top of my head, I don't recall, but I do have the figure, Andy.

Because we've got a, so the, on a 6,000 square foot lot.

Yeah, 2,460 square feet.

OK. And we've got a 2,797 square foot proposed property, a new structure plus an 800 square foot ADU. And this drawing that we have here, we see it's describing an elevated deck. And then it's showing an office. an ADU office, but an office. If it's an office, then it's part of the structure, and that would put it over the floor area ratio, would it not?

So I'll expand on my answer. The 2,460 square feet is the base floor area, and then you're afforded a basement bonus for locating additional floor area below grade. So the Proposed the actual with the basement bonus applied the actual allowed floor area total for this specific site based on the proposed orientation of the building masses and the volumes and their location is 2,699 square feet. The total project floor area is 2,697 square feet. Okay. Well my question and I'll

I'll probably need to let it go, but it's either an ADU or it's an office. If it's an office, then it's not an ADU, and it should be counted. But I will let it go. That ends my question.

The definition of an ADU is a permanent dwelling that provides eating, sleeping, living, sanitation, or permanent provisions for eating, living, sleeping, and habitation. If there is a office associated with the ADU, it's... It's irrelevant.

Thank you.

That's allowed. Okay. Any further questions for staff? Okay. All right. At this time, I'd like to invite the applicant or the applicant's architect to come forward and make their presentation.

Do we have a clicker for the presentation? Do you have it? I'm assuming you guys see on your screens what I see up there, right?

We see the same thing, yeah. Okay.

Okay, my name is Bess. I'm from Studio 3. I'm the applicant's architect. Todd and Jenny Teresi are here tonight. And then also we have brought our civil engineer, Valamir Sulik, in case there are questions that are site-related. I see I only have five minutes, so I'm gonna skip through some stuff pretty quickly, because I think last time I didn't have a time constraint like that, and I haven't practiced this in the five minutes. You guys are familiar with the existing conditions. I think you drove by today and we reviewed them last time. For this final design review, we worked really hard to make a lot of modifications to the plans and Evan asked us to just kind of share the story of how we got to where we are. These diagrams that you're seeing here are some original concept sketches that talk about space planning and how we adapted our current proposed plan so that we could minimize grading and address massing and neighbors both immediately adjacent to the left and right, but also the uphill neighbors and meet all of the design guidelines. We ended with our current proposal that's in front of you. That proposal, you can see that we have maintained the existing driveway and pad as part of a landscape terrace that works to navigate the slope between the neighbor on the left and our proposed driveway. We've also stumbled the house down in and set it significantly back from the front setbacks as well. Anywhere from about 20, let me see 20, I think about 26 feet back all the way to 46 feet back for the overall bulk and mass of the home. This is our proposed floor plans. On the left was the concept review and on the right is our final review. Originally we had our ADU entry at the front which created a lot more grading in the hatched area underneath the raised deck that's above. So we reconfigured that and created a light well at the back and a back entrance area with a living space. The term office is used on here architecturally because by code it does not meet bedroom sizes. So if we want to call it something else, we can call it something else, but I can't call it a bedroom because it doesn't meet minimum bedroom code. UPPER FLOOR PLAN STAYED VERY SIMILAR, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FACT THAT WE RELOCATED AND RECONFIGURED WHERE OUR BUTLER'S PANTRY AND BACK OPEN PORCH WERE IN ORDER TO SATISFY SOME OF THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS ABOUT A BARBECUE LOCATION. WE ALSO BROUGHT THE BUILDING OUT ON THE FRONT, CREATING A LITTLE BIT OF AN ALCOVE AT OUR FRONT ENTRY PORCH. IT IS IN ALIGNMENT with our existing home so there's no encroachment further to the neighbor by doing this. Our materials palette, you know, I think it's been important to us from the beginning to have a materials palette that's natural, that reflects kind of the look and feel but doesn't jump out into the landscape. You can see from our landscape plan and some of the materials and how we've chosen to apply them that we've really tried to kind of come at this from the village and the forest characteristic. This rendering shows all of the green elements that we are bringing in as well as some of the trees that we are maintaining and then the creation of this terraced natural landscape as it flows up to the entrance. These are some images that maybe help to suggest what things like a mown lawn path are as well as the flagstone steps, the green railing, and the green roof. You can see compared to existing today, our footprint is actually significantly smaller in terms of the amount of landscape that is affected. And then as well for the uphill neighbors, they have a much prettier and green look coming across. Volume study, we did meet our volume study rules, so I'm gonna skip over that. Ways that we dealt with getting into compliance with height and simplifying our roof. We have lowered the pitches, which have lowered the heights of certain ridges anywhere from four to nine inches. We've removed certain cross gables, lowered the chimney massing. And that's just all articulated in all of these slides as we go through, and I have 22 seconds. All right, stepping through all of the conditions, this has to do with landscape, height, so I'm just gonna kind of click through these. Evan went through our roof lines being simplified and our number of pitches as well as the pitch height. We've addressed our drainage concerns. Grading, we have substantially reduced the overall cubic yards being removed from the site. Glazing, the glazing at the front and all sides of the house has been reduced. Originally, we have a 7% reduction in glazing on the front west elevation. We moved to 5% on the rear elevation. The neighbor to the right who had the most concerns, privacy with glazing, we have a 30-something percent reduction in glazing as well as changing a lot of the windows to being frosted. that you can see. So that's shown here, just some of the concerns that we've had from them, about a 30% reduction in glazing. We also brought that wall forward. You can see the difference between the prior elevation on the side and then the current elevation. It's just much quieter. The whole form has been simplified in general. If we, glazing was again a concern of the neighbor, not necessarily specified specific on all elevations by the neighbor, but they're the right-hand side. So that's just repeated. There were some concerns about our front deck and hot tub placement off of the front of the house, off the master suite. And this shows an articulated sketch rendering of how that wall comes forward and where the neighbor to the right is. We had pulled the home back originally, so now we're going to align in the direction looking towards the ocean with the existing house, and we're actually going to stay moved over, and we're going to be further away from the neighbor than we currently are. the alignment actually improves for them. Some of the other concerns that were brought up were sound. I think those were brought up by both some of the commissioners here as well as the neighbors, and there were some concerns about the noise from the car lift, and there were some concerns about the noise from the spa. We've just given you a little comparison so you understand what the car lift actually is. And by the way, it's also within an enclosed garage when it's operating, so I would suggest those decibels might actually be even lower than what we're putting here. and then as well as the diamond spa on the deck. Its decibel ratings are sitting here in less than a vacuum cleaner, and that's at the equipment. The equipment is housed within the structure, buried within the water, buried within the garage of the house. So that decibel ratings, if we peeled all that back and we opened up the access panel to it, that's what we would hear, not what you're hearing from outside, let alone on an adjacent property. This articulates that front corner, which I think was a little bit of a concern as well. You can see that we are one foot seven less than the furthest point of the existing house right now to where we've brought out that extension and that hot tub bar. I think when you look overall at the renderings, you can see that we have really made an attempt to navigate between the larger house on the left and the smaller house on the right. And I think we're a home that fits actually very nicely within the existing fabric of the neighborhood and maintains all the views of the uphill neighbors. And thank you for letting me go over my time by a couple minutes.

Yes, thank you very much. My only question is the height of the sliders on the west side. And I'll preface that question by saying that the glazing is in keeping with the architecture that you've designed, but I am curious what that height might be.

The height of the doors, as shown at its tallest point, is 8'6". I see. Thank you.

Any other questions for the director? Thank you. Okay, at this time, I'd like to invite any members of the public that would like to address the Planning Commission regarding this application to come up. Any hands up on line, Shelby? Yes, sir. Okay, so nobody's coming forward. I'm gonna close the public hearing and open it up to the commissioners for their comments. Commissioner Karapetoff, you wanna begin?

Okay. I share the concern from Commissioner Alvorn about the glazing in the front. I think it's still quite high. We have this glass wall that is 14 feet wide and eight feet high, plus we have the transom on top, which is four and a half feet high by seven, and it's triangular. So the total square footage is pretty high. I'm not concerned about glazing in the back. The back can be the way it is, but in the front I think we should do something about reducing the size of these windows. And I'm also concerned about the grating. Grating of 600 and something cubic yards, that's quite a lot of cut as this is How many containers is that? One container is 10. Like the big green container that you get from green waste, the ones that are like four feet wide or five feet wide and about 10 feet long, they capture 10 cubic yards. So you need 60 of them, maybe even more, 60-something containers like that. That is a lot of containers. So I just try to imagine how much. you know, stuff you need to take out of the site. That is concerning, I don't know. So the glazing and the cutting is the only thing that I can think about.

Okay.

Commissioner Ruiz?

Yeah, I would agree that the glazing seems a bit much. This fronts the street. Seems like a lot of glass and a lot of light coming out when it's dark out in the street and throw lights on inside the house. Other than that, I mean, I think it's quite a nice design.

Thank you, Mr. Albert.

Thank you, Chair. I must admit I am stunned at the beauty of the remodel or the redesign. I mean, there was an awful lot that we requested back in November of this design. And while it was beautiful then in November, it wasn't necessarily within our design guidelines. And I think great work has been done to do that. And I think the overall design is very beautiful. The eight foot six glass door is tall to me. And at the same time, our guidelines speak to fenestration that is in keeping with the architecture. I am of two minds as to whether I would support it as is or request that it be reduced. Given the way that it looks today, I'm not so sure that it could be improved by reducing. because of the architecture. So that's my comment on that. My last comment has to do with the hot tub in the front on the west. I would expect that a property owner and an architect of this caliber would be interested in installing a hot tub so that they wouldn't even hear a purr. And that's what they've done. So I know that it's been designed to be very private If that's something that we can approve here in Carmel, I would be all right with that. Thank you.

Commissioner Locke?

Yeah, I don't really have anything to add to that. I think it is really pretty, and I'm actually supportive of the glazing just because it does match the style. So thank you.

I want to compliment the architect. I think they really listened to it. The last meeting, Ann, I thought the way you dealt with the neighbor and that deck is really interesting. How you pulled it back, I think it creates a little more interest there because you've got more articulation. So it just speaks to how architects know how to do stuff. We give them a task, and they do it. At any rate, it's nice to see the evolution of a project, and it's a very nice design. I don't have a problem with the glazing because it's divided up. Our concern is big, massive plate window in the front. It's divided up, and it certainly is... This style of architecture certainly supports it. I mean, it seems like a very unified... concept and it provides the interest. I think the things that the architect did where they simplified the roof pitches and the way they dealt with the gable on the bedroom has really improved the design. So we have a resolution with a number of conditions. I don't think, are there any concerns about the conditions from the from the commission. I think they're all, I think they were all warranted and pretty standard.

They are. I would move that we accept the resolution as written unless anyone wants to add anything in there. I'll second.

Okay, any more discussion? Okay, roll call please.

Commissioner Alvord? Yes. Commissioner Karapetkov?

No.

Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Bruce? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, at this time, I'm going to call a recess for... Okay, 15 minutes. We will reconvene at 7.30. Well, it is real time. Back clock's not the real time. That's not the real time. It's 7.15. because it's pizza time. Okay. Yes, good luck with your project. Okay, at this time I'm going to reconvene the meeting. Can we have roll call, please?

Commissioner Allborn? Here. Commissioner Karapetkov?

Yes.

Commissioner Locke, here.

We're carpool loading.

Commissioner Roos, here. And Chair LePage, here. All present.

All right. Thank you for your patience. All right. The next item under my cookie is item number six on the public hearing. It is another design study. This is DS25272, the Gartner Projects, consideration of a final design study and coastal development permit for the demolition of an existing one-story home and construction of a new 1,800-square-foot home with a 200-square-foot detached garage. It's located on Dolores Street, 2 northwest of 10th. Can we have the staff report, please? Thank you, Chair.

So staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution finding that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15303, new construction and approving a design study and coastal development permit as described in paragraph two. So the subject site is, I apologize, I did not update the address using a template, but it is a 4,000 square foot lot with a 1,718 square foot residence. The applicant is proposing a 1,800 square foot residence inclusive of a 200 square foot detached garage as well as a 800 square foot attached ADU. The project was considered at the February 11th, 2026 hearing for a concept acceptance. The commission had four conditions for concept acceptance. I'll go over two of them briefly. One is that the site be amended or the plans be amended to meet certain landscape standards as well as the recommended tree density, which the applicant has SUCCESSFULLY SATISFIED. AND THEN ALSO THAT THE ROOF FORM BE SIMPLIFIED. SO THE CHANGE IS VISIBLE ON THE WEST ELEVATION. THERE WAS A SHED ROOF FORM THAT CONNECTED THE ENTRY TO THE LIVING ROOM. AND THAT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED. STAFF IS NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE ROOF FORM THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. BUT THAT IS THE PROPOSED SIMPLIFICATION TO THE ROOF These were the same findings for concept or final details approval that were discussed in the last presentation. And then we have a number of conditions to meet these findings. Standard conditions, as well as meeting our landscape requirements and tree density requirements, 22 through 26. Special condition number 33 pertains to lighting locations, limiting it to no more than one light fixture at any building entry consistent with residential design guideline 11.8. THERE IS A WALKWAY PROPOSED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, SO CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 35 REQUIRES THE REMOVAL OF THE ENCROACHMENT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 12.8 AND SECTION 1734-07-OB. AND THEN CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 36 AND POTENTIALLY NUMBER 37, OR IT MIGHT JUST BE 36, speaks to modifying the landscape plan to include plants from the recommended plant list. What's being proposed is quite a nice selection of plants. However, the proposed plant palette is inconsistent with the requirements for landscaping within the right-of-way, as well as inconsistent with plants around native trees. And with that, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution as described on the screen. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Were there any questions for staff? Commissioner Auburn?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Court. Back in February, I have a note that asked about the second story deck and privacy. Have we had any communication from neighbors with any concerns?

I have not received any communication from project.

Thank you.

Any more questions for staff? Okay, thank you. At this time, I'd like to invite the applicant or the applicant's architect to come forward and make their presentation.

Hi, I'm Scott Earner. I'm the property of my wife, Diane Mullen.

I'd like to thank you all. We made or tried to make. Gary, our architect, will talk to you about the details. All the suggestions that you had last time, I think it is actually prettier. So the system worked. And Gary, you're up.

Yes. This rendering we just finished a couple days ago. And I brought a printout if you want to pass it around. Or maybe you can see it on your screen just fine. I'm Gary Kerr. I'm the architect with Masterwork Builders. And thank you, commissioners, for considering our project tonight. We did have some pretty minor changes from the original design study, as Evan pointed out, mostly to do with the entry roof. And we simplified that. We did add the landscaping plan, and now we are aware that we need to make adjustments to that to add some more native plants. One of the things we're proposing since the last is doing a metal roof. And this came about, I don't know if you've seen the sample we're proposing. but a good portion of the existing home that's is going to be rebuilt but pretty much in the same form is one and a half inch one and a half per 12 inch pitch which is challenging for a lot of materials can't really do asphalt and gravel because it's just enough of a pitch for the gravel to want to roll down and another option is rolled roofing but then you have seams and that's not aesthetically pleasing in our in our view and so we think that the metal roof checks the aesthetics box it checks the low slope roof capabilities and so we're hoping you will consider that in positive light And if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Any questions for the architect? No. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, at this time, I'd like to invite any members of the public that would like to make any comments to the commission regarding this application to come up. Any hands up online, Shelby?

No, sir.

Okay, I'm going to close the public comments and open it up to Commissioner Bruce.

I don't have any problems with it. I actually like the metal roof. I celebrate their fire resistance. I think it's the path forward for a lot of design in this town. And your applicant is addressing the issues about the native plants. So that all makes sense to me.

Commissioner Halbert.

Thank you, Chair. I second Commissioner Ruse's comments. I'm fine with the metal roof so long as it meets some of the standards that I know the city has set forth in terms of reflectance.

Commissioner Locke.

I think this is a very beautiful design. I particularly like the color that you've selected, and the fence and arbor, if that's actually what you're planning to do, is really tasteful, so thank you.

Commissioner Karapetkov?

Yeah, it's a beautiful home, and I'm looking forward to walking Dolores every day and seeing it, so that's...

I agree. It's really a beautiful rendition of the house. I think it's going to make a really fine addition to this community. And it's just an example of how the architects and designers listen to our input and then they come up with solutions. And I think that makes the design ultimately better. We have a resolution as per staff. The conditions of approval I think are pretty standard.

Chair LePage, if I may, I just had one additional thought that I excluded from my presentation. On the site visit, we, as a group, identified that there was gravel in the right-of-way. I don't recall.

Oh, you wanted to add a special condition to remove the gravel from the right-of-way? Yes, please. Okay, we'll add that. So I'll make a motion that we accept a resolution as per staff with the addition of one additional Special condition that the gravel from the right-of-way is moved. Second. Okay, any further discussion? All right, roll call, please.

Commissioner Allport? Yes. Commissioner Karapetkov?

Yes.

Commissioner Locke?

Yes.

Commissioner Roos? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes, the motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to item number seven on the public hearings tonight. This is another design study. This is DS25095. It's the DCV Enterprise Partners LLC. It's consideration of a final design study and coastal development permit for demolition of an existing 1,990 square foot, one story single family residence and detached 361-square-foot garage and construction of a 2,654-square-foot two-story single-family residence and a 240-square-foot detached garage located on Camino Real to southwest of 7th Avenue. We have a staff report, please.

Thank you, Chair. As you described, this is the DCV project, coming back for final details. This is a large 9,000 square foot lot. They are proposing to demolish the existing one-story house and detached garage and construct a 2,654-square-foot two-story house and a detached 242-square-foot garage containing a car lift, which is an additional 200 square feet of reserved floor area to satisfy their minimum two-spot parking requirement. The project also includes an 800-square-foot attached ADU. This project came before the commission in the fall of 2025. These were the concept hearing conditions. Condition of approval number one, volume study, has now been met. Conditions two, three, and four speak to trees, and I'm going to get into those in a minute. Condition number five, the project did go before the Forest and Beach Commission, which the commission set the tree density. The site does have enough trees, so no additional tree plantings are met, are required. And condition number seven speaks to modification of the facade fenestration, and I have a slide that speaks to that as well. So starting with forest character, this is a very heavily forested site. There's 23 trees. You can see that there's 15 significant trees, one moderately significant tree, which is proposed for removal, and seven not significant trees. The cover sheet of the plans indicate the removal of three pittosporum. It's actually two pittosporum and one cherry tree. Those are all not significant. The plans indicate that one coast live oak is not significant. However, that is an error. The forester has identified it as a moderately significant tree. It's the tree located at the northwest corner of the house there where the pathway is proposed. So the municipal code states that requires a finding that all moderately significant trees have been protected to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, staff is recommending adding a condition of approval to require retention of tree nine. Continuing on with tree protection, this project did receive three preliminary site assessment tree evaluations at the request of the applicant over the course of a few months in 2025. The municipal code does say that All compaction of soils, construction of building walls, or placement of impermeable surfaces must be set back a minimum of six feet from all significant trees. Grading, ruts, and fills around significant trees shall be limited to areas outside of the root projection zone identified by the city forester. And in 2025, the commission placed these conditions of approval on the project, which... speaks to that requirement, compaction of soils, building walls, impermeable services, grading, drainage, trenching, the like. In response to the concept hearing, the applicant conducted some exploratory, they uncovered some roots and had the forester come back out and take a look at the area they and the forester expressed verbal support for the project based on the exposed roots that he saw. So here are the preliminary root zones, preliminary site assessment root zones. However, as you saw in the attachment, the forester has expressed support for the project even though there is work within the root zones. So for example, this slide speaks to tree six, which is an oak tree at the southeast corner of the property. You can see it's set some seven and a half feet away from the building wall. That's the image on the right side of your screen. The image on the left side of your screen shows three feet of over excavation. So that would put construction activity some four and a half feet from the base of the tree. This slide shows, excuse me, this is the garage area. And then this is the southeast corner of the house. Again, we have four trees here, all oaks. I've dimensioned the root zones there, six feet for the smaller oaks, eight feet for the larger oak. You can see the floor plan doesn't show the over excavation, the three feet of over excavation. It does show the trenching. So this is construction activity in the root zone. Switching to fenestration, the applicant did revise the facade fenestration as requested. Let's see. The front door was reduced from 8'6 to 7'6, and the facade window heights were reduced from 8'6 to 7'6, while other facade windows remain at 8'. So the commission should consider whether the reductions achieve the requested human scale and whether the slightly varying heights are appropriate. There's also a condition of approval about reducing the plate height. We can come back to these slides if required, but the applicant has conveyed to me that they intend to bring the plate height into compliance. And the finished materials haven't changed from when the commission previously saw the project. The project does propose aluminum windows, but this was supported by the commission previously. This slide is just showing how that two parking spot requirement is met with the car lift. And this slide speaks to the requirement that Areas that are indicated as semi or fully permeable will need to be shown that they are, in fact, permeable. For example, we have a detail showing compaction under the permeable areas with reference to a geotech report, again, citing high compaction, so we'll be looking at this during the building permit review process. That brings us to our final details. As my colleagues before have stated, we all have all of our standard conditions plus a few special conditions in addition to the ones you saw in the staff report. I'm also recommending adding a condition regarding that moderately significant tree and then simply requiring the cart lift to remain in perpetuity so that that compliance conforming parking is maintained. That concludes my presentation. Staff recommends that you consider the design study and you do have a resolution for approval in front of you. Thank you.

Questions for staff? Any questions?

Yeah.

Okay. No questions? All right. Thank you. All right. This time I'd like to invite the applicant or the applicant's architect to come forward and make their presentation.

Good evening, James Smith. Good evening, commissioners. So, yeah, we've done a lot of work to bring this into compliance over the last six, eight months. It's interesting that we've gotten no, to my knowledge, any neighbor pushback or negative comments, which is kind of a record, actually. But we think that what we've gotten to is a really... It's an excellent submittal. We have lowered the finished floor nine inches. There was some concern about the human scale on the rear of the elevation previously. I think the condition boiled down to the front door, but in truth, we've actually lowered the plates, the significant plates, six inches. And as Catherine pointed out, the window heights have been lowered as well. I think that those concerns have been addressed as well as lowering the finished floor by nine inches. So the house sits lower on the lot overall. And as she mentioned, the front door has been lowered to seven, six. Um, tree number nine, it was my understanding that, uh, Justin had allowed us to, or found us, found the tree to be removable. So we can keep it if we need to. I thought that was where we were proceeding. So we'll have to work with staff on exactly what that looks like. Um, a couple of things on, uh, for instance, the skylight. I know that that sometimes becomes a topic of discussion. Um, We feel that the skylight is, well, frankly, it's about 7% of the lot width, which is 6 feet 8 in width for a 90-foot lot. So we feel that it's a minor component and it's architecturally consistent to have the ridge light. It does have the shading capability. We don't think that there's any privacy impacts. So we're hopeful that because it is consistent with the architecture, and the guidelines state that that's acceptable, that that won't become an issue, but I guess we'll find out. So I think that there's also an issue with the plates in the rear, and I have a couple of, I don't know if this is the appropriate place to do it, but In the back, there was a question about the plate heights from grade as they return back to the terrace at the ADU. And what we suggest doing is to bring the planters out so that the grade returns back the foot or two towards the ADU. And I know that's, I don't know if you're looking at that lower level. Catherine, could you bring that up for us, please? Can I show something here, or is that?

You can.

How do I do that, Catherine?

or Ms. Shelby?

I think this is the only remaining plate issue that we're dealing with. Is that right, Catherine? So the rear elevation, the plate height does comply with the 18-foot maximum for a two-story. The issue becomes when the gable ends return back towards the ADU terrace underneath the deck. And we were asserting that if we build that area out as per the diagram that we're about to show, that we have grade adjacent to not only the front sides of the gable, but the return sides, which are about two feet long.

So... Not happening.

Okay. It's warming up. No problem. And I suppose it's something that we could work out at staff level, too, if it's not the right...

So your argument is it's too sorry at that area?

So if you look on the highlighted areas, we have... two-story plate heights meeting grade. And on the rear elevation, I don't know if this, can you switch them out real quick? So this kind of helps you see where the, there's a walkout terrace we'd very much like to preserve at the back for the ADU underneath. So what we did is we brought the retaining walls in past the point of where the vertical line of the gables meet grade, such that there is grade wrapping around the sides to comply with the ordinance of the 18 feet max. Staff was suggesting maybe we needed to fill in that whole walkout terrace in order to comply, and we were very much hopeful that that's not the case. The terrace level at the ADU is 10 feet 3 to the nearest adjacent plate along that section. So we think we comply. We're happy to work with staff more about that, but I just wanted to bring it up to try to clarify if there's any questions for the commission. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the architect before he leaves the podium? I guess not. All right. Okay. Would any members of the public like to come forward and make any comments regarding this application to the commission? Can do so at this time. Any hands up online?

No, sir.

Okay, I'm going to close a public hearing then. Catherine, can you explain this plate height? I'm just confused what's going on here. I mean, I'm looking at this elevation. Is this the contention of staff is that the plate height is 19 feet?

And it should be 18. It's 19 feet 2 inches. And the condition of approval in the resolution is simply to make it comply with the 18 feet. So we don't need to change the language and the condition. And the applicant has proposed a revision that we can work with.

And 18 feet is the two-story? That's right. Right. So the issue is always how it's measured. So what is staff's position about how it's measured?

Well, certainly in this section view, it's quite clear that they would need to raise it up a foot, two inches to meet that higher arrow there.

Can we switch to Shelby? Oh, sorry about that. Once you all see what's up on the screen up there, let me ask Shelby to switch it over to your television screens.

Do you hear me?

to her presentation, please.

So the applicant is proposing to, this section view will be modified so that the 18 feet maximum will be achieved.

So there's a retaining wall there? There's a retaining wall because the...

They're going to add a retaining wall.

Right, but it looks like they have to cut into the site to get that first floor. Is that correct?

Yes. In addition to the retaining wall that you see on the screen, the architect is proposing to modify the plans and the drawings to add an additional retaining wall at the building edge there. one foot, two inches off the grade there. Let me see if my pointer works.

Can I ask you a question? Because I'm a little confused about this. It seems to me that, so is that, is this retaining wall going to be higher than the level entry to that lower doorway?

They're going to leave the doorways as is so that the walkout is preserved.

Let me go to... And that's not where the plate height is measured from.

Okay, we can try looking at this.

I'm confused by it.

Right now those dimensions are 19 feet 2 inches, which do not conform to the 18 foot maximum. The applicant is proposing to kind of wrap the corners of the gabled volumes and with this planter to achieve consistency with the plate height while the central massing of the building, that's the ADU below with the deck on top with open space above the deck. Because we don't have two volumes on top of each other, we won't be measuring 18 feet vertically there in the center of the building.

So what is staff proposing the applicant needs to do?

What they've proposed this evening.

What they propose this evening, staff will support that.

This is an old rendering. This is from a previous version. The current plan set doesn't have a rendering of the rear elevation, but I thought just in case everyone's confused, this kind of, you can visualize how The central portion of the building is set back to accommodate that deck. The gable volumes are where we'll be measuring plate height.

Is the problem that the lower level is very high, is 10 feet high? Is that the problem? How do we come to this 19.2 feet height?

It's the here.

So how much of this 19.2 is the upper level and how much is the lower level?

That wasn't so much the issue. Let's see. It was the combined that was the issue.

So essentially, Commissioner, what's being done is they would be adding one foot two inches to the lower level through those retaining walls on either side, essentially creating like a shoulder on either side of this lower entryway, but one foot two inches to bring the ground up so that you measure 18 feet up to get your correct plate height. If you didn't add these little miniature stem retaining wall things, you'd have a distance of 19 feet two inches up to the plate.

Okay, I'm going to ask another question because I'm new with this. It seems to me what's being done is we're saying in that particular sort of inset part, sort of a U-shaped house from the back there a little bit, there is no second story plate. So what you're doing is you're saying the second story plate extends only as far as the the two story portions to the sides. So we're going to build a little retaining wall like this. So that from there we'll measure. And because the rest of it is open space above the first floor, it doesn't count.

You understand. No fair.

It's good. It's clever.

I have a question. So that, If that solution would be acceptable to our guidelines and code, I would, of course, accept that. But my question is, do I have discretionary consideration to say it's fine just as it is, given the site, given the architecture, given the design? Do I have the discretion to say It is not 18, doesn't have a plate height of 18. It's non-conforming.

It's a land standard. It's not discretionary.

It's not discretionary.

Yeah, it's a development standard, so it's not discretionary.

Thank you.

It's not a guideline.

But we do have a proposed solution.

I mean, the way interpretation could be discretionary, but to be honest with you, I don't quite understand what's being proposed. But as long as I'm okay, if staff's okay with what they're proposing, I'm okay with it. Okay, so any more questions about that? We closed the public hearings already? I got a little lost there in the, get back to where we are. Okay, so, Commissioner Roos, you discussed it. Commissioner Alborn, are you done with your comments, Commissioner?

The only comment I would make, and this is not about the design per se, but we visited the site today and there was a lot of trash in the right-of-way covered under tarps. And I'm assuming that was from the excavation to look at the roots or something like that. I just want some confirmation that that is not going to be a practice during construction on the site. I walk along the street and sometimes if there's traffic, it's wise to walk in the right-of-way on the other side of the parked cars. And you couldn't do that today. So I just want some affirmation that that's not going to be the practice during construction.

We don't allow that. The city will make sure that's not a practice during construction.

Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Locke.

Yeah, I have a comment. I note that the two windows on the... street elevation, you've got stone, I would call it a stone element around the inside of the windows. And after going through our design review guidelines we've been going through, we spent a lot of time talking about not doing that unless it actually was structural and it appeared to be a load-bearing, and it had a purpose. And these are purely decorative stones around the windows, and so I would like to see those removed. That's my only comment. I think it's a beautiful project. But like I said, I've just spent way too much time talking about exactly what I'm seeing right here.

Yeah, and to further embellish that comment, if it was described as wainscoting, then what we want to see, oh, it even goes up the side, yeah. But if it was like a wainscoting, we want to see that applied uniformly on the structure, not just as a decorative element. And this is kind of a good example of what we're trying to avoid, because you've got insets, you've created a couple of inside corners, which theoretically you'd run the stone to, although it looks like you're proposing to run the stone to the outside corner and then up the wall. Yeah, well, even that we would discourage. So that's really the only thing I saw. Other than that, I think it's a beautiful building, and I think you've resolved all the issues according to staff. Mr. Karapetkov, do you have comments?

Yes. I mean, this reminds me of the house that we discussed, was it earlier this year or end of last year? We had a similar house on the wooded kind of area. I think Eric Milopis was the architect on that project where we had the same situation. The lot was slopping backwards. We were discussing mostly the front of the house, and this house is very modest, very well done, very small windows, not a lot of fenestration. It fits very well in the environment. In the back of the house, you have this trade-off that because of the many trees, it's very shady. You need more openings, more windows to get the light in. This project goes a little bit overboard with the windows, both the first and the second floor. They have pretty tall windows. And Because of the height of the lower portion, I was surprised to see how much excavation there is. Because when I was on site, I was thinking that, you know, the natural slope will take care of the excavation. And then I look at the project and it says like 516 or something cubic yards. But the height of the lower level explains why that is happening. As long as the forester is happy with the way we are treating the roots of the redwoods, I think that's the primary goal is to really to preserve that natural environment for the redwoods. It would be nice if we can reduce the size of the glazing in the back a little bit, because right now I think it's about 10 feet on the lower level and another 10 feet on the upper level. I may be wrong, but it looks very high. I understand the need for more light in the back, but nine feet and nine feet should be plenty. And it would meet our requirements of 18 feet plate height, I think, without any additional changes to the retaining wall.

I'm not sure.

I'm just suggesting if that's a solution that we can discuss.

So just so I understand, are you speaking only to the windows or the?

Well, the lower level windows in the back look like 10 feet. Like, I look at it and say, well, this is 10 feet. I'm not sure exactly if that's correct.

We can call the architect back up to confirm while we pull up the schedule.

Maybe he could come up and clarify that.

What height? I saw 8'6". That's correct. Is that right? I know we did have this discussion previously, and from that discussion, we actually lowered everything six inches, so...

It was previously nine foot?

Yes. So we've actually done. You lowered it. Even though you didn't directly condition it, we did do that.

Right. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Any further comments? All right. We have a resolution.

I'm curious to know about the skylight as well. There's a skylight fronting the street.

Yes. Did staff bring that up?

It's a condition of approval number 38 is to omit the skylight that's visible from the street. Yes.

Omit the skylight visible from the street. Yes. Okay. All right. And then staff requested that a condition of approval be added to retain the moderately significant tree number nine and add a condition of approval to require the car lift be to remain in perpetuity to maintain conformed parking. Is that correct? All right, so I would make a motion that we accept the resolution as per staff with the two added conditions of approval.

And the removal of the stone inset.

Yes, and the removal of the stone inset on the two street-facing recessed windows. Do we have a second? Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call, please.

Commissioner Alvord? Yes. Commissioner Karapetkov? Yes. Yes. Commissioner Locke. Yes. Commissioner Ruse. Yes. And Chair LePage.

Yes, motion is carried. Thank you. Yes. Okay, that brings us to item number eight on the In the public hearings, this is another design study. This is also a final design study. This is 26117, the Luth Project. And it is a coastal development permit final design study for an existing single family residence and attached garage or demolition of a single family residence, attached garage and reconstruction project. of a new 1,790-square-foot residence and 200-square-foot attached garage. It's located on Lincoln 3, northeast of 12th. May I have the staff report, please?

Good evening. I think you've covered about half of the information so far. Previously, this project, we just saw it last month. All the zoning standards are met. Apart from one condition from the commission, it met mass in bulk. tree density is met and past volume. The first item from the Planning Commission was in regard to the human scale of the front bifold doors of the front living room. Those have been reduced in size from eight feet to seven. I'm sorry, this is just the elevations to show you. So we had the the conflicts with the pine and the neighbor's oak, the human scale for the folding doors, and then the neighbor's privacy concerns. So first, we have the pine has just been removed. I spoke with the city forester, and he said that they're fine on density. So resolve that. They don't need to find a new place for the tree. They don't need the tree. Our doors, reduced from eight to seven. Also adds fenestration and some divisions there. And the backyard, we have, you can see it without the changes there, the sight lines. And then on the right side, the permanent six foot, six inches kind of screen there on the north side of the rear deck. And then in addition, there'll be some wax myrtle planted. It hedges really nicely along that north property line. And I did hear from the neighbor, and he was satisfied with the changes and conversations that the applicant had with him. And that is all I have. Everything got updated as requested. And I had no other concerns.

Good. Questions for staff? No questions? No.

Good.

Thank you. All right. I'd like to invite the architect to come forward and make their presentation.

Good evening. I'm Claudio Ortiz representing Daniel Luce on this project. Thank you for the presentation. Just briefly, I want to speak about the materials. We were proposing materials that we've gotten approved many, many times in the past. Board and batten siding, caramel stone veneer, wood clad windows, and an asphalt shingle roof. So if there's any questions or comments regarding the materials, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Besides that, I think Aaron, you know, you commented on the fact that we made all the changes requested, lower the bifold window height, I mean, bifold doors height to seven feet, and change the muttons, the grid pattern on the windows as suggested. And what else do we have? Oh, the privacy issue. So I did talk to David. We went back and forth a couple of times and gave him the presentation that you saw, and he was satisfied with the modification proposed. Not only a hedge, but a physical element, which is the privacy wall to maintain a consistent privacy throughout because landscaping can change through the years, you know. So that's just an additional barrier beyond the actual wall, but he's happy and satisfied with the modifications. I believe other than that, I think we met all the conditions. So if there's any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.

Questions for Claudia?

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, at this time I'd like to invite any members of the public to come up and make any comments about this application. Any hands up online?

No, sir.

All right, nobody coming forward, so I'm gonna close the public comments, open it up to the commissioners. Commissioner Locke, you wanna be in?

Nice revision, and thank you for reducing those doors, and it doesn't appear to have had any major effect on anything. The other thing I wanna just mention again, because we have been going through these design guideline things, is the porch and the entry to this house. is exactly what we'd like to see, so thank you.

Commissioner Albarn.

Yes, to what Commissioner Locke said, quintessential Carmel. Mr. Ortiz, you do it like no other, really. It's just very beautiful. It just fits perfectly, serves the client, serves the neighbors, just well done, thank you.

Commissioner Roof. I think it's a great house. I'll point out that I think this is an exemplar for how this process should work. So thank you.

And Commissioner Karapetka.

Yep, wonderful house. I'm looking forward to walking Lincoln every morning and seeing it on my route to town. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah, very nice. We have a resolution as per staff. I don't think we have any. Is it conditioned at all?

Should just have standard conditions.

Pardon?

The standard conditions.

Just the standard conditions. That's what I thought, yeah. Okay, I'll make a motion we accept the resolution as per staff.

I'll second that.

Okay, any further discussion? All right, roll call, please.

Commissioner Alford? Yes. Commissioner Karapetkov? Yes. Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Roos? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes, motion is carried. Thank you. All right, that brings us to item number nine, public hearing. This is another design study. This is combined concept and final. This is DS26059, the SCATS project. And it is a substantial alteration to a single family residence located at San Antonio Avenue to southwest of 11th Street. Staff report.

Hello again. The Schatz property, overall, this qualified based on the drastic change that it is from the road and the site coverage. As far as square footage, it doesn't qualify that way. So it is composed of the removal of the existing sunroom, a reduction of the width of the deck. The garage will be brought into conformance. It's currently undersized and will be brought further away from the property line. It is non-conforming that way as well. And the expansion of the garage will be done in the rear. The two decks, well it's not two decks, it's a step up to one half of the deck that will be smoothed out, a simplified look. And the width of the addition is essentially from the taking up the same space as the doorway to the sunroom. Not a large change. This shows that from the side so you can see it's not a huge change out front, but it's enough that it looks different. And here we have the site plan showing those changes superimposed from what they were to what they will be or are proposed to be. And the rendering against an older photo. As you saw today, it's not those colors anymore. And then the finished materials pretty much staying the same as you saw today, except for the changes to the deck and stairs material and the railing. The aluminum clad windows would be very similar to the current trim color. So not a large change there. There were some potential neighbor impacts that I believe you received in your packet. The architect was able to meet with the neighbors and went inside and took some photos from the room that they were concerned about. So you can see those story pole lines there. And then from their deck out front, what that looks like. But overall, the project is removing their, I'm just going to go back to the site plan. They're removing the Old site coverage, you can see there on the top, it was well over our site coverage limits. The removing everything, bringing it into conformance, and that allowed them to rearrange their site coverage and get a lovely new deck and stairs. There's no changes proposed to the landscaping apart from two trees proposed to meet tree density. one upper there on the south end, the cypress, and one lower canopy, the olive there at the north. The neighbor was also concerned about changes to fence. Nothing is proposed of that. And the entirety of the work outside of site coverage removal will be at the front of the property.

Was the neighbor, did they resolve the issues with the neighbor?

I believe so. I'll let the architect speak to that.

Okay. All right. Any other questions for the staff? Okay. All right. Thank you. I'd like to invite the architect to come forward and make the presentation.

Good evening, everyone. Sam Pitnick, architect for the Schatz residence. Thank you, Aaron, for the presentation. So my clients, Lisa and Steven Schatz, have lived on this block of San Antonio for over a decade and have owned this property for about six or seven years. In fact, Chair LePage, you may recall a previous design study for this property back in 2021, although I suspect you've seen quite a few homes since then. come through. It was a much more ambitious remodeling addition. So this represents a more scaled back, a little more budget friendly version of that. And so as Aaron mentioned, the scope of work includes removing the sunroom, which we felt was a little dated. It's also just such a heat sink for that living room. And so the proposed addition I think relates more to the existing architecture of the home. It will extend about seven feet, five inches in front of the house, which is slightly less than the current sunroom. We are also stepping the sidewalls into the addition just to kind of help to break up the massing that front elevation. All the proposed materials and colors will match existing so on the addition it'll the sidewalls will have the painted wood shingles and then down low kind of the base of the home and around the garage will have the painted horizontal wood siding and so part of the reason we're doing this addition is so that we can reconfigure the interior living spaces the kitchen and then accommodate a new third bedroom and third bathroom. We didn't necessarily set out to redo the whole garage, but it did create an opportunity to allow for a conforming and larger garage and then also lower the existing garage. So now instead of having a deck that is split between two levels, we can have a nice consistent deck across the front of the house and that garage and the massing will be set down about a foot lower. So I think that'll also help to keep the scale of everything to a minimum. And then also didn't really make sense to have an extra set of stairs going up in the middle of the deck, splitting into two small sections. So we're shifting that exterior set of stairs to the north side of the home so we can maximize usable outdoor space. And then the railing around the proposed top of garage and deck will be a real thin aluminum or stainless steel cable rail. I think a lot less imposing than kind of that heavy clunky wood railing that's there today. And then as Aaron mentioned, we are going to be bringing the site coverage and conformance. So that represents a reduction of over 800 square feet of impermeable material and concrete that's there now, which is always a good thing. No landscaping other than the upper and lower canopy trees are proposed. So in areas where we're taking out all this hardscape, we'll put down appropriate mulch and ground cover. Regarding neighbor concerns, yeah, that was brought to my attention today. I did have an opportunity to meet with them. They took me inside the home. I know that they're here, but I was able to get Aaron those photos. I can understand their concerns, but I do feel that the photos kind of speak for themselves. And where I took those photos is a small little office space that they have. But I do think the majority of their ocean views, coastline views are maintained. And as you can see from some of the angles, I think any view they're blocking is just of the neighbor to the south and the road. But largely, no, I think ocean views would be impacted. Regarding the fence and anything else, you know, that's not really proposed here. I think they like the height of the existing fence. We understand that if we replace the fence, we need to apply for that. And we would certainly work with the neighbor to make sure everyone was happy with the height of the fence while also, of course, complying with city guidelines. So thank you for your time and happy to answer any questions you have.

Are there any questions for the architect? Okay, thanks, Sam. All right. Any members of the public like to come forward and make any comments? Any hands up online, Shelby? No, sir. Okay, thank you. All right, I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to the commission. Mr. Roos, comments, you want to start?

Yeah, especially from the picture that you provided, and I appreciate that. It seems to me that the impact on the neighbor's view is minimal, so I don't have a problem with that as a consideration here. I think the house looks good.

Commissioner Alborn?

Thank you, Chair. I very much like the changes that are proposed. I am delighted that the site coverage will be brought into conformity. I think that's awesome for our environment. And yes, a picture does tell a thousand words. I'm very glad we were able to see the pictures that Mr. Picknick took at the neighbors because that illustrates for us, yes, there will be some impact, but I do not find it to be significant at all. And I support the project as proposed.

Commissioner Locke.

I have nothing more to add.

Okay. I don't either. So I would make a motion that we accept the motion as per staff with the conditions as presented unless staff has any changes to the conditions.

Nope.

Okay. Second. All right. Any further discussion? All right. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Allborn? Yes. Commissioner Karapetkov? Yes. Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Roos? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. All right. That brings us to... I have number 10 on the... Public hearings, this is another design study. This is also a combined concept and final. This is DS26115, the Heron Project. This is development for remodeling of existing single family home, including the replacement of the roof, rearrangement of site coverage, installation of new landscaping, construction of a new fence and new paint located, and the sand and sea development. It is also in some significant archaeological overlays. Staff report, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be stepping in for, it's not going on our screen here. Must have messed something up. I see it flipping here. Oh, you switched over to this one. Okay. It's on there. Just keep doing what you're doing. No, you got it. You got it. Go, go, go.

You're good.

Yep. So I'll just, I'll vamp a little bit while Shelby's getting this set up. So as you mentioned, sir, this is a combined concept and final design study. The subject site is located in the Sand and Sea development area. Just as a reminder, this area was considered for historic designation some years ago, but ultimately was not made historic. This subject property is not one of the original homes there. It was actually constructed as part of the main development. As you mentioned, it's a minor property. alteration. Am I good? Yeah. Okay. It's a 10,000 square foot lot. We've got all the statistics up here on the screen for you. There are many access easements. This is a complicated built site out there, but we're not dealing with a complicated project here. We've got a streetscape rendering for you what the project would look like. after alteration. Some of the highlights for you is the new membrane roof with gravel ballast, which we prefer. The floor area is non-conforming. However, it is being reduced by about 10 square feet. This does not trigger our requirements for this floor area to be brought into full compliance because it doesn't qualify as demolition. but they are bringing all of the site coverage into compliance, full compliance, which is something that we do seek whenever possible. We have not received any feedback or concerns about this project. There are a few special conditions the staff has included. The first one pertains to the color of the home and the trim. As this commission has deliberated throughout the years, there's a significant contrast between the trim color and the body color of the home. So one condition is to have a lighter earth tone on the trim that less contrasts with the body of the home. The second condition has to do with the fencing material. The proposed fence was a metal, Our condition would be to convert that to a wood fence to better align with your design guidelines and reducing the height to only four feet so it complies with development standards. And then the last condition has to do with skylights to reduce the number of skylights so that they are only necessary for lighting habitable spaces and to reduce their size to no larger than two feet by four feet, which is the more typical skylight that we see in Carmel-by-the-Sea. So I just went through these conditions. You can see what we're talking about here. This is the condition pertaining to the high contrast between the trim and the body of the home. This is the fence that I mentioned, currently proposed as a metal fence. Staff would suggest it gets converted to a wood fence to be consistent with your design guidelines. And then the last condition that I mentioned is the skylights. Once again, in order to to have the project conform to the city's design guidelines. Staff is recommending reducing the number of skylights so that they're only used for lighting habitable spaces where that is required, and also reducing the overall size of some of them to be more in line with what we typically see in the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea. So with that, as conditioned, staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to approve the project. I'm available for any questions.

Yeah, I do have a question. I have a question about the garage door. So this is a typical two-car garage door. It's probably about 16 feet wide, I'm guessing. I don't know the exact dimensions of this. Probably eight feet tall. To me, that presents a very large glass element. And we talk routinely about not having large glass elements or very large panes of glass. I know this is broken into, you know, apparently where the door rolls up. I'm assuming that's a roll-up door, but I have a lot of misgivings about this. I know that the garage is not going to be lit all the time. It's mostly for ingress and egress of cars, but I don't think we would allow this if this were living space of the house. I'm not familiar enough with the history of Glass garage doors, we don't see a lot of them here. I don't generally see them as a good trend. So I'm just wondering, maybe, Brandon, you have some insight on how glass garage doors have been dealt with in relation to the guidelines. Thanks.

Yeah, it's a wonderful question, Commissioner. So we don't see them very often. You're correct. I'm scrambling a little bit, and perhaps the architect can speak to this when they come up, but I'm scrambling a little bit to see which direction the door faces relative to the public view. The pedestrian access is on the other side of the fence in the foreground. Okay. Okay. So yes, so I think that it is not an element that we typically see when we're developing houses or approving houses around here. Certainly within the Planning Commission's purview to condition the project to switch to a non-glass garage door. That's 100% within your purview if you think that this is inconsistent with the design guidelines for the city.

Mr. Albert, your comments? Questions? Questions? Yeah, comments, questions, worth of questions. All right. I'm going to ask the architect, invite the architect to come forward and make their presentation.

I am not the architect. I am the promoter. However, I just wanted to say hello. So thank you to the Planning Commission and your staff and your time and consideration of project this you know this is a home that we are excited to update we want to keep the integrity of the existing home and architecture and update it and we're just you know hoping to integrate into the community we've talked to all our neighbors they all have seen our designs that we proposed they've all been very excited about our designs that we've proposed. And so they have no problems. We've consulted them on the fence, on the roof, the ones that might be affected. So again, just wanted to thank you for your consideration. And we just hope to build a comfortable home for our family in the future. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. And now the architect will make his presentation.

Yeah, thank you. I'm Greg Miller. I'm the architect on the project. We're passing around a little board there which talks about our design intent on the project. And we've got an existing low-profile one-story modern house there right now. And we're not tearing the house down. We're keeping the low profile. We're remodeling it. updating it and Trying to keep that a more of a renewal of the existing house We're preserving the scale and the massing we're lowering it floor area by 10 square feet and keeping the footprint the way it is for the most part and And if We're trying to pick colors and materials that are natural and recede into the landscaped area. We got good comments from staff early on in the project and working with them, we took the dark color. We originally proposed a black fascia trim color and a black fence to go with that. And we changed that to the bronze color that we have now that we're proposing. Then also there's a wood siding. on the elevation there that goes around office number two that you see in the front of the building. And we used to have a black wood siding there. So we've changed that completely to a light colored wood siding that is sand colored. And that's an Akoya wood that's processed to be very durable and also easy to make wui compatible. So we try to pick some natural timeless materials. and keep things understated. As far as the fencing is concerned, we designed the fence, I mean, it's to go with a modern house. We want it to be steel. We're making it the same color as the trim, the fascia. We left it very open on the front, as you can see on that rendering. And we have it open in the back, too, where it looks out toward the beach. In between, it runs along the neighbor, And there's an existing vinyl fence there right now. And we wanted to keep the privacy basically the same for that neighbor. So we're replacing the vinyl fence with a steel fence. And we're tightening up the horizontal members to give more privacy along that part of the area. We would really like to do the steel fence, not just because it goes with the architecture, but we're concerned about that it would be compatible materials, right, and fences. If you saw videos of the fires in the Palisades or Altadena, you could see a lot of the houses caught on fire when the fences caught on fire. So that's an important thing to us. The other thing that's very important to the owner is we want to have sort of a maintenance-free fence solution, and we're right on the beach, so it's going to get a lot of weather. So that's our reasoning for it, for it being steel instead of wood. So fire resilience is pretty important for the whole project. As far as the skylights are concerned, I want to make sure I address the conditions. So there's four large skylights in the existing house. They're about 48 by 48 inches, so four feet by four feet. We're adding more skylights. The project right now that's proposed is nine skylights total with those four large skylights, not the same ones but similar sized ones in similar locations plus some additional skylights. We were looking at it once we got the staff report and realized we could get rid of three of those skylights pretty easily. And so that would leave four large skylights similar to the four skylights that are already there. And then we still have two new skylights that are smaller. And those new skylights are in the bathroom areas that don't have any natural light because this house is tucked up into the hills you saw into the sand. So that whole east side of the house is kind of natural light challenge. So that's part of the reason for all the skylights. And we can easily have shades, electric shades, on all the skylights as well if that helps. And so we would propose that we cut out three skylights, keep the extra two small ones in addition to the four that kind of match the existing, and add some shades. And we're hoping that would be a good compromise that's acceptable for the skylights. Let's see, what else is there? Is there another thing on there? We got that covered? Okay, so that's pretty much it. If you've got any questions...

So with regards to the skylights, I'm looking at the roof plan now. So there's four existing skylights that kind of look like they're about the same size.

Yeah, they're all about 48 inches by 48 inches. And we're proposing four large skylights roughly that size or close to it. There's two large ones in the entryway. And then there's one large skylight in each of the two back bedrooms.

So which ones are you proposing to not? Looking at the roof plan with the skylights, can you kind of just show me what?

Skylight towards the top of the image there is actually in a bathroom. The ones that are narrow? Office 2 bathroom.

You got an arrow? The narrow ones?

Where are you? You got a pointer?

Okay, we're talking about getting rid of that one.

Okay.

We're talking about getting rid of this one. And there's another skylight right in here where the pantry is that we'd get rid of. And then we'd keep this one, this one, this one, and this one, which are similar to what's existing. We want to keep this one in the bathroom, and we want to keep this one in the master bathroom, although we could make it smaller.

Okay. All right. Thanks for that explanation. Appreciate that.

We have material samples, too, if you want to see them in person.

All right. Thank you. Any more questions for the architect?

I mean, we had a question about the garage. So is that a completely transparent glass, or is it semi-transparent glass, the door of the garage?

The door for the garage, the styles and rails would be the same color as the bronze. And then we were doing an opaque, dark glass. So there is some reflection. We're reflecting the plants and the trees and everything that are happening across the driveway. And we don't want light to be coming through. We don't want people to be able to see into the garage either.

So is it completely opaque?

Yeah.

Okay, so it's not literally a window.

That's correct. We want some privacy in the garage.

So it's glass over an opaque material?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Any other questions or concerns?

All right, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So are there any members of the public that would like to make a comment on this application that haven't done so so far? Any hands up online?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing and open it up to the commission. Commissioner Karapetkov, you want to kick it off?

Yeah, I think that the project is very conservative remodel. We saw the minor changes to the house. I really appreciate that. I always support minor remodels as opposite to demolishing houses and building new ones as much as possible, especially since this one is very close to a environmentally sensitive area. The North dunes is right in front of it. And we had a discussion about that earlier today with all the protected species and the legless, lizards and everybody else who lives there. So it is important to not disturb this environment and hopefully not to have a major construction. My concern was about the garage being glass, but now that we got the answer from the architect that it's going to be a non-transparent solution, I think I understand what the design goal is. Yeah, there was something about site coverage reduction, and I was wondering where will that happen? Because we saw this giant paved area in the front of the house. I'm sure that's going to stay. So if there's a site coverage reduction, it's probably on the back of the house. Initially, I thought that there is some dependency between this project and the one we discussed earlier today about the north dunes. But when we were on site today, I looked at the distance and it's pretty far away. So basically the property line is literally 10 feet away from the deck or from the patio. And this protected area that we discussed earlier today is probably like 100 feet further away. So there's no direct impact. Maybe we need to look at the construction plans a little bit and see where equipment will be stored and where materials will be stored so that there's no impact on that sensitive area. I think that's important. I'm not sure how these lizards react to noise because there will be noise during construction, so that's something that I haven't thought about. Yeah, these are my comments. I think we are, I'm also glad that they're reducing the number of garages from three to two. So that will make the whole traffic management in that courtyard much easier. And in general, yeah, I'm glad that this is a conservative remodel, minor changes, minor improvements to the property. Thank you.

Commissioner Locke?

First of all, I have to say it's always a pleasure when we get a chance to go down to this subdivision because these houses are so beautiful. And I think that if you can reduce the skylights, as we just talked about, I actually have no problem with the proposal, even the fencing on this, because it is such a modern, I mean, the architecture all fits together. So I don't have any problems with any of it. I think it's really pretty.

Commissioner Alborn.

Thank you, I echo Commissioner Locke's comments. I accept the earth tone bronze change for condition of approval 33. I would omit condition of approval 34. I also think that the steel fencing is in keeping with the architecture. It's also in keeping with the environment for the location of the house. And we just recently approved steel windows sort of adjacent across the street, if you remember, right on San Antonio, because of the harsh weather. climate down right there at the water. If indeed a condition of approval 35, if we could reduce those skylights down to those as presented by Mr. Miller, I'm all in. I think it's beautiful. Thank you.

Commissioner Ruse? Yeah, I would like to, excuse me, I would second pretty much everything that's been said. I think the steel fencing actually works. I think generally this is a project that is taken in This is a tasteful remodel of an already beautiful house, so congratulations. I think the architect's done a great job. I do want to acknowledge and be thankful to the owners for having conversations with the neighbors ahead of time. We always find that very helpful, and I wish you the best. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I think, I totally support the steel fence. I think it is entirely appropriate for the style of architecture, plus it's non-combustible. That's a plus. And the architect has offered to remove three skylights, I believe it was indicated. So I would make a motion. Mr.

Chair, could I just clarify, just to be sure, because I'm kind of pinch-hitting for Jake here. I want to make sure I get him the right information. So we're okay with the skylights being removed as proposed, so that will modify the condition so that it's down to that number. We took notes on that. We're sticking with the condition. We're okay with the bronze color on the trim, and we are going to omit condition of approval number 34 because we're all okay with the fence. I want to ask the commission, I heard a little bit of conversation about the opacity of the glass on the garage door. I'm not familiar enough with the plans to know if it actually calls that out. Would you like to condition the project to ensure that the garage door glass is in fact 100% opaque?

So conditioned. Yep. I'll make that a conditional condition. There'll be a condition number.

Chair, excuse me. Yes. Do we want to do that or do we simply, I mean, the architect described his intent. I would think that we could leave it to his discretion working with staff without specifying the opacity. If we specify a certain opacity for the glass, that may not actually work. work with the design that overall they're going for? Do you kind of follow me? Do we want to specify the material when we're not 100% familiar with the materials available?

I think the only issue is that it doesn't transmit light. So as far as I'm concerned, it's 100% opaque. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So if you want to quantify it, the condition would be that the garage door is 100% opaque. Okay.

Thank you.

And that three skylights should be removed as indicated by the architect. He can confirm that was staff and condition number 34 is going to be removed. Does that cover it?

Got it. Thank you.

Okay, that's the motion.

I'll second. Can I make one quick comment? Yeah, go ahead. Brandon, just when I looked up the AP number on this, it's different. It may be not the same AP numbers in the staff report, so you need to check that.

We will double check that. Thank you. This is a very interesting set of properties here, so we'll make sure this is correct.

Okay, no further discussion. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Allborn? Yes. Commissioner Karapetko? Yes. Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Reeves? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to the last item on the public hearing tonight. And that is item number 11. This is a use permit. It's UP 26129. It's an expansion of the Char Steakhouse. I have a staff report.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Pinch hitting again for Jacob Olander. So as you mentioned, this is a use permit for the Char Steakhouse. There we go. So as you know, the applicant is proposing to expand the existing restaurant into the space immediately next door. That area is highlighted in yellow. The slide here in front of you is incorrect. I'm going to talk about this a little bit right now. The water available for this project allows it to expand to 99 seats at the moment. We currently have a condition of approval attached to this project, we were going to recommend striking that condition. It was going to get it up to 106 with moving some water around, but that is actually not an option for this. So what we're recommending is to strike that condition change this 106 to 99, and in the future when and if water is available, then we will work with the applicant to process additional seats on the site. So this slide is incorrect. It's 86 seats existing. We're recommending going to 99 seats total on the interior. As I mentioned, there were two conditions of approval, the water credit one we are recommending to strike, The second condition, this one I'm actually recommending a modification to, I would suggest because the Planning Commission does have to allow for a project to partake in the parking in-loop program. However, after reviewing the traffic analysis that was done for this, I'm not convinced it's the correct calculation and that we may actually be asking for a too many parking spaces in lieu. The fee may be too large. So I would recommend that this condition be modified to approving for the project to be part of the parking in lieu program, however paying the correct fee based on staff's review of the traffic study that was done to determine what the actual parking impacts will be from this project. So the Planning Commission's role in this is approving the project to use the parking in lieu program if necessary and but giving leave to staff to determine what that correct amount is, because I'm not convinced that the number here in front of you is the correct number. So with that, staff is actually recommending the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to approve this project. As I mentioned, it's just an expansion of an existing restaurant into a space that was previously a full, a quick serve restaurant essentially next door, char steakhouse and with the conditions modified as I mentioned in my presentation. And I'm available for questions.

Question.

Yeah. How much water is the city allocating for this project? I know it's enough for them to get three seats. I can't remember the exact amount off the top of my head, but I can look that up.

So how are they getting... The city had a very small amount of commercial water left. So they can get 10 for the existing space.

There's 10 existing, and then we're adding three. That's a total increase of 13, which gets them to 99. I don't know the water amount, but I know the seating amount.

That is true. My second question... Kind of sort of unrelated, but tenant improvements were occurring today without a valid building permit? Or do they have a building permit? How do they get a building permit when they don't yet have approval for the project?

You can get a building permit to do something. They just can't occupy the use yet. So essentially they went at risk. They paid for a building permit, got the plans done, and decided to do the improvements without having the entitlement.

Okay. So, and again, I'm going to just putting on my hat, my former hat as a water person, that the district requires a permit before building permits issued. Okay.

And I think that that's because there's 10 seats existing there already.

We still have to issue a permit for those 10 seats. Okay. And we have a couple places in Carmel right now that did tenant improvements without getting permits ahead of time, and it's a problem. Gotcha.

I will pass that along to the community planning building department. Thank you for that.

And then, do they have to make special findings for the parking lot fee to qualify for that?

No, sir.

I thought there were special findings.

I don't believe so. No, it's just an approval by the Planning Commission.

Okay. All right.

It's not like a variance. There's not like a list of special variance findings.

I thought there were special conditions where they qualify for the in lieu of parking fees.

Well, they don't have, the reason that they need the parking in lieu, if they do, is because they don't have anywhere to park anything. That's right, yeah, so it's not a condition. It's more of a situation. Situation, okay, all right.

Chair, I have a question. Go ahead. Thank you for your report, Mr. Swanson. Sure. It was difficult for me to see what the floor plan is for this expansion. I understand now there will be... We're going up to 99 seats and I presume 14 of them, is that correct? Or 13 of them are planned for this new area.

The area in yellow, that's right.

Are these four tables with three chairs each? What is going in there? Is it the same kitchen? Is there a kitchen area going in there? And cooking materials? Are they using the bar in the other area? Are they installing a wet bar? What is planned for this space? And does this space have a separate, this is a separate use permit, correct?

This is the expansion of an existing use permit. So this use permit will supplant the previous use permit. It'll grant... For the entire space? That's correct, the entire space. So we're essentially creating a larger restaurant. If you remember, this used to be Canton and Aluka was the larger restaurant.

Yes, yes, yes.

And the smaller space was the saloomery, essentially like a deli, still related to the restaurant in a way.

It was an ancillary use.

Yeah, but in this case, what they're doing is essentially turning the entire space into char restaurants. The applicant is here and they can speak to the actual uses, like how the space is being used. I think they'd be better suited for that than I would be. But this is the site plan that we processed. You can see there are some seats, looks like four at the bar, and some tables with chairs around them in the main floor area. But the operator can speak to how the kitchen serves the two different spaces.

Thank you. Yeah. Brandon, this is a full-line restaurant, correct? That's correct. And I was under the impression that a full-line restaurant could only have one bar. I believe. So I'm just, maybe I'm not. Is this considered a separate bar?

Yeah, this is, I don't believe, but again, we'll have to get the operator to speak to this. I don't believe this bar is meant to be a bar in that it's where it's like an alcohol served bar.

It's not dedicated? It's going to serve food there? That's right. Of course, they probably serve food at the other bar too, don't they?

That's my understanding, but I think it's a good question. We had a long discussion about this last time.

In the four-line restaurant definition, they can only have one bar.

Yes.

And we changed the use of the proposed bar to a food, no, we changed it to a food serving, became a food serving. Like a food station.

Isn't that what it is? Yeah, so we'll want, let's ask the operator what the intent is there, and if we need to condition that accordingly, we can.

All right, so any other questions for staff? Okay, I'd like to invite the applicant to come up and make their presentation.

Good evening, everyone. Thanks for working this that late. I really appreciate it. So I'd like to speak, I'd like to answer some questions, whatever you like. So just in summary, We took over Continental Luca and the deli next door. My interesting thing was previously was the same owner who owned both, but the deli wasn't kind of shut down, wasn't doing good. So when we took over, that was the plan. So to join that side, to become like one restaurant. But in order to do it, we thought we're going to create some kind of just a nice complimentary lounge to the bar, to the restaurant. And that's the plan that you see around. And that's all.

So can you speak about the use of this bar or whatever it is in the new location?

No. So we're creating kind of a lounge type, like a lounge. Just couches, custom-made couches, just comfortable space. Some people can sit down and have a drink. You know, but my understanding is it's going to be all like one restaurant. It's going to be like one use of one restaurant. My intention is I'm going to just kind of serve maybe small bites with the drinks, but it's just going to be a lounge. People can hang out, have a drink, because I think we need this in Carmel.

You're not going to have the same menus in the other, in the char steak?

No, I wouldn't say. I mean, like now if we... If we, for example, play out the seating where sometimes we can sit at a long table, have a dinner or something, we might. But my intention in general is going to be a lounge. It's just going to be small bites, just hors d'oeuvres with the drinks. Because I'm not going to have big tables where people can come and sit down and have dinner. in normal day-to-day. That's not my plan. I'm doing something what I feel is needed in Carmel. Something that's high-end, classy lounge that people can hang out, have a drink, couple, come and enjoy themselves.

Yeah. Go ahead, yeah.

Are you still doing the concept at the former bar on the next block? So yeah, the former Sadie's. Oh yeah. So that was, okay. So the bash bar is still going.

Oh yeah. Okay. We're, we're very close to open. Yeah. But it's, but we remodeling and it's going to be like something that Carmel would be proud of.

So I do have a question in relation to the bar and this, the new area. Um, and we bring this up because, and it's been mentioned already, this was a substantial discussion in the previous commission in relation to a different restaurant. And, um, This bar here, where the four stools are indicated, there's nobody mixing drinks there and serving drinks there?

So it is going to be like, it's going to be, so exactly the idea that I'm trying to do is going to be a high-end lounge. So this bar is going to represent the high-end bottles of like whatever liquor we're going to serve. We're not going to... You know, actually, I see the plans that we have for seats there or five seats there. I am not planning to have these seats there because I am not going to have, like, a bartender hanging out there all the time. You know, we'll be like an assistance. Like, the main bar is in charge. This bar is going to be just like there. We have all the high-end liquor differentiated from the other bar. And people can go there and grab bottles and serve people, but it's not going to – yeah, it's not like – It's not like the way I'm doing because we already have the existing bar and char. This is going to be just a lounge with a presentation of just a corner where I have all the liquors there and have a bar top.

So I guess, may I? So we ran into a similar situation with another restaurateur. And so I think what we would be looking for is no bar seating in this space.

So I'm not aware of what was the situation that you're mentioning.

But it had to do with the restaurant definition, the full-line restaurant definition, allowing only one bar in a restaurant. And so in this case, because this is part of the restaurant, we would have to say that there will not be any bar seating allowed.

So let me say it the way that I'm understanding. Is the issue, is the seats around the bar?

You can't, a full line restaurant cannot operate multiple, cannot have multiple bars. You can only have one bar. So if this is going to be, you know, under the char, steak, restaurant, you know, use permit, It can't be a bar. You can't have a separate bar in this room, which I know is not really what you're trying to do, is kind of create a lounge with a bar in there, but it isn't allowed under one use permit for one full-line restaurant.

Great. So this is a little bit new to me. So basically, you have a rule right now in place that in a restaurant, a full-service restaurant, you're allowed one bar, right? This is it? It's clear as that? Perfect. So if the issue is the seats around the bar, actually, I just mentioned it before, knowing the details, that I'm not planning to have seats on that bar.

Yeah, except I think I missed the one bit of that, which is the bar. If you're making drinks and serving drinks, that would be considered a bar.

The way we handled this on another permit was... We didn't call it a bar. We called it a service counter. So you can mix drinks there, and then you can take them out and serve them to your clientele. but it can't be a bar with a bar where people can come up or stand there. They can't pick up the drink and have the drink there.

Great. You have to call it something besides a bar. No, totally. I'm being transparent with you. Like the idea of this next door, it's a high-end lounge. What's missing in Carmel. The idea of how we came up to build a bar there, because we need to contain this very high-end liquor there. It's going to be a very high-end... Bourbon, tequila, whiskey, cognac, all that. So in the original bar, we cannot have this high-end thing. I have to put it in a place where it's kind of like the bar so people cannot get close to it. And that will be where we're featuring. Now, are we going to go behind that bar and grab these bottles and serve? Absolutely. Am I going to have people sit on this bar? Absolutely not. Most of the time, I'm not going to even have a bar.

You're talking about this space now. Yeah, I'm talking about this space.

It's all about this space. So I need the display. And then I need the countertop because I have to have, you know, like a dishwasher and all that stuff. So I need to. Yeah. But I am not building a similar bar next door. I have a bar. So I don't need people to sit there around and hang out. And just this is not my intention.

Right. Well, that's what we can't approve. So if you can make that work.

Yeah, totally.

Can I offer another thought? Totally.

Actually, we are on the same page without, like, this is my plan.

So if, and Brandon, I'm looking at you, but if they were to propose a separate use permit application, for a limited food service and beverages. Oh, yeah, I guess. And I don't know, yeah, sharing a kitchen would probably be.

Yeah, because Bashar, this space, this new space is served by the kitchen of Char Restaurant. It's all the same kitchen. Definitely, which is, yes. But I think to your guys' point, we can condition it in such a way that there is only one bar serving alcohol in the space, in the totality of the building.

Yeah, the way we did it before, they could prepare alcohol there. You could display it, but you just can't serve it there.

So you can store it and display it, but you cannot serve it there.

I think that's how we, we didn't talk about displaying before, so that I'm a little shaky ground there.

I'm a little confused, because it doesn't sound that different from the one that we And this space also has plumbing. I can't tell from this diagram. So it has plumbing. You're putting a separate dishwasher in here and everything?

Yeah, it has everything. Yeah, it's like a service area. So...

The intent is it would be a service area for staff. So staff could clean up and they could prepare whatever they're preparing, whether it's alcohol or small bites or whatever. But it just can't be a bar where people sit there and, you know, a bartender mixes you a drink and then serves it to you.

Definitely, that's not the plan definitely is not the plan that we can condition it So yeah, definitely is not a plan to have people sitting on that bar Like I will definitely guarantee that there is no seats will be in that bar now people my step going behind the bar and Service from that we're gonna do that.

Yeah, that's That's serve staff. Yeah Yeah, you need to take the seating off from this bar diagram okay, so Any more questions for the applicant?

I have another question. Maybe this is more for Brandon, but I seem to recall in the previous discussion about full-line restaurants, the entire full-line restaurant has to have the same menu. Is that not correct? The same what? The same menu.

I don't believe that's a requirement. There's a requirement. I've been wheeling through the full line restaurant code to try to find the section that actually talks about bars. But what it talks about with the menu is there has to be a menu that you sit down with. It doesn't limit to only one type of menu within the whole space.

And you have to sit down and a server has to bring you a menu. And then you can't go to a counter and order.

It just says, customer shall be provided with individual menu as well seated at a table or counter. But I'm trying to find, and forgive me, but I can't find the specific language that says only one bar in a restaurant, but I'll keep looking for that.

It's going to be in our minutes. Chair, it will be in our minutes from last month's meeting. Forgive us. We're working to be consistent. Last month, a different restaurant in town proposed something similar, not the same. Also, wonderful concept. Love your concept. And agreed, very much something that would be just perfect for here in Carmel. And at the same time, We're working very hard to understand the code and to be consistent with the way we request our business owners to apply the code. So that's why you see us going back and forth. Because my notes show that we asked to remove the dishwasher and the wine cooler. I don't know if we...

Here's the language I use. Separate bar rooms are prohibited. So you have another room and you can't put a bar in there. So a restaurant cannot operate multiple bar counters or separate bar lounge rooms. So it can be a lounge, but it can't be a bar lounge. You can serve alcohol there.

What is the definition of bar? Pardon? I just want to, because it's, you know, as you know, like, I've been in this business here for 22 years, and I'm here to definitely work with you. Like, this is, you know, already you know, like, my record, how much I appreciate this town, and I respect all the rules. But I want to, like, just understand that, What's the definition of bar? To say not allowed a bar? And I don't know if I might ask right now, I think you made the decision already. What is the downside?

You're asking for the definition of bar?

For you, when you say not another bar, what's the definition of bar?

Well, the language I'm reading says bar counters.

Okay, so that means seating?

It says you can't have multiple bar counters or separate bar lounge rooms. So a bar would have a counter.

So when you have a counter, and may I ask why it's not allowed to have another counter in the restaurant?

It just says you can't have separate bar rooms or multiple bar counters.

We're not suggesting that. This is just what it says. We're not suggesting that.

You have very good questions. Your questions are good. You're trying to understand it, just like we always are, too.

We're trying to be fair and consistent.

Because I'm here being in this business so much and so long. I'm happy even to help in this, because to understand what would hurt, for example, the way CF is a layoff, what is the downside that hurt Carmel by the Sea having a bar there and a countertop there? What is the downside?

So let me try this one. So Carmel by the Sea just historically has an interesting relationship with alcohol. So a lot of our codes that go back Quite a ways have to do with that history that the city has with alcohol together looking at things like we only have three drinking establishment use permits within the city like that's categorically Capped thing so the city has an interesting relationship with alcohol will start there the second thing as I've been sitting here running through this is I did find the section and where I believe the planning commission has been in the past is that in section D, 3D, where it defines, I'm going to say it out loud so we keep it in our heads, of 1714, 3D, it says businesses will primarily rest at full line and that no more than 20% of the total number of seats are at a bar. or in a separate bar room so what the planning commission i believe has done historically now that we're talking this through and i'm kind of remembering is those are treated in the singular so the way that it's written is no more than 20 of the total number of seats so you meet that threshold with the number of seats but are at a bar, so singular, or, not both, or in a separate bar room. So it doesn't, it makes it clear, it seems, the way this has been interpreted over time is that it's a singular bar. I don't find anything in our code that says you're limited to one bar, but the way this has been interpreted in the past, and I believe this is how you guys got there on VIN, too, is that it's a singular, either a bar or a separate bar room, not both, not two bars. So that's the best I can offer the commission on that. The definition of a bar, I think we don't define that in our code, but we tend to use our standard Webster's dictionary definitions where a bar is somewhere where alcohol is served from. So that's the best I can offer the commission.

So what you're reading there, Brandon, says, I mean, is this correct? A restaurant cannot operate in multiple bar counters or separate bar lounge rooms.

Where section is that, sir?

That's just an interpretation.

That's not exact language. I believe what I read, I know that what I read is directly out of the municipal code. I believe that you guys got to those words through that interpretation.

I think we got there because it said a bar.

That's a bar.

A bar made it singular.

Or in a separate bar room. But that or is defining that it's not one and, it's either or.

Right. Yeah. But we're not separate room anymore, though. What's the question? We are not separate room anymore.

Oh, no, that's true. But I think the issue at hand for the Planning Commission is that what the language reads is that you either get one or the other. It's either at a bar, so a single bar, or a separate room. So take that first one where it says a bar, a single bar. The proposal here shows two bars. So I think that's the issue at hand for the Planning Commission is how to wrestle with the code saying you're only allowed a bar and this having two things functioning as a bar. So if we can figure out a way to make that second space in the new area not function as a bar, then I think the Planning Commission can find a way to approve it. So that's what we're all trying to figure out.

The way we did it with VIN was it became a... A staff service station.

Yes, service station.

Service station. So the staff could wash dishes there. They could make drinks. They could do whatever they needed to do to service the clientele.

But I still can't display bottles and everything, right?

Yeah, you have to have the inventory there to make the drinks. So how you display them, I think that's up to the operator.

But in order to wash dishes and do a service, we're going to have the separation divider, which is a counter.

Yeah, I think you just can't have chairs at it.

Which is, I'm initially planning that.

Yeah.

I mean, the counter would serve the service station. That's absolutely, yes.

I'm with you on the same page with that. I mean, ideally, you would, you know, a lot of times in a traditional bar, the bartender mixes the drinks up at the highest level. And then he has a lower level where he's, you know, ideally with a service station, the lower level would be where they were, you know, doing the mixing the drinks and so forth and then taking them out to the customers.

Yeah.

But, you know, we, you know, it's just call it a staff service station, not a bar. And then I think we're good.

Yeah, no, no, absolutely. I appreciate your help in this and making it happen. I'm here to work with you, like wherever we can make it happen.

We also want to try to make businesses so they can operate the way they need to operate or want to operate or whatever your vision is for your restaurant. Yeah, thank you. No, I appreciate that. Within the context of what we can do.

We have to go by the code.

So, okay. I don't think we have any other questions for you, unless you have something else.

Just a little comment about the 86 seats and the 106 seats. This started when we came in to apply, and it was kind of like we had kind of some extra seats. We applied based on what we have, and then apparently it ended up like not having enough of the seats that we thought that we have, right? So we changed to 199.

It's about not having enough water credits. Exactly. So when water becomes available, then you can expand.

That would be great if we have this option because, yeah, I'm accepting the 99 seats. But in the future, if we can have a little more, it would be great. Thank you. Okay. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Is there anyone from public here who wants to make any comments regarding this application? Oh, got a hand up. Finally. All right.

Go ahead.

What do you got, though?

Yes, sorry. I'm Cody with Hare Construction. I had my hand up for a while there. Sorry, I was going to try and help chime in there. But you guys kind of got to the same conclusion. But this has always been, we can change the name to a service counter, but it's always been a service bar where it's a secondary place. People come and sit down. They're not ordering from the actual bar itself. The countertops used for the servers to pass to each other. But it sounds like you guys got to that point already. So that was the intent behind that as well. Okay. Thank you for those comments, Kevin.

All right. I'm going to close the public hearing, open it up to the commissioners. Anybody just wants to make your comments, go ahead. I do.

And actually I can bring this up later, but this has come up time and time again. We really need to get a definition for what is a bar, and we've talked about ABC licenses for a bar, which is literally no children are allowed in there and its primary purpose is to serve alcohol, versus This type of situation where now we're literally just cutting everything so thin with what is a service bar, what is a bar? And displaying alcohol, does that create it as a bar for the definition of the restaurant? Anyway, I think we need clarification. We need to have a discussion about this. And if we need to have code changed to get those definitions in, it would benefit everybody.

Agreed, agreed. Yeah, it's a big issue and it seems to be a recurring issue too. Go ahead, Commissioner Albert.

Thank you, Chair. I don't see the difference between having someone be able to make drinks at a counter and having someone be able to make drinks at a counter with people sitting there. They're both a bar to me. And I admit I'd like to get to yes on this. And at the same time, I would like to be consistent with the way we've applied a very similar question just last month. And I am not convinced that if we give the direction and the assurance that all that needs to be done here is remove four seats and it's all good and that they can display alcohol and they can have servers mix drinks That, to me, is still a bar. I'm very willing to be talked out of that, but that just sounds like a bar to me. And I would like to be consistent.

Can I add one more thing? Yeah, go ahead. So at our last meeting, when we had this discussion, the term, a bar, remember was in my opinion i'm saying you know a bar is one or i think there was you could have a bar in this room and a bar in that room but is a bar one bar or is it a bar in this room and a bar in that room so that's again why i think we really need to get better direction yeah i would i would agree and i remember um making a comment at the last meeting that

Because a lot of it is hinged on the grammar. What does A bar mean? It means it's singular. And the whole idea was that, well, it's one bar, but it's in two different places. And I rejected that completely because it made no sense to me. But I'm about seeing, I'm agreeing with Commissioner Alborn, that this doesn't strike me as fundamentally different from the one we talked about last time. And I don't know how we could be consistent and come to a different conclusion.

Well, and one way, Commissioner Roos, we could consider this. I mean, if someone could walk into this space, which I'm quite sure is going to be stunning, and have a seat and order some tapas and order a drink, and if they can do all that independently, without the servers needing to go into the full-line restaurant to get a drink or perhaps process a ticket or something like that, then indeed it's functioning independently as a bar.

No, I disagree. Okay. If you can't go up to the bar, a bar, and order a drink, then it's not a bar. You know, if you go into this lounge and you want service, a server is going to walk over to you and hand you a menu. And you're going to order off the menu, and then they're going to go somewhere, this service station, they're going to make the drink, and they're going to bring it back to you. That's how a full-line restaurant operates. And the reason why we made this definition that it was singular is because it said A, right? That's singular. So I don't disagree that there needs to be some more clarification on this, because obviously we spent a lot of time talking about this last time, and here we are again. But I think the distinction that I'm OK with it is that the restaurant has a right and has a need to create server stations. And all restaurants have sub-server stations. You go into it, you'll see a service station where they just do a limited amount of things. They're mixing drinks. They're picking up bread. They're getting condiments. They're not preparing the whole dinner. And then the full line of the kitchen is bringing out the plated dinners or service. And then the servers are adding the drinks and whatever ancillary things that go with it. But as long as you're getting a menu, you're sitting down, getting a menu, somebody's bringing it to you, then you're not at a bar.

And is this what we approved last month? That's what we approved last month, yeah. So you would consider this the same? I'd say it's exactly the same.

We were right up against the same thing. Like I said, I don't disagree that we need to have better language so we don't get into this sort of...

But this is the same as what we approved last month, then I'm fine.

Yeah, it's going to be, you know, and I think... It's going to be called a service center. And those seats, which it shows there on the floor plan, those need to be removed.

If I may, I'll read from the minutes that we just approved. It says the removal of the allowed seats at the service bar in the expansion to only allow its use as a service station. Right. That's what we did last time.

And service station, the definition of service station includes the ability to mix drinks. By your definition.

Yeah. Just by extension of logic. I mean, that's service. You're providing the service that is consistent with a restaurant. That's the type of service activities you would, you know. I mean, they can't do open-heart surgery there. They can only do...

Yeah, I'm just being facetious, but it's a service station.

They provide the service that is relevant to that particular use of space.

I think the business requirements have changed. Back then when the definition was written in the code, there was no this use case. It's called a use case where you have the VIP lounge with the special drinks, with the very expensive wines, and with a small group of people lounging and having access to different set of drinks. And that seemed to be a requirement now. We see it again and again. So I think we have to, if this is a systemic thing that's going to happen again and again, we have to have more clear language.

Well, I agree exactly what you're saying. I think that we need to have a flexible enough system that allows business owners to adjust to what the market is and come up with ideas of how to express You know, create an experience. Really what, you know, I'm sure what you're trying to do in your establishment is create an experience. I mean, I've been to some of your restaurants. You know, you really create an experience. You really work on it. And I think you think about that a lot. Plus, I know you have a lot of different restaurants and you try different modules, models, different places. You've got your restaurant. I don't know if you still own the one at Del Monte where you do this. It's kind of like Chipotle's where you walk in. That's a different model. But our code should, within the context of what the intent of the community is with regards to something which is controversial like alcohol, we need to be as flexible as we can to allow business owners to create the models that make their business profitable and enjoyable for the customers. Absolutely.

So, Chair, just to confirm, the use permit for this space will be an expansion of the full-line restaurant use permit. They will not be separated. It's not separate. My understanding is it's not a separate use permit. It could not be sold separately.

It's all one space.

It's all one space. It could not be subdivided.

Is it worded as an expansion of the existing use permit?

It is. Even the conditions talk about this use permit. I can't remember the exact word, but supplanting the previous use permit. This becomes the functional use permit for the entire space. So, no, that cannot be subdivided, sold, operated separately, anything like that. It's one use permit for the entire footprint on this floor plan that's in front of you right now.

Okay.

Thank you.

I do think we need to make a note in the resolution that the drawing shows four seats at this bar.

I took a note that I would assume we put a condition on that changes the name on all plans to staff service counter and then remove all the seats at that staff service counter.

So moved.

So I just want to make sure that before you, whoever decides to make a motion, that we also include striking condition number 25, changing it to 99 seats, and then also giving staff leave to calculate the correct parking and low fee.

Okay, so the conditions are going to be that the bar should be change to a service station. The seats should be moved off the plan. Condition number 25. Where's the 99 C thing?

So strike condition 25 and then just in the entitlement is for 99 seats, not 106.

And then the... We're going to remove condition number 26, or we're going to make it something new?

Leave 26, but change the, remove that there's a fixed dollar amount. The dollar amount will be calculated by staff based on a corrected traffic study.

Okay. That's the motion.

Second.

Okay. Any further discussion?

No.

All right. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Allborn?

Yes.

Commissioner Karapetkov?

Yes.

Commissioner Locke? Yes. Commissioner Bruce? Yes. And Chair LePage?

Yes. Thank you. Okay, and that, are you doing a director's report?

I just have a couple of things. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, so I want to share with you one, you guys probably already met Erwin. Erwin's our acting community planning and building director for probably about a month, month and a half now, because tomorrow, my other update is we have interviews, both the first technical interview with the technical interview panel and final interviews with Marissa and myself for community planning and building director. So we will hopefully have somebody selected and in place.

You're down to a candidate?

We have a top three that are going through a selection panel tomorrow and then final interview with Marissa and I to make a selection. So hopefully tomorrow or Friday we'll be making an offer to somebody.