Planning Commission - Special Meeting

I'd like to call to order the Special Planning Commission meeting and request a roll call from the clerk, please.

Planning Commissioner Alborn?

Here.

Planning Commissioner Karapetkov?

Here.

Planning Commissioner Locke?

Here.

And Planning Commissioner Ruse?

Here.

Michael LePage is absent.

And I would like to call to order the special meeting of the HRB with a roll call, please.

Board Member Dyer?

Here.

Board Member Gualtieri? Here. And Chair Krohman?

Here.

And it looks like both Board Member Reinstein and Board Member Boris are not present.

Thank you. Okay. At this time, Shelby, we need to take public appearances. If any members of the public are... have matters not on the agenda today, they could speak at this time. And please limit your comments to no more than three minutes. Is there anyone online?

No, ma'am.

Okay. Moving on. Are there any announcements? Okay.

I have an announcement, actually. Sure. would be interested in this. But we have, as part of AIA Monterey Bay, we have some people have gotten together and prepared really what's going to be a great presentation on your former chair, Don Goodhue, which is going to take place November 19th at Sandbox in Sand City. So we'll give you more information and hopefully you're on our mailing list so you can get that information.

Thanks. Thank you. At this time, would the clerk please read the public comment guidelines for special meetings? Thank you. All right, then this evening, under our first public hearing, today we have MP 26218, the Harrison Memorial Library, consideration of a track one municipal project design review referral for MP 26218. for exterior changes and site improvements located at the library in the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ocean Avenue in the Central Commercial District and Downtown Conservation District. At this time, I would ask staff to give their presentation and let us know what actions are needed this evening.

Good evening. I believe we have the city attorney online and he's going to just kick off the meeting with a brief overview of these joint meeting procedures and then I'll be back.

Thank you. Thank you. So I believe that there's a PowerPoint that I can kind of quickly go through here to provide you with some information since it's a joint meeting where there's some nuances to this. Okay, we'll go to the next slide, please. You should have a copy of the printout for these procedures in front of you. If not, then you can see them on the board. I'm not going to read this slide to you. As a matter of fact, you're doing great so far. You've called your meeting to order, and you've asked for public comment and the rest. So I would focus on step five of the process here, and I will read this one. It says that the chair would request that the staff explain what actions are being requested of the HRB and the Planning Commission. Mainly number one is that the HRB will first consider whether to issue a determination of consistency with the secretary standards for rehabilitation. And two, if the HRB makes this determination of consistency, then the Planning Commission will decide whether to make a CEQA determination and approve the design. All right, next slide, please. So since the HRB is going first, the next step will be for the HRB to request staff to make a presentation regarding the matter before the HRB. And then the staff would make that presentation. And then these next steps are, I'm sure, very recognizable. It's consistent with your standard meetings where the chair would ask for questions from the members of staff. then request public comment, next slide. Following public comment, bring it back to the board for deliberations on the issue before you. The chair can then ask if there's a motion by a member of the board to adopt the resolution and then assuming there is a motion, then a second, and then you would need to vote on that. Next slide, please. So as I said in my earlier comments, if the HRB approves the determination of consistency, then the chair of the planning commission should ask staff to make the presentation on whether the planning commission should make a CEQA determination and approve the design review. And then these next steps are consistent with the same pattern we saw earlier. And as is typical for your meetings, Planning Commission Chair will ask for questions from the commissioners, then request public comment, next slide. Then public comment will be closed by the Planning Commission Chair, request deliberation on the issues before the Planning Commission, then the Chair can ask if there is a motion, and if there is a motion, then request a second, and then there would be a roll call vote on the motion, next slide. The planning commissioner can then announce the special meeting, which is what this is, joint meeting, that the special meeting of the planning commission is being adjourned. And then the chair of the HRB would announce that their portion of the special meeting is being adjourned as well. And as you know, the planning commission has a regular meeting also scheduled for today. So once all of these steps have been completed, then the HRB would be excused from the meeting. the Planning Commission chair can then call to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission. So I know this sounds like a lot of steps, but I think it's pretty consistent with what your experience has been previously. It's just that we had to kind of fold in the fact that this is a joint meeting and try to figure out who's on first here. So hopefully this has been of some help to you. I'm available to answer questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

Okay, I guess at this time, we'll request the staff make a presentation regarding the subject of whether the HRV should issue a determination of consistency with the Secretary's standards for rehabilitation.

All right.

Thank you, everyone. My name is Katherine Wallace. I'm one of the planners here, and I'll be presenting the Harrison Memorial Library Rehabilitation Project this evening. As you know, the library is located at the northeast corner of Lincoln and Ocean. We'll start us off with a little bit of background. The building was constructed in 1927 after Ella Reid Harrison donated funds for the library in memory of her husband, the California Supreme Court Justice Ralph Chandler Harrison. The design is attributed to our local designer builder, MJ Murphy, as well as consulting architect Bernard Maybeck. It's a Spanish eclectic style building, pulling elements from Spanish, Mexican, and Monterey colonial building traditions. And this property is listed on the Carmel Inventory. It is significant under criterion one, event, and three, architecture. As one of the first major public works by the city of Carmel, the Harrison Memorial Library continues to be a success, both as an excellent example of Spanish eclectic design integrated into the landscape, and as a seminal social institution of Carmel. Here you can see a couple of our early historic photographs and the recognition of Bernard Maybach and M.J. Murphy. Additionally, in 1949, Robert R. Jones designed a large rear addition. The addition, which is at the rear portion of the building, was constructed outside of the period of significance for the property, which is 1927, the date of original construction. You can see the Sanborn maps, which show the property was recorded in 1930, and then again, the 1962 Sanborn shows how the building has been expanded all the way to the rear law line. So excitingly, the library is approaching its centennial, and it will be rehabilitated by more Rubel Udell architects in a manner consistent with the standards for rehabilitation, which I'll just refer to as the standards going forward, primarily to facilitate seismic accessibility and building systems upgrades. There are many project components, and so here's a summary, and then we'll be going through them kind of one by one. So this evening, we'll just be looking at the exterior of the building. And exterior changes to the building and to the site need to be considered both by the Historic Resources Board and by the Planning Commission. These changes include, but are not limited to, new columns along the east elevation to laterally stabilize the building. The removal and reinstallation of the clay roof tiles to accommodate waterproofing, roof sheathing, insulation, sprinkler piping, electrical routing, et cetera. And so that would result in a four inch increase in the ridge height to be screened by gutters. There's also a new elevator override that will be visible from the rear and to the west of the building. Additionally, there's a new modest overhang above the new north entry door. There will be modification of the north rear elevation fenestration. a proposed installation of a second railing at the south balcony, and various site improvements, and we'll now kind of speak to each of those in a little more detail. Here you can see the elevation views of the east elevation. The existing is the condition shown at the bottom of the slide, proposed at the top, so you'll see there's going to be more columns and they're going to be a little bit bigger. None of this is very visible from from the public right of ways. So now I'll talk about kind of the components of the project affecting the roof, the three bullets there. The first one here involves, as I said, removal of the roof, essentially, to fit in what we need to fit in for this major project. And the result will be a four inch increase in the ridge height. to be screened by gutters. The building does feature gutters currently. They are copper gutters. There are some areas where there are no gutters present and where the applicant is proposing to install gutters. Here you can see the new elevator override, which has been story pulled. And on the right-hand side of your screen, in the red circle, you can see the modest new overhang that will be installed above the new north entry. And then that shaded red there area, that's the portion of the elevator override that would be visible from Ocean Avenue. Moving to the rear of the building, The architects have proposed modifying the fenestration. And again, this all dates to 1949, so it's not original. In addition to the rear windows and door, there's also one window on the west elevation, pictured in the middle of your screen. And that window, the opening size will not change, but it will have fewer lights, fewer divisions. I will also say that these windows are currently wood, and the architect is proposing to use a brass material. Here you can see that historic photo of the original library that featured a good amount of glazing. And so the architects were working with that original condition to kind of inspire their design. The architect will speak to this in more detail. But here you can see a few of the kind of proportion studies that they were playing with on the bottom of your screen. And now moving back to the front of the building. So currently the balcony railing is not up to code. The balcony is not accessible to the public and the architects would like to open this as an amenity as part of the project. The architect has proposed a second railing. As I said, the current railing is not up to building code. Here you can see a rendering of the architect's proposal, which features a wrought iron top rail and a few vertical elements with cable wires serving as the vertical pickets. The cable wires aren't visible here in this rendering. The intent was that they would disappear. Here you can see the existing condition on the left. The railing is 30 inches high with six and a half to seven inch spacing between the pickets. The architect did consider modifying the original balcony. To bring it up to code, it would look like what is shown on the right hand side of the screen, 42 inches high with four inch spacing. And here is that same proposal viewed from the inside of the library. And we can always come back to these The architect also considered potentially installing a glass second railing. There are concerns about how that would fare in our climate and the practicality of cleaning a glass railing. Moving on to the site, there's a few site elements. The architect is proposing to reinstall a walkway from Ocean Avenue up to the reading room patio. A walkway originally existed and it was removed circa 2004. You can see a picture of that walkway down at the bottom of your screen, the brick walkway. They are also proposing a new bulb out at the north entry where we toured today. Additionally, there's various equipment proposed for the west elevation lower level, the southeast corner of the site, and again, a backflow preventer at the east elevation behind the gate. So the architect can speak to these elements in more detail. Here's just a drawing showing how there did used to be a walkway leading from Ocean up to that reading room patio. So this portion of the presentation is geared towards our Historic Resources Board members. They will be considering issuing a determination of consistency with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation. The city did have the project reviewed by a third party architectural historian and the conclusion here is that the project does meet the applicable standards and recommendations for standards 6, 7, and 9 are implemented it will meet the standards. So I'll go through those three. Standard 6 speaks to deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced and when installing a new feature it will match the old replacement of missing features will be That part doesn't apply to this project. In any case, this standard is relevant because of the gutter proposal, the proposal to install additional gutters on the building where gutters do not currently exist. If we're looking at the Preservation Brief 30, which speaks to the preservation and repair of historic clay tile roofs, that guidance suggests that Gutters should generally be replaced in kind to match the historic material. So copper, if appropriate to the building, is often preferred for use on historic clay tile roofs because of the durability and long-lasting qualities. So the plans do not currently specify a gutter material. It's a conversation we can have this evening as I believe both the board and the commission are aware The commission has been adding conditions of approval to projects relating to copper, and so we can discuss this evening if that is an appropriate condition for this project where copper gutters already exist. Standard seven simply speaks to appropriate cleaning methods when the building is cleaned at the end of the job, very gentle cleaning methods. And then standard nine... speaks to how new alterations in construction will not destroy any historic materials features that characterize the property. And the important part here is the new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials features size, scale, proportion to protect the integrity of the property. So just remember compatible, yet differentiated. So there are a few project elements relevant to this standard, and the consultant's recommendations are as follows. For the elevator override, the plaster on that mass should be differentiated from the plaster used everywhere else on the building, just to kind of call out that this is a new feature, you know, it's not original. Same concept for the new hardscape, the new walkway from Ocean Avenue. When you're installing the new walkway, it should be compatible yet differentiated. So for example, if we use flagstone, perhaps the pattern of the flagstone could be more tightly set or differentiated in some way from the rest of the hardscape on the property to identify that it's a 2027 feature. For the seismic upgrades, similarly, the cement stucco used on all those new columns on the east elevation should be differentiated from the rest of the stucco. I'll skip to the new window frames. The consultant requested the specifications for the burnished brass frames be provided and they have been added to the materials and the architect can speak more to that. In terms of the balcony railing, from a historic preservation standpoint, the preferred option is to keep the balcony closed to the public. However, there is a strong interest in opening up that balcony for public use. So we'll be discussing various options for that railing. And so now these slides apply both to the Historic Resources Board and the Planning Commission because this property is located in the downtown conservation district where our highest concentration of historic buildings is located. The municipal code requires both bodies to consider projects, historic projects in this district. So the HRB specifically will be making these four findings here. And then part two of the meeting, the code says that following action by the Historic Resource Board, the project shall then be scheduled for final review by the Planning Commission. Numbers one, two, and three have a lot of overlap with the standards themselves. And then number four on the slide speaks to how the proposed development would be consistent with the established design context of the conservation district and would not adversely affect the library or buildings on adjacent sites. So this slide speaks to a community-driven preliminary plaque proposal, which has been discussed at public meetings in the past, and we're bringing it here for preliminary feedback. You see here the title block where we have Maybeck and Murphy recognized. We have a proposal to install approximately a 16 inch long, eight inch high plaque by the front door. We do have a community member available this evening to speak further to this proposal, The intent is to recognize the designers of this beautiful building. The image on the lower right-hand side of the screen is just kind of an inspiration image. Comstock would often put these little tile plaques on his buildings. So that's kind of the design inspiration for such a plaque. The CEQA determination will be made by the Planning Commission, which they are well familiar with. And that concludes my presentation. We'll do these two-part motions. We have the architect online and he has a brief presentation and then we can discuss the following.

Thank you, Catherine. That was very helpful and clearly explained a huge amount of details of the project. Let me know when I should begin.

Catherine, before you leave, I'd ask the HRB team if they have any questions for you or other members of the staff. I have one quick one. So the railing height is the issue, right?

It's the height as well as the spacing of the vertical elements.

You couldn't put a lower, you couldn't hide the railing behind the existing railing now and make it compliant because it's not high enough.

The existing railing is not high enough, nor are the vertical pickets close enough together.

OK. Thank you. OK. At this point, we'll ask if members of the public wish to comment on this to include the architect or the project's person in charge. When you come forward, please come forward to the microphone and say your name.

Is this the wrong time? I just had a very quick question for the architect, so it seems like a good time to say as he's about to speak. My understanding of standard six is that when you're replacing a missing element, you do not differentiate it from the existing. Instead, you go to the archival element. documentation which we happen to have and reconstruct it as it was originally if it was missing. So since you all said it was there before, I just wonder maybe there's a different standard here, but I wanted to raise that for him.

Okay, thanks. So do we have the architect online?

I am online, can you all hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm going to share my screen and give a very brief overview. Catherine covered so much of the important information that we wanted to just maybe share a little bit about how we were thinking about the project and the decisions that went into some of the things you saw previously. So very brief project overview. Catherine's pretty much given that already. Talk about some of the specific exterior alterations that we were planning, and then obviously back to you all for discussion. I think just to highlight, a lot of our thinking in this project went into understanding that the 1927-1928 period of historic significance was the most important, though we cherish all old buildings, and so we want to be doing what we can throughout as well. There was a series of work in the 60s and 90s, as well as the major addition in the 40s. Just to refresh in all of our minds, some of the key historic character-defining features have to do a lot with the exterior, the cement walls, the wood overhangs and eaves, the carefully crafted components that go into that. The balcony is a really precious element as well as the overall character of all of the windows. So we always have those sorts of things in mind as we're working on these projects, and this one in particular. The project overview started primarily as accessibility improvements, seismic reinforcing, and system replacements, as Catherine mentioned, and also extends into very important aesthetic and functional enhancements to the building as well, both to be able to celebrate the last 100 years, but also look forward to the next 100 years of the building's life. One of the key kind of driving thoughts that we had when we were initially looking at this project was really about the site and how you interact with the building. The South Garden is beautiful and wonderful. It's had many iterations over the years. The idea that potentially we could reintroduce the South Walkway to make the gardens a little bit more accessible to folks with physical mobility challenges and other things. So that's definitely an important aspect of the project. And then really this idea of celebrating so much of what the village is about with all of the narrow passageways between buildings and courtyards throughout, thinking of this passageway through the library as a gallery space that really connects the historic entry on the south to this new accessible, really second entry, not a back door like it feels at the moment. So we'll touch on that in a little bit more detail talking about some of the thoughts about the north entry and the sidewalk at that location. This is what it looks like now, just as a reminder for all of us. Not a whole lot of indication here in the library except for the book drop. It's a door that's often closed, often open, but it feels very much like a back door. And we really wanted to bring that same sense of arrival for folks with accessibility challenges to the project. So that was a really important aspect of this. When we were considering how to do that, Katherine mentioned we did a lot of studies about proportions and sizes and scale of openings and really drew inspiration from both the beautiful arched windows and their construction and scale, as well as some of the original north-facing glazing that has unfortunately been removed over the years to just really get that sense of gravitas back to the north entry. We touched on the materials a little bit earlier, but to go into that a little bit more, we are proposing using a burnished brass metal window system. It's this really beautiful, elegant, warm material that super durable, low maintenance over time. It has a lot of the characteristics of the wood windows and probably the original 20s north-facing rectangular window that you just saw in the prior image. And it also evokes the original coloring. We did a paint analysis where we went down through the layers of paint over the years to find the original paint colors for the windows. And so we feel this brass color is really sympathetic and compatible with those historic things while still differentiating and knowing that this is done in 2026, 2027, and not in prior years. So we feel it's a really wonderful material to use for this condition. And you can see a quick rendering of how that looks on the north of the building, really being able to open up the entry and really celebrate the fact that this is the accessible entry to the building. If you've ever walked by that location along 6000, it feels very tight. There's a small tree that protrudes into the sidewalk and it's an area that people tend to congregate and there's not a lot of space. And so we would like to open it up a little bit and give a little more breathing room really be able to celebrate this as a true entry to the building, hence proposing the landscaped bulb-out, which gives a little bit of important relief at the north entry to allow people to congregate, really understand where you are, and circulate through the building. We'll touch briefly on the new elevator. Really the intent here is just to highlight the fact we very carefully located the elevator both to provide the maximum amount of accessibility within the building. I think for those of you who know the building well, it's essentially a two-story building that occurs on five levels. So connecting all five levels with an elevator is not quite possible, but we were able to locate it in a location that both connects four of the levels. and also is located outside of the period of significance, so we have purposefully located it within the 40s portion of the building, both to honor the historic integrity of the original footprint and also to minimize the visual impact of the elevator. A few additional thoughts on the balcony guardrail. We did get many requests from the community and from the library to be able to open the balcony back up in a safe manner. And so we have been studying many ways to do this and to provide a code-compliant railing. Catherine talked about the possibility of rebuilding it to meet code. While physically this is probably the easiest thing to do, it just simply doesn't meet the Secretary of Interior standards for what we need to follow. And you can tell very quickly looking at these two line drawings that it fundamentally alters the proportion and the feeling and the shape of the space. And so it's just a non-starter, unfortunately, from that. But we obviously had to look at it. We did spend a lot of time looking at alternatives. A lot of thought went into glass as a possibility. The reality of glass is it sounds wonderful, and you think that it's going to be this transparent. The reality is it gets dirty very easily, especially in a marine environment. You can see these images that we did not have to look very hard for that show what happens to glass in both a humid and coastal environment, but also with salt air. So we really... you know, didn't want to create a maintenance and longevity issue for this. So that led us to thinking about how can we minimize what you see but still provide a code compliance solution. And so that led us to this idea of using a very simple wrought iron frame that is compatible and referential to a lot of the wrought iron railings that currently exist at the library. and using very visually minimal vertical cable rails. So you get an indication that there is a railing there, but it's obviously different from the original. And because there's a color and material differentiation, you can still read the original proportions of the balcony and the railing that go along with it. And I'm happy to answer other questions, as is the rest of our team here, Buzzy Adele, our principal design partner, and John Lacascio, who's our team historian, all obviously valuable advice. But I just wanted to thank everyone for holding this special meeting for the project. We are passionate about what's happening at the library, and we're really grateful for the opportunity to talk with everybody about it. And I believe there was a question about standard six with respect to materials. And my understanding is certainly to address that question, when it's replacing something that's deteriorated or in poor condition and it's a one-for-one replacement, we would always strive to use original materials and profiles and work from as much of the original fabrication as we could. When there's more question, then it becomes sort of an open dialogue about what the best approach is. And with that, I will stop sharing the screen and I can figure out how.

All right, Mr. Hamilton, thank you very much for that. At this time, I'd like to ask the public if they have questions or comments, starting in person first and then moving to online. Can I ask one question before we?

Yeah, I want one too.

Okay. You want me to go first? Chris, do you have a detail of the gutter and the new kind of eave detail since you're raising the roof to provide, I suppose, mechanical areas and lighting and sprinklers perhaps? I just want to understand how that looks relative to the existing kind of edge of the building fascia detail.

We are clearly in the process of working that out still. The intention for that is essentially twofold. Because the roof would be higher, we would raise the height of the gutter, expose a little bit more of the roof fascia and end boards, but use the transition and height of the gutter in order to mask the height differential, but still be able to drain the roof effectively. So on the eave conditions, that's the plan. On the rakes, and other areas of the building, we would do a similar technique with the roof tile as it turns down and wraps over the rate conditions.

Are the gutters going to be a similar size or slightly bigger or, I assume, a little bigger?

Yeah, I think it's probably a combination, you know, using the general idea, existing gutters where we can and where we are proposing new gutters or replacement gutters that probably were there a long time ago but aren't there any longer, maybe a little bit larger to help mask that height differentiation. Thank you.

I had a question about the consulting architectural historian, Ms. Clovis. She recommended that the finish on the new concrete columns on the east side of the building be differentiated from the original cement stucco. Do you recommend that too?

Yeah, we would absolutely. That was, we may not have called that out specifically, but because they are concrete, we might not even finish them in stucco. We might just paint them so that they're obviously different. They're so minimally visible from the street and other areas. Our intention would be to just treat them as simply as possible. Thank you. Okay.

Any members of the public wishing to comment?

I'm Joe DiNucci, resident on the library board also. I am curious, ever since I heard about the problem with the balcony railing, and what I'm curious about is whether, is there any, it sounds like the resolution is gonna render a balcony that's not usable as a balcony. Am I right?

It's one of the items under consideration.

Yeah. Which seems disappointing to say, What would it take to make it usable and inviting and part of the second hundred years of the Harrison Library? I know there's many things to consider. The regulations are the regulations and they have to be met. But I just wonder if there's any interest in considering what would it take to make it an inviting and functional balcony, which is what was intended when it was built 100 years ago. That's all. Thanks for your consideration.

Thanks for that.

I can jump in just from our perspective. We'd absolutely love to do that, and one of the reasons we've worked so hard to find a solution that works both from the historic perspective, meets the Secretary of Interior standards, and is a safe solution so the public can go out there. But we understand that there are other considerations with that as well.

And Chris, this is Buzz, just to add to what Chris said and what the speaker comment was, you know, the original architects were working very much with a kind of inside-out connectivity, both visually and in terms of experience, so You know, that balcony was very much part of the, the use of the balcony was very much part of the original intention. So I think from a, it's important to keep that in mind in terms of the historical you know, harmony, if you will, with its visual, but it's also use. And our preferred and recommended study, which can be further studied, certainly was really trying to strike a balance of safety and the requirement, not just the need, but the requirement to meet current code for safety reasons and liability reasons. But, and then to differentiate it, but also to have it be minimal in its impact. So, you know, there may be some variations on that, but we thought we were heading in a very positive direction with our recommendation.

Okay, thanks for that. Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Hello, I'm Alexandra Fallon with the Carmel Public Library Foundation, and I would just like to echo the remarks by the architect, Buzzy Dell, and also by Joe DiNucci. And I think that if you ask the librarians, there are so many people who are always requesting to have outdoor use, to be able to step out onto the balcony. And it was, I think, back in the day, it had Adirondack chairs. And people would watch people stroll down Ocean Avenue. So it's an important feature. And so while we're restoring it, it would be nice to have that as a practical element, but also as part of what was intended historically. Thank you so much.

Thank you. PLEASE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, NICE WARM SUNNY DAY. MY NAME IS DONNA JETT. I ALSO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE LIBRARY. AND I'VE LISTENED TO YOUR REPORT, SO I SEE THREE OPTIONS. TEAR IT DOWN AND LEAVE IT OFF. FIX IT SO WE CAN USE IT. OR LEAVE IT AS IS. And obviously, you may not want to tear it down, but leaving it non-functional doesn't make sense either. So it would seem that there is a path. And I'm not a historian or an architect, but you People there are part of a group that will find a path to make it usable. And what they're saying, it will be different. I think we can all adjust to that. I don't think we're so... set in our ways that it was like 40 years ago that they could you know we could adjust it. So I think your charge is to find a path to let the balcony be upgraded to the standards of today. And I think you would consider that. Otherwise, you're going to have to tear it up. Because I think the public would be very annoyed, including visitors, to have that much money spent on a building and have space you can't use. That's unconscionable. So find a path to make it happen. Thank you.

Thank you. If I can just interject. Go ahead. I don't know. Or should I wait? Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I was wondering if our team's historian and consultant, John Lacazio, wanted to comment on the balcony direction and options.

Thanks, Buzz. I can certainly do so, but I can wait until all the speakers have finished. Okay. Yeah, whatever works.

I think we're nearing the speakers, so please just go ahead, sir.

Okay. So the balcony, as Chris pointed out, there are limited options for what can be done. Replacing the existing railing is the least desirable, not acceptable under the standards. The goal is to retain historic fabric. We don't want to radically alter the appearance of it and alter the proportions of it. Um, so adding a second rail is the only feasible option to keep that balcony functional. The goal would then be not to have it be invisible, which is not possible, um, but to have it be minimal, minimally visible, minimally impactful so that, um, you kind of don't notice it unless you're really, really looking for it. And that is the design that Chris and Buzz have come up with, is a very delicate, very thin railing that would make the balcony code compliant, but would not be obvious to someone looking from below. It would certainly be there, but it wouldn't be the first thing your eyes see. The historic railing would still be the first thing your eyes see. So we could accomplish it without radically altering the building's appearance. Glass, as Chris said, glass is always the best choice on day one, but day two, it's always problematic. So a very, very delicate metal rail is our best option for making that balcony usable.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to comment? Shelby, is there anyone online?

No, sir.

Okay. With that being said, we'll go ahead and move the discussion back to the board. Before we start that discussion, Mr. Hamilton, can you bring up your slide that has the railing on it, please, and show us your best course of action with the cables, what that looks like?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

I just have to find my control so I can get back there.

You might also note that we're intentionally showing it on the right as if the landscape wasn't in front of it, and the reality would be, as you see on the left, a fair amount of landscape would actually obscure a lot of it.

Yeah, and can you go to the slide before this that shows the glass railing as well? So is the intent to use the aircraft cable In between the stanchions of the railings, is that the intent that you guys would say is a viable course of action?

We were proposing using, not in the orientation shown in this photo, but a vertical orientation of the aircraft cable between the larger frames of the wrought iron. And all of that way behind the original historic rail.

Okay. And then go to the next one, please. And just keep that one up for a moment. And then I understand in the picture the railing's black. Is the colors up for any type of color? Is that correct?

I think that we are certainly open to thinking about the color of the rail. We chose the black wrought iron simply because there's a precedent for wrought iron rails throughout the project. A lot of the interior rails and actually the rail on the immediately adjacent historic entry has a very similar character to it.

Okay, thanks for that. So for our board, we kind of have three buckets to look at, right? We've got the new walkway leading up to the little seating area in the front. We've got the railing in the front, and we've got the back portion. So let's go ahead and talk about those three sections.

I guess I have one question for maybe the historian about the age of the actual stonework and flatwork in the south yard area.

It seems that most, if not all of that, has been replaced over time. The paths don't have the same configuration that they did historically. We don't know if any of the original stone was reused, but the paths are certainly not the same as they were in 1927.

Was that defined as a character-defining element to the structure?

The general landscape is, but the specific configuration of the paths has been changed. So is not. Okay, thank you.

I'd like to ask a question too. When we visited the upstairs room in the library earlier, we didn't go out on the balcony, but the doors were open. And can you tell me, is the railing on the west side usable? Was it ever used or is it just closed? I wasn't able to see that.

I can answer that question. It could be that the railing and the small area to the west of that room that you're describing used to be open to the public. It is blocked off currently right now by a low railing. And then the reason for that is it simply doesn't meet code requirements for width and ability to walk down it and turn around and those sorts of things. So we would propose keeping that portion closed.

So today, no, I didn't see anyone out on the balcony on the south elevation, but they could have gone there, right? And it's not safe, is that correct? The door is open, that's what I'm saying.

Yeah, my understanding, and someone from the library can correct me if I'm wrong, they often open the doors for ventilation and fresh air, but there are signs that say don't go out here. Okay, thank you.

Okay, so discussion on, let's tackle the walkway first.

Oh, the walkway?

Yeah.

I don't have a problem with the walkway.

Yeah, I think since the paving has been changed over the years, that the differentiation isn't that important to me. I think you can use the flagstone, and if it's newer flagstone, that's going to provide the differentiation.

Great. And what about the northern portion or the backdoor area? Any thoughts on that?

I'm supportive of the change.

Yeah, I think it's actually quite an improvement on what the existing is. The original elevation was quite impressive before the addition. And I think this gets back to the spirit of that. And I love the idea of creating that flow between the main entrance and the back entrance and making that not such a rear entry to it, but actually quite a wonderful, welcoming part of it that's accessible.

Agreed. And any concerns with any additional replacement gutter systems? Any specific concerns about the material?

Replaced in kind?

Replaced in kind with an understanding of, you know, I think the four inches is a fairly minimal dimension that could be easily replaced. shielded by, as he said, exposing a little more of the fascia or a little raising the gutter, etc.

Okay, so let's talk balcony.

Okay, this is a very tricky problem as we've been going through and I think they've went through, the architects have done a really clear study of all the different possibilities and I think that a delicate minimal frame of metal, I'd like the idea. I think it should be a metal that's not painted. So the maintenance is low. The wrought iron makes sense to me. I could even see it in bronze or brass. But something that has a patina that can age gracefully and be elegant. And I think the vertical stainless steel cables make sense because I think it certainly would be a wrong element, I think, to do it horizontally. But I think the vertical look is the way to go. And I think what's nice is that I really appreciate the architect providing the process that they went through and showed us what does it look to increase the height and the spacing of what's there. And it really does change the proportion of that facade. I think would harm the integrity of the resource. So there's no absolute perfect solution to this, but I think this is probably the best one. And certainly, how you use a building is also part of its historic nature. So the idea of blocking it off and not having people participate on that balcony as they have 70, 80 years ago doesn't make sense to me. So I think this is a decent solution. The other part of the Secretary of Standards is also it could be removed at some point. People could find a better solution. So this, I think, is the right way to go. I think making it look kind of elegant, minimal, and intentional is the right way to go. And I think that's what they've achieved here.

Well, I came to the meeting with my support going to the historic consultant's view that it should be permanently closed. But then again, you look at it, buildings are meant to be used. It came with a railing that today we don't support size-wise. So Eric has convinced me that what he is recommending I could certainly support.

I kind of had the same feeling as you, Catherine.

I was concerned about the look.

I am a little bit concerned about the metal color and not to get hung up on that. But I think we should maybe look at picking the most dominant color, whether that's the brass in the window frames or the wrought iron. And given consideration to that, I would certainly like to just ask the architects to look at that and consider that rather than us being super prescriptive about that. But I think we're all in agreement that that's the best course of action is the metal railing to make that a usable space. Okay, other comments or discussion?

I just wanted to give a general applause to the architects and their team for making a great response for this building for accessibility, for structural and the functional needs while really maintaining and restoring the historic integrity of the building. I think it's a really great solution. really provides what the building needs and the city community needs for it to live into the next 100 years. So thank you for your work.

Yeah, well said.

Absolutely. Okay, so do we have any further discussion or would we like to make a motion?

Do we want to discuss, do we need to discuss the plaque or is that a separate item?

I think the intent is for the plaque to come back. You can certainly provide staff with any thoughts based on what you've seen today, but the plaque will be coming back before you at a later date.

Good. And we'll have the ability to provide input on what it says and things like that.

Yeah. I'm supportive of the plaque, and I hope we get to it soon.

Yeah, I think what I saw, I was being asked for, it makes sense. I just want to kind of review the size and proportion. Maybe having, I don't think the date was added to it, so maybe that would be nice. And then I appreciate the architect and their team's comment on the placement of that as part of their design.

Okay. Go ahead, Eric.

So as part of your motion, I would just direct the board to look at the conditions and just see if you want to make any modifications to the language of the conditions in your resolution. I don't have that, unfortunately.

Here, I have it. We'd have to change that.

OK, well, first I'll go ahead and move that we make a resolution for the Historic Resources Board of Carmel-by-the-Sea for MP 26218, Harrison Memorial Library. Find the project is, we didn't discuss this at the end, the project is consistent with the established design contracts of the downtown conservation district and is consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties and rehabilitation. And this is issuing a determination of consistency for the exterior changes and site improvements at the historic Harrison Memorial Library. In terms of the conditions of approval, elevator, yes. Differentiate the plaster. Hardscape, I think we already discussed that. That need not be differentiated. The seismic upgrades on the exterior on the east side. I appreciate the architect's comment of maybe even leaving the concrete pilasters and simply painting them or differentiating them so that can stay. The balcony railing we've discussed so that would change and we approve of the architect's solution for that. And They did provide the specification for the burnished brass frame of the windows, which I didn't comment on, but I was concerned about that, and this is absolutely the right solution. It's exactly what I was looking for, so I appreciate that. They're not inexpensive, but they are absolutely worth having that quality on this building.

I second the motion.

Second motion.

Okay, can we have a vote, please?

Board Member Dyer?

Yes.

Board Member Gualtieri?

Yes.

And Chair Cronin? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you.

At this time, I think the Planning Commission now will take action. And staff, do we have a presentation? Good job, Eric.

Good job, both of you.

I do not have any additional slides, but I'm happy to pull up anything from the original presentation if it would be helpful.

Okay, are there any questions for staff from the commissioners? Go ahead.

I thank you, Chair. Ms. Wallace, I had a question about, in the building plans, actually I happened to see on sheet A 5.50, I saw a call out for copper gutters, and my understanding and it's freshman understanding from the HRB, is that standard six allows us to match that material. Is that so?

It would. We had discussed with the architect leaving it undetermined, but it was always intended. They were hoping to install copper gutters. If there is support for that at this meeting, we will proceed with copper gutters.

That's all. Thank you. All right. Are there any other questions?

I have a quick question, which is that if one goes with copper gutters on this project, we're replacing or repairing copper gutters that are there now, but there are other places where water comes off the roof where new gutters would be installed that are not there now. That's right. And would those be subject to the same interpretation, the same rules as to whether they can be copper or not?

The desired appearance would be uniformity across all of the gutters, and that's why the architect is hoping to use copper throughout and not have a mismatch of materials.

Thank you. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you. So at this time, we will take any public comment. Is there anyone in the chambers who would like to speak this time? And I appreciate all the previous comments as well. Obviously, we heard your previous comments on that. Is there anyone online, Shelby?

No, ma'am.

Okay. Then coming back to the commission, we'll close the public hearing on this and come back and shall we hear what your comments are? Commissioner Kerry Petkoff, would you like to start?

Yeah. I have actually a couple of questions for the architect because I couldn't find some key pieces of information in the report. The first one is obviously, what is this building built with? Is it wood frame construction? Is it tiles? Is it bricks? What is it? Because that's very important to understand the entire remodeling process. There are different ways to remodel and update electrical lines, update plumbing, improve the seismic columns, et cetera. It depends on how the building is built. So maybe the first question and the most fundamental one is what it is built of. And then I have some additional comments around the columns and also around the elevator, but maybe we can first get an answer for the...

Okay, yes, if the architect would like to respond.

Sure, I can respond if it's the appropriate time. The building is primarily wood-framed construction. It's a double-wall exterior as well as some of the interior. It has had various improvements over the years. I think there's probably some original steel, and there's some steel framing in there currently, both from the 40s edition and some additional seismic work that was done in the 70s, I believe. So primarily wood-framed. concrete foundations, some steel frame and that's essentially the construction type. And the existing cantilevered column buttresses on the east side are also concrete and the new ones would be as well.

Thank you. And that leads to my second question about the seismic columns. We refer to them as counter-lever, but they actually are attached to an I-beam on the upper side, like there's a big I-beam going all the way on the east side that is attached to the rafters, and the columns are basically supporting that I-beam. Is that appropriate way of supporting a building? I'm not sure exactly how it works because it's only one point where it supports the building and it's up, it's the roof, basically. It doesn't attach to the wall anywhere in between. Is that a proper way of supporting a building?

So, interestingly, the reason we call them cantilevered columns is because they're, and I'm not a structural engineer, so forgive me if I don't get this completely technically correct. the columns are not physically supporting the weight of the building. And so I think what you're thinking, they're not carrying gravity load. What they're doing is they're acting in moment to help support the shear and lateral forces that happen in the roof. And so they help stabilize the walls and the roof from, in a seismic event, racking or turning over. And so primarily what they're doing is they're sunk into the ground and they're cantilevered up in order to, it's a little bit like a flying buttress from a cathedral.

Yeah, I was thinking about, you know, Notre Dame and all these old cathedrals that have this supporting them. So if that's the case, then will the new proposed columns work in the same way? They will basically attach to the same IBM that is up there? So they'll just be bigger. They will be thicker. Yeah.

Yeah, they'll be a little bit larger, and they will be doing essentially the same thing. And it's mostly because size workloads and codes have increased over the years, and so what worked in the 70s just isn't considered adequate now. And because the building is obviously well-constructed because it's lost 100 years, at the same time, old wooden frame structures with tile roofs like this are particularly challenging from a structural perspective because you have a lot of weight up top And so the reason why these are getting bigger is because there's a lot of weight that moves in an earthquake, and we want to stabilize that as best we can.

Okay. My concern is that the existing columns are very solid. I had a look when we were on site today. They probably have a lot of rebar, like metal, in it. Trying to... demolish them will definitely create vibrations and may have impact on the building itself. They seem to be connected through the foundation, right? They have footings that are attached to the building. So when you try to remove the column with the footing, is there a chance to damage the building?

So I will plead that I am not an expert in that aspect. I'm happy to talk to our structural engineer about it. One advantage of wood frame is it's quite movable, and so the vibrations are less likely to cause issues specifically because of the wood structure. I don't believe that there's a... The footing of those, I believe, is self-contained, and it may touch the foundations, but I don't believe it's tied into the foundations. But, again, I'm not. It looks like it touches the foundation, yeah. Yeah, it probably touches, yeah.

Yeah. So, yeah, my concern is that removing five big columns of concrete with rebar would definitely, in that very narrow space between the buildings, may have impact on the library itself, but maybe even on the next building, they're very close. Wouldn't it be possible to keep these five columns and add additional three or four following the new guidelines and the new requirements to provide additional support of the building? Wouldn't that be a better way forward instead of demolishing the old ones?

I think that's an excellent question and we can certainly look into it. to see. I think one of the challenges with older concrete is just understanding the structural and tensile strength of it because it was done in a prior day and we don't have the current testing results. But I can certainly talk to our structural engineer and see. Yeah, thank you.

And my second question is about the elevator. There was one diagram in the submission package that showed, and maybe we can see it on the screen, that showed the elevator connecting these three or four levels. And it looks like there's enough space to have the entire structure under the roof, not go above the existing roof. Do you know what the reason is we need to go another three or four feet above the roof?

It's just a physical requirement of the elevators. The elevators always have something called the elevator override, and it's the space above the car for the pulleys and winches, or in this case, it's the elevator machine equipment that lifts the elevator. But even other technologies like a hydraulic elevator still have a fair requirement that would poke up through the roof.

So it's not possible to put all the... the machinery on the bottom of the elevator and have pretty much nothing on top?

I don't think that's possible, no. From our research and the options we looked at.

Yeah, if we could find an elevator that does that, it would solve a lot of problems in terms of design and additional penetration of the roof and matching and all of that.

Further questions?

I think... That is for now. Yes, yes, I think I'm done.

Since we have the architect, or excuse me, Mr. Hamilton available, are there any other questions from commissioners that we'd like to ask him? No? Thank you. Do you have other comments related to what we're looking at today?

No, I think all the comments were made in terms of options to deal with the reeling and with the balusters. I look it up, and it's really very limiting. I know the reason why they want to have four inches between the balusters is for small kits not to get stuck. But even if you say no small kids allowed, you know, we're not going to put any kids on the balcony, you still have to follow the building code. So it's very restrictive in a way. There may be a way around it. I'm not sure. I found one.

I think if it's going to be occupied, it has to meet the code. Yeah.

And then the other thing is once you open the structure for, and we have seen that many times, especially with old buildings, once you open the structure for remodel, you'll definitely find some, rot and some mildew and some parts need to be replaced and hopefully that's not too much. In some construction projects people end up replacing entire walls because of damage over the time. So if this is a wood frame construction, we may experience some surprises during the project.

Thank you. Commissioner Alborn.

Thank you, Chair. First, I'd like to acknowledge and thank Messrs. Hamilton, UDAL, and Locasio. Excellent work all around. And, you know, with that, of course, our library foundation, our donors, the HRB who's here, those who were mentioned, and staff. A tremendous project, so important for this city. A sincere thank you. On the windows, I was very happy to hear that you did a paint analysis and you went down through those layers. I'm delighted with the burnished brass recommendation for the windows. I think that would be absolutely stunning and very appropriate for this project. On the balcony railing, I very much support the HRB's recommendation to find a way to keep that open and to bring that railing up to code. I would, I do have two comments. I would encourage the HRB and the architects to consider that color. I'm not convinced it needs to be a bare metal, a powder coat that somehow could help that railing disappear into the wall of the library. might in appearance stay a little closer to the original design. Again, I'm not going to direct that. It's just a suggestion that I have for you to consider. And then another question that I have has to do with where you're beginning that railing and where you're ending it. If this railing was coming to us on an ordinary residence here in town or a commercial property in town, I believe that the Planning Commission would say to you, nope. I believe the Planning Commission would say that you need to run that railing through the entire length and width of that balcony, even if that south side is going to remain closed to the public, that for appearances, that railing would run all the way around that existing railing. So again, I'm not going to direct how you do that. but I would encourage you strongly to consider that. When it comes to the gutters, I'm absolutely okay with differences in size as needed in order to complete this renovation, and I'm also in support of citing standard six to have the continuation of copper that matches the historic material that was used. Yes, absolutely, to an ADA walkway and improving ADA capabilities and availabilities here in town. We'll hear the plaque later. The proposed design for the north side, I absolutely agree with Board Member Dyer that original elevation was stunning.

Wow.

If you can't do that, That would be my first choice. Do that. If you can't do that, I love your analysis and the way that you looked at the window to the south and used that to inform your design for the window to the north. Love that. My final comment, and it may be a little early, but it has to do with signage. If you're there on 6th, or if you're even on Monte Verde, How do you know it's a library? And ordinarily here at the Planning Commission, if a commercial property has entrances on two streets, we allow signage on two streets. Because you're a city building and a library, that restriction may not even apply. But I would hope that through this process, in partnership with the foundation and the trustees and the HRB and the architects, you might have a very specific look at how you want to signage this building so that it is more noticeable that it is actually not just our library in town, but our Harrison Memorial Library. And that ends my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Ruse?

Yeah, I'd like to second a lot of the things that my fellow commissioners have said. I want to talk a little more about the... The railing and the use of the balcony, I think the HRB has made the right choice to encourage the public use of the balcony. This is a public space. In fact, of all the public buildings in town, it is probably the one the public uses the most. by a big margin. And having an outdoor space in addition to the patio, which is great, but the balcony is really sort of a celebration of our mild climate. And I think being able to go out there, I don't know if there will end up being chairs there or not, creates a wonderful space that speaks to the use of the building. In relation to the railing, I think, I mean, I've been in a lot of historic buildings and seen railings that were put up. I'm a tall person, so I'm very leery of short railings. And I think that these sort of substitutions that are designed to meet modern code requirements tell their own stories. I mean, no one's going to go out there and go, wow, this doesn't match the building. They're going to say, wow, this is here so that kids don't fall through the pickets or that tall people don't fall over the edge. So I just want to celebrate. I think that's the right decision, and I look forward to sitting out there someday. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. I don't have much more to contribute. I do want to thank everybody who has contributed to this project and the team that's worked on it. I am completely in agreement on railing. extending the, allowing the gutters to be replaced with the, as they have been, the south pathway, the new entrance on the north, and I think Commissioner Alburn, your comment about if you couldn't do what was their original, you know, that would be fantastic. So this is a good one. And I also agree with you on signage, and I'm glad you brought that up because I think it does need something on the north side that recognizes what that building is. Do we have anybody who would like to consider making a motion at this time?

I don't know what motion I'm making. Because I don't have the resolution in front of me.

Yeah, we do have a resolution before us that is finding that the proposed project is consistent with the established design content of the downtown conservation district and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic resources. Oops, am I in the wrong? I'm on the wrong one, sorry.

So in your resolution, in the Planning Commission resolution, there is a condition of approval number 40, which I will edit to mirror what's the HRB.

Yes, and condition number 40 has a list of all of the things we just discussed.

Okay, and I would like to, if... If my fellow commissioners agree, I would also like to add in there a special condition of approval that there is a formal consideration of wrapping that modified railing all the way around the south and the west because that is absolutely part of our design guidelines throughout town. And with that, I would either make the motion or second it, whichever would be appropriate.

All right. So why don't you go ahead and make this is a motion to adopt the proposed resolution.

So I will make the motion to adopt the resolution as proposed, including the additional special condition about wrapping that balcony railing fully around the west and the south. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Alborn?

Yes.

Commissioner Karapetkov?

Yes.

Commissioner Roos? Yes. And Commissioner Locke? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you. Motion passes. And at this time, let's see, I think that we will now adjourn the special meeting of the Planning Commission.

Perfect, and I would just like to thank the Planning Commission for their work as well and their partnership, and at this point we'll adjourn the HRB, special meeting of the HRB.

Great, thank you. Thank you all.

Thank you.

And I think we will take like a five-minute break between the two meetings, and we will start again at 5.30 for the Planning Commission regular meeting.

Just want to say thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. Appreciate you.

Nice to see you. All right, you can spread out. I will go spread out.

Thank you.

the ice cream truck from Inspire Monteverde. Nice work, Catherine. Thank you.