Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So, okay, everybody here.

You guys all ready to roll? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. I'm going to call the uh regular meeting of the Carmel by the Sea Planning Commission to order. Want to welcome you all today. is a beautiful spring day out there. We went through some wonderful homes down by the beach. Um, can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Alort here. Commissioner Allen here. Commissioner Cara Pekco here. Commissioner Lock here. And chair here.

Okay. Uh, the first item on our agenda are the public appearances. Uh, any members from the public may address the planning commission at this time regarding any municipal issues that are of concern. I want to remind you all that we are governed by the Brown Act. So, at this time, I'd like to invite anybody from the public uh in the chamber or online to speak to us about any concerns about municip municipal issues. Nobody Nobody standing up here. Nobody on the line. Okay. No public appearances. I don't think we have any announcements today. So that brings us to the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are considered to be routine in nature and do not require discussion, but uh anybody from the anybody for the public or planning commissioners can request that any items be pulled for questions or further discussion. We only have two items today. We have the monthly activity report from the planning and building department for March. And we have the March 11th uh regular uh planning commission meeting minutes. Any questions? Okay. I'll make a motion we accept the planning commission I mean the consent agenda.

I'll second that motion. Okay. Comm. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alour? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Commissioner Careco. Yes. Commissioner Lock. Yes. And Chair Le Page. Yes. Okay. Motion's passed. All right. That brings us to the orders of business. Uh today we are going to receive an update on the D design traditions 1.5 project and a review the proposed plan defined scope of work and proposed timeline to finalize the residential design guidelines. We have staff report please.

Thank you, Chair Leage. I'm Anna Janette with Community Planning and Building. Um, I would like to introduce um, council members Baron and Dale and Delves. They are ad hoc committee members and council member Baron will start us off.

Thank you. Um, I don't have a lot of words other than the presentation that Tom's going to give, but I did want to thank you all for all the work that you've done up to this point reviewing the document and providing feedback at today's meeting. I know we've gotten some written comments from Commissioner Albborne and for all the work that the committee hopes the committee and the city council hopes that you will do over the course of the next couple months so that we can get the project over the finish line and be and be finished with the first phase. So, we are Bob and I are both here. Um, we're really looking forward to we're really looking forward to hearing what you have to say, especially as it relates to the scope of the project. and and now I'll introduce uh Tom.

Thank you, Council Member.

Are you all able to see it on Great. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair, commissioners, public. Uh my name is Tom Ford. It's a pleasure to be with you today. Uh my first time presenting to you, so thank you very much for having me. Uh today I I it uh looks like we know we know what we're talking about here now. Um today we're seeking your endorsement of our proposed plan to finish the residential guidelines uh so that the team tasked with getting this through the finish line can begin to um execute the plan that we will present today. Um the the idea is that since the the same agenda item uh was continued at last night's council meeting to the May council meeting that we would still come here this afternoon uh to seek your support that we would then get the first three weeks of great work in um that we can then bring to council at their May meeting to get their endorsement and and show some progress already on the way. Uh so the plan that we're presenting today is not materially changed um other than the the first council meeting date uh being moved one month. For some recent background, for the benefit of the public, our our city administrator, Brandon Swanson, having been heavily involved in this project over the last number of years, presented on this topic at several public meetings between the planning commission and council, uh where he aptly recaped the the past several years work, uh specifically asking the question of which version we would move forward with, the Nory winter version or the steering committee version. Um, these meetings resulted in largely supporting moving forward with the steering committee version of the design guidelines and and and we'll capitalize on the benefits of the way that that was uh laid out in its organization by core principles while also addressing uh some challenges that come with the layout kind of intrinsic in any way that any which way you choose to to format a document. Um, there are opportunities and challenges. So, it's it's been extremely helpful to hear the feedback

that we've received so far over several meetings. Um, and we will tailor this version of the document that that we're moving forward with to ultimately suit its usefulness to the planning commission, the planning commissioners, um, staff, architects, homeowners, all the the primary users of this document. Um this includes how we will address you know look at this document by building element example of really valuable feedback that was extremely helpful. It's just a great example right now of now being the time to make sure uh that we have everything out there in the open that we address it uh so that we can address those things accordingly. So the task from council last month was to uh come to you uh today with a formalized plan, a strict deadline uh to be able to get this project completed. And to that end, council members Baron and Delves had volunteered as the project sponsors. Appreciate the the uh introduction on that. Um so they'll serve essentially ensuring the project stays on track while leaving the content direction in large part to the planning commission among others but in large part to the planning commission and to the production team for the execution of this direction. So who is the production team tasked with finishing the residential design guidelines 1.5? As you can see on the screen, it's comprised of a wide variety of contributors. Consists of uh two planning commissioners, well, our uh uh ad hoc council members, two planning commissioners, members of the public, architects, staff, uh we have Chair Leage, Vice Chair Lock, uh we have uh Victoria Beach, Doug Schmidtz, Ian Martin, each of which have notable involvement in the city in the past. uh Kevin Roose, Eric Dyer. Um for staff, we have our city administration, planning and building director, Anna Janette, planner

Jacob Olander, and myself. Uh and in the staff report, you know, we did give wanted to make sure we gave specific mention and grat gratitude to uh folks who've been very involved and invested over the years. Nory Winter and his team. Um the steering committee, you know, really built on the insights Nori gathered and and I just wanted to to uh emphasize that that um you know, the progress that was made there is not going to be lost. The steering committee uh went through that document with a fine tooth comb um and essentially restructured in in what is ultimately a very organic way, residentled way. Um and they've done an utterly fantastic job in g in getting the document to where it is today. Um the the names of those members being Victoria Beach, Melanie Billig, late Don Good Hugh whose name these efforts are now dedicated uh Maryanne Chikatans and Doug Schmidz. And now our production team is tasked with bringing this project through the finish line. Our goal is to produce a useful adequate final version of the residential design guidelines 1.5 updating it to reflect some outdated information incorporate some new information fire resilience being one of the large you know matters at the forefront uh with a target a council with a target council adoption deadline of our group having collectively decided on being September 1st of this year and today we'll be asking you the question do you believe this is both an optimistic and and a realistic timeline. Uh I should note that the the commercial and municipal design guidelines will be addressed following the adoption of the residential design guidelines 1.5. So today's plan that we're presenting is to finish the residential guidelines. So getting into our proposed timeline, our philosophy was to start uh at a reasonable council adoption date and work backwards.

And the the colors up there on the screen will explain in just a moment. But for now, I'll start with explaining kind of how the plan consists of four one-month work cycles. So, April, this month through July, and we will walk through one of those cycles. So, we'll start at this month, April. Uh, purple denotes council meetings. Uh, as I stated, we're we were on the agenda for last night. Ultimately, um, I think that pushing this until next month is fine. uh you know it perhaps it would have been you know it would have felt uh clean so to speak to have gotten two endorsements two days in a row and be off to the running. Um but I I I don't really foresee any you know negative repercussions to to shifting that meeting until May and I still foresee our timeline uh being on track as as will be laid out. Uh pink denotes planning commission meetings. Um where today we're of course is seeking endorsement and some input. Uh at each planning at each month's planning commission meeting, we'll get direction from you regarding which tasks we'll work on, confirm we're heading in the right direction, and then bring back to you the following month the the fruits of our labor. Uh planning commission meetings will also serve as the natural public meeting uh platform where we'll seek ongoing feedback from the public and residents. Um, we do have a ton of feedback from the public and residents over a number of years. We've encapsulated that in the strategy paper. Um, so we do we do have we we know the tasks ahead. We we feel as though we have clear input. Um, nevertheless, we'll have we'll we'll have targeted advertising for the next three planning commission meetings um to get further input as we uh progress towards finishing this document. We'll do the the pine cone, purposeful word of mouth, Friday letter, city website ads, and then the uh two days following tonight's meeting. So, tomorrow the 9th and Friday the 10th, um staff will coordinate with our full production team

to ensure everyone knows their tasks that they're going to work on for this next month. We have people signing up uh internally. We we have people signing up for individual tasks, and we'll get to those specific tasks in a moment. But after each planning commission meeting comes the green segment on the screen. So this is where the production team works on editing the document per each of our respective tasks that we've divied out. Um you might have noticed in the staff report we used the term sprint cycles. Uh the term work cycle is up here on the screen. Uh the you could effectively use them interchangeably. The idea of sprint cycles is that we work in one week sprints. It's not every single day always expected to be doing this. We we we have this laid out such that uh uh much of the bulk is is done in one week sprints. So during the green period, the draft document uh for our team will be open for suggested edits using track changes. And then the blue segment is when staff uh namely Anna, Jacob, and myself will review the suggested edits that were made during the prior week's green period. And we accept those edits and ensure that they uh reflect the direction that we received from the planning commission um at at at each month's planning commission meeting. And towards the end of the blue period is when staff intends to touch base with the ad hoc council sponsors and and ensure the changes that we are accepting are aligned with what the planning commission and with what council has recommended uh and so that our sponsors, you know, have an opportunity to exercise their guidance over the process to keep us on track. So, we'll collectively review um any updated language for consistency uh or or compliance uh with how the California Coastal Commission will ultimately review our document at the end of this

process. Um so, and uh and we plan on meeting with with their representatives, the Coast Coastal Commission representatives early on to ensure that we're doing things in a format that'll be acceptable. So once we accept suggested edits, this will become our new master version of the draft document which will bring us to the yellow uh se the yellow dates. This is our full production team meetings where we will meet to review the newest clean master version draft that incorporated suggested edits. And an important part of this is that as as part of seeking your endorsement today of uh of this plan, we're explicitly seeking the the uh approval for the authority of discretion in decisionm to accept some of these edits. And there is bound to come a time where staff must have the discretion to reject some of the recommended edits. Um effectively at some point we we must make decisions um reasonable decisions within our framework and move forward in advancing this. Uh because ultimately when we just you know when we're being realistic, no one person is going to have the document be exactly word for word the way that the way that you want it. Uh I I I can't imagine that being the case. U but we must be able to make fruitful compromises so that you know making decisions in pursuit of a collective excellent product. Um, and just also a note on that matter, some of staff's own recommended edits will be rejected at one point or another and likely often. Um, this is because when we're evaluating the suggested edits, so Anna, Jake, and myself, um, we are doing so strictly from the standpoint of ensuring the edits adhere to the planning commission's direction

and that edits are consistent with Coastal Commission compliant wording, formatting, consistency. Um I think it's worth saying that we we don't have any ego in involved in this in this matter. Uh we're we're going to get this done as objectively as possible with you know practical and reasonable decisions. Um regardless of what any one of our individual preferences may be. So, uh I mean with that said, we we have like a top we have a top tier team assembled and I fully expect us to get um outstanding uh input and suggested edits from them. So following our production team meeting, that's when staff prepares the staff reports for the following month's planning commission meeting and the cycle repeats itself. So effectively each planning commission meeting serves as the beginning point for any one of our work cycles or sprint cycles. And uh the planning commission will also serve as effectively the the the uh de facto uh uh body who will review our latest version of the draft and and bless it to you know moving forward right so so that it will not so that it's not exclusively um staff who has you know this this this final say. We will present the newest master version of the document to you each month for a a thumbs up to carry on. Uh this is a brief summary of the document editing process we just covered. Uh the these colors do match the prior slides just for continuity. Um we have a planning commission meeting. Roughly one week of suggested edits are made to the draft document. roughly one week of staff reviews and approved changes. The production team meets uh for us to view the newest version of the clean

master version of the document without markups and then it restarts. Uh coming into the home stretch here uh getting into the scope of work. So in other words, the primary tasks that we're going to tackle over the next four months uh need to ensure the consistency of the draft with respect to pertinent city documents. Uh evaluate fire safety, ensure we have alignment with the California building standards code, calire wooi um requirements and guidelines etc. Um and and we have experts in house who can who can help with this. We need to look at uh the planning process flowchart and description adding input from the planning commission and the city council. We will do a staff content review uh identify changes to other city documents update the index glossery hyperlinks. Uh we will have a red line and of course formatting. some things that I noticed that I I'd actually left off of here that um advertising putting the word out there is is a task in itself. um the historical resources board a presentation regarding this the context there's lots of pages I think of almost 25 up front towards the beginning of the document that that we would want you know addressed um uh make sure that's consistent and a how to use guide for the design guidelines 1.5 and then how are we tackling each month uh each month's tasks not all tasks will be addressed every month um some such such as you know uh hyperlinks formatting the index will need to happen at the end of the process. So but within within our own internal planning we were we were thoughtful about which tasks would go in which sprint cycle. Um but we are frontloading much of the tasks in this first cycle one that today essentially kicks off. Um I do have a

specific list of tasks that we'll tackle in each cycle. I I you know you guys have a long meeting and um didn't know uh you know don't want to get incredibly granular but essentially we frontloaded the majority in cycle one and then in cycle two would be finishing the glossery review draft proposed language to the code and other city documents how to use guide HRB presentation and then go from there. So we have split split them up and now we're seeking feedback on the plan specifically the three questions on the screen. I know several folks had already you know submitted them uh submitted some some provided some feedback ahead of time. Again extremely helpful um and uh I you know before we get to that I just wanted to mention that you know we welcome our production team members to chime in. I'm not sure who who of those are either present uh in person perhaps uh digitally um to chime in during public comment. I know um council member uh Baron had come up here, but I of course welcome uh him andor council member Delves if if they wanted to say anything additional at the discretion of the chair, however you'd like to feel that. Um and we're happy to entertain any questions as well. And that concludes my presentation.

Okay, questions for Tom. Go ahead. Um, so just to clarify, um, during a sprint, you have work and then content. And are you breaking the content up into, um, like bite-sized pieces for each of the sprints so that we're not looking at the whole document every single time?

That will depend on which task. Yes, the answer is yes, with the caveat that that'll depend on which task we're we're addressing. But yes, we we may likely not be able to um address the entire document uh within six or seven business days. With that said, if you have one or two people whose focus is specifically on one task, you can get you can get quite a bit done on that. So this first month um in our in our first production team meeting we had essentially said you know agreed on this layout and said let's give it a go. We think that the the structure is really good. The structure is sound. Um at our following production team meeting would be a great time to say hey do we need to split this up more. Um how was the flow of of our uh process? Do we need to add more days here or take away more days? So, we kind of have a built-in um internal review process

because I see a difference between the structure or the um the way you're laying it out or um uh the links, those types of things in comparison to the actual content. I mean, because that's that's what I'm concerned about, right? Like I don't it's just the words that I need to have appropriate. And so for me, it's much easier if you were to break that content into small pieces that we could look at um you know, finalize and then move on to the next. Um instead of every single time coming back to a new version and being like, okay, now I'm looking at the entire document again. Um, so that's just like I mean I was just trying to figure out how we could make that as easy as possible. To me it seems like that would be easy, but love to hear from everybody else.

The only thing I was going to say that you you had a to-do list here on your previous slide th this is this the one? Yeah. So when at at the last meeting, you know, we kind of identified the tasks we thought needed to be finished up. And I think what Tom is saying is that we're going to take those in in groups and then we'll work on those at different po different points here rather than you know like we said we don't want to go back and have to redo everything. We're going to try to finish up some of this stuff sequentially to get to the you know

Yeah. Cuz what I'm saying is like I mean this is a combination of work that they have to do, work that we have to do, right? And so for me, I believe, maybe correct me if I'm wrong, but the responsibility of the planning commission is just making sure that the words are accurate, right? like like the content uh in terms of the wording. And so um so when you're talking about like the index and the glossery and the hyperlinks and that type of thing, I I don't I mean I'm not going to be responsible for investigating whether those are correct. So, I'm just saying that like um just to make it easy and um efficient, it would be nice if we did the did our responsibility, finalized it, and then moved on to the next section of, you know, wording. Um but if if other people don't feel that that's how this would flow better, I'm I'm good. I just want to give my um suggestion.

Well, well, Tom's a project manager and it's his job to organize this and make sure that we're meeting certain goals. So, do you want to comment on that to what she just asked to make to see that you you've you've uh incorporated incorporated this into that process.

Yeah, absolutely. Um I I I am actually in complete alignment with with what you're saying. It made me think, oh, maybe I just didn't do a good enough job at at explaining our process. Um, but yes, we are we are the the formatting, the hyperlinks, all that kind of thing. That is at the end. I'm 100% in agreement. The content is what we must focus on right now. So, the content is what we are breaking up into these chunks. As an example, integrating uh fire resilience, that's one of our tasks. Um, and it's a very defined task. So we'll have those I'm making this up but two people or however many end up being on this but two people let's say specifically addressing that and when we come back so they'll have you know we'll have one month or really for editing purposes one one and a half weeks or one week to uh to make those suggested edits. Um, and then when we come back the following month, we will have it identified perhaps in a different color what the changes were so that it's relatively easy to be able to flip through. But but the with the structure of this document, it is not you you know the fire resilience or windows for example, forget fire resilience for for windows for example, it's going to be spread out throughout you know multiple pages. So, we'll have to do our best to ensure that this is something that's um you know uh relatively easy to tease out when we come back um each month.

I I have a question. Um what is the plan for the commercial design guideline? Is that not going to be part of the project? Is it out of scope? We'll have to address that after passing residential. um we do have it on our radar. We don't it's it's not lost on us. Uh but but we did want to hone in specifically on getting one big chunk of this the residential guidelines done. So So um uh I I think that that's a conversation that we that we will get to and we will address and and we will engage in that, but I I do think that will come after the the residential guidelines. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Um, I I made some comments and they were included in our packet and I'd like to mention some of them because my fellow commissioners might have something that they'd like to to add or andor correct. Um, my first comment was a general comment and it had to do with the sections the existing sections on visual history and preferred plant materials and building materials. And it's my opinion that the planning commission is being asked to approve regulatory detail there that's beyond the scope of our expertise. I feel that each of those three subject areas has its own either city department and or a commission that that owns that expertise. And I believe that that related content belongs to them and those groups should have the opportunity to review, edit, approve or even deny its inclusion in this version of the guidelines. Um, my second general comment had to do with the critical nature of the WOOI and the the very high fire hazard zone and the high high fire hazard zones and um and that ties in also with the preferred building materials and um I will be unable to approve a preferred list of building materials unless it's been certified by a city or a county or a state official. So, if if we're not able to get that sort of um bakedin certification, um then I'm going to be a no on the entire document just because I do not have the expertise to be able to say whether or not that material would be correct. um for some possible top issues as your production team is working. I don't know

if this is possible or not, but I do have a recommendation to go through conditions of approval from the last 24 months and uh sort for high frequency things that we're constantly having to add as a COA uh and incorporate those, make a list of those. Um I all photos I believe should be reviewed and edited for correct representation for our fire zones. Um there and the photos are beautiful by the way. There's I I can see that a great deal of time and attention has been put into the photos in this document. I think that should be called out and celebrated. Um and they need to be a correct representation in our current fire uh situation. Um, repetition. We still have repetition. When possible, I'd like to see that eliminated. And in some areas, there's excessive description. Where possible, I'd like to see that eliminated. Um, there's still quite a bit of subjective description. Um, this is some specific areas of concern that I have. Um, where possible, I'd like to see us objectify, um, statements. For instance, uh 434 says, "Use materials in their natural conditions." That seems coded in some way. I I can't say that I really understand what that means. Or um section 611 convey a sense of true craftsmanship. Can can can we objectify that in some way? I also believe that all of the guidelines need to be reviewed specifically and updated for 2026 building practices. Uh for instance, the this the version that we received today um calls for unclad wood windows and I think we almost always approve clad windows. Um it also calls in section 614 to use true dividers between the panes of glass. I don't even know that you can

get those anymore unless you custom order them for a historic property. So all all those are just two very small examples of uh opportunities for our guidelines to be updated for 2026 building practices. Um back for the visual history at the beginning either have that certified by the HRB or delete it. For the preferred plant materials, either have that certified by Forest and Beach or the city forester or delete it. Um again the preferred building materials maybe our building official will certify that. Uh and we also would need to correct for instance section 431. Um that is um accordingly and our preferred building materials mentioned bark and bark is a hard fail for section 7A. We know this now. uh section 424 either objectively define or defeat the reference to McMansion. Um for my fellow planning commissioners, and I'm sure you will have more to add to this list, but I think that we need additional guidance and regulation on how we can either address or create exceptions for things like window size because we do see a variety of window sizes coming before us. flat roofs, rooftop decks, skylights, quantity, you know, what we see in in the right of way. I think we could use additional review of those. Um,

Commissioner Alburn, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think at this point, uh, the discussion or the questions for Tom have to just do with this the planning process. We're going to have a further discussion about what you're talking about in this meeting. But right now, I think what uh what Tom is trying to present to us is the way that he as a project manager has organized this workflow. And so what what what I you know what he's asking for and I'm suggesting is that we uh provide him with questions specifically about this workflow plan that he's worked out. Yeah, I would be a thumbs up for that. So, thank you. And I I don't want to make him stand there through all of our comments, but uh I'm happy to,

but uh so is there are there any other questions for Tom regarding the the plan that he has set up as as a project manager? Ready for Okay. And I just want to say that I I think that having a project manager is really something that that that this process really needs. And I really appreciate the fact that Thomas has put together such a a well structured uh cycle of work and and I'm really confident this is going to help this move along. And I'm also want to congrat compliment the the council for making such a strong commitment to this process. So I want to thank uh Councilman Baron and Councilman Delves for for being the ad hoc committee to push this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Tom.

Yeah. Tom, you want to come up? Um, hi uh Aaron, Commissioner Allen, sorry. Um, so we had a conversation about and I asked your advice on how to approach this and kind of your advice and I was hearing that from you is look there's six chapters how about you take one chapter at a time and that's not exactly what we're doing. It's going to be more of sort of the whole thing theme by theme. Um, I think a lot of the stuff that Commissioner Elourne was just talking are almost themes in in and of themselves and we're going to pick X number for a sprint and kind of go through the whole document. And it may may seem overwhelming, but it's, you know, we're going to be focused on a specific content or type of content or trying to achieve a specific outcome through the whole document. And it'll be redlined. So, it uh we think it will be processable um by you all. But also a big reason why we're doing this kind of sprint approach. Those of you in the software business will recognize it from this is just from agile development methodology where you recognize that you sometimes just don't really know what you're doing. So you do it fast. Um and you see what you get and then you adjust. Um so that's a also going to a little bit about um the approach here is let's not get stuck with analysis paralysis. Let's move. Um so that that's kind of what's behind it. Um and um and all of the comments, you know, the the that level of depth. Um Commissioner Albourne, yes, we need that from all and everybody. So thank you very much. Um and this I think it is we are placing this back where it should have been in the beginning, which is um that the planning commission is the primary user of this document. Uh so we want you to be making the you know the final judgment on it. Thanks. Thanks, Bob.

Okay. Um, so I'm going to open it up. Does staff have anything else they want to add to this, Anna? Um, prior to public comment, I do not.

Okay. All right. Okay. So, I'm going to open up this time to the public for their comments. So, I invite any uh speakers to come up and just make any comments on on the process and what what uh Tom Ford presented to us. And also uh one of the things that the planning commission is going to talk about today is are uh what commissioner uh Alurn was talking about with these uh repetitive sorts of issues that come up about you know definitions of them uh clarifying policy statements regarding issues that we repeatedly are dealing with here at the planning commission. So uh at this time I'd like to invite anybody member of the public to come up and make any comments on this. Nobody rushing the podium.

Okay. Any hands up online? No, sir.

Okay. We're we're uh I understand I realize we're we're pretty uh uh this is kind of the beginning of this process and I'm hoping that uh as we have these regular meetings here at the planning commission, we'll get people more involved in this. But but this is an opportunity for members of the public to basically tell us what they don't like about the process or the guidelines and how they think it can work better. Uh you know it's like uh this is going to be a you know these uh repetitive meetings of the planning commission are going to be like a you know suggestion box where you can come in and drop in your comments and to tell us how to make this document better. So uh with that I'm going to Doesn't seem like anybody's going to make any comments on this. So, I want to open it up to the commission for their comments. Commissioner Alurn, would you like to finish up with your comments or add anything else?

Thank you, Chair. I'm I'm pretty much done. I had um this is we need a little bit more objective, I think, language for some areas, but I imagine through the passes that you'll do for content that that's going to get teased out. And uh in my in my notes and you received them, I did make some suggestions for uh the glossery or or keyword some additional suggestions. Um but I'm very much looking forward to seeing what you folks produce. So thank you. Okay. Thank you, chair. Yes.

Um could I please suggest that um can we put up the last slide? Is that just so the bullet point you all have the bullet points that you can reference as you deliberate? Okay. So, these these are the questions that were um put forward today to the planning commission. Basically, uh, do you endorse the proposed plan, scope of work, timeline to finalize, uh, provide specific issues that you would like to see addressed, clarified? That's what Commissioner Alburn was just providing us with. And then, um, a list of of words that need clarification uh, in the uh, draft residential design guidelines. And I think that probably those words can probably be teased out of these these issues that that and policy statements that need clarification. So having said that, um, Commissioner Allen, did you want to make any more comments?

Uh, no. I mean, I think that the timeline looks doable and that if it's, you know, worked out in a way where um, you know, people can do the work in the amount of time, uh, then I think I think this will run smoothly.

Okay. Thanks. We're just we're just looking for some paperwork. Uh, Commissioner Carep, you have you have some comments you like to make? Um I can repeat what I said last time when we have this discussion that we need more clarity on um flat roofs uh on anything that happens on top of the roof. you know people there there must be some new trend to put stuff on top of the roof like uh hot tubs uh jacuzzi's uh I don't know entertainment um so that that is something that it's very difficult to accommodate in a place like Carmel and we we will see it later today it creates a lot of commotion with neighbors um so I I I just want to make sure that we have some guidance in the document uh to that to that effect. Um, also there's one element and I'm sure it came up in previous discussion. It was what happens in the front of the house in terms of managing uh garbage bins, electrical panels and uh gas meters. Is that still in the document? I couldn't find it in the latest version because it was there was something and I cannot I cannot find it in the index anymore. Um but but the thing is that you know we look at these beautiful designs and we approve them and we're very happy about it and then the house bu get built and then last minute PG& comes in and slaps that big like panel with 48 uh circuit breakers in the front of the house and it it just destroys the whole thing. And in most cases people say well PG& wanted to put it here and I they didn't ask me where to put it. And it's true. I I've dealt with PG& and they're horrible with that respect. They don't really care where the panel is, but you have a say in that you can go and the architect can say, I don't want to have it on this side of the house. I want to have it on the other side of the

house and I want to have it hidden in a box or niche or something. So, I want to make sure that we solve that because I see a lot of new remodels in town where they have this big panels and it used to be actually acceptable when we had the small panels like back then with 125 amps. They were relatively small, compact ones. And yes, you see them, but it's not really in your face. But now the new panels, they are 200 amps, 250 amps, and they come with a lot of circuit breakers. I have a panel that has 48 circuit breakers. It's a box like this. So, if you put something like that in front of the house, it's more prominent than your than your mailbox. It's more prominent than your front door, basically.

And and and is that also like for like a charger? like do we need to add in if someone wants to put in um a charger for an electric car to that you attach the batteries and then you attach the additional box that goes up to the um

solar panels. So the whole thing becomes a little bit like a sci-fi thing movie in the front of the house and completely doesn't work with the design of the house because the house can be really traditional and we can use all the traditional materials. Uh, but when you have all that high-tech in the front, it's it's really distracting. Um, and the other and the gas meters are the same thing. I just saw a house today. One of the houses we saw today, u brand new house was recently built and there's this big they seem to get bigger and bigger. These gas meters like the old ones were like this big. Now the new ones are like this big. And it's right in front of the the front door. And when you see that, it's just, you know, there must be a better way to handle that. There must be a way to hide it somewhere. Uh it doesn't need to be in front of the house. Um so I I think that is something that we we we need to clearly state. It's it's just um it doesn't seem like a big deal, but it impacts the overall impression when you see a new house. Um undergrounding wires, same thing. You know, we have this rule of uh if you spend more than $250,000 or something like that on a remodel, you have to underground the wires. I'm not sure how we enforce that. Um because I've seen some projects that, you know, definitely go above $250,000 and the wires are still up there. Maybe they will be undergrounded in the second phase or something like that. So that that is another thing that we need to encourage uh undergrounding the wires at least from the pole to the house. You know I understand that there's some difficulties and some complexity about undergrounding the the you know miles of wire along the house but at least this last hop from the pole to the house should be undergrounded when they finish

the remodel. and um and I didn't see anything about ADUs in in the design guideline. So now first of all let's step back. All of the recommendations in the design guideline in the residential section is R1. It's it's individual houses on on separate lots. There's nothing about multif family units or anything like that. Just to be clear on that but then on the ADUs I realize that we have some limitations what we can say about it. But we can at least say that the ADU has to be subordinate to the house and the design has to match the house. Right? This is something we can say. We we cannot end up with two separate designs just because the ADU is not included in our design guide. Yeah. Is there anything that

The only comment I have to make on that is um we are um consulting with Opticos who are developing the objective design and development standards for ADUs. Mhm. So, um, but can we put something in the in the design guidelines? We could refer to the odds if an ADU is ministerally approved. Look at the objective design standards.

Yeah. And and and again, maybe some of the stuff we cannot enforce because the state prohibits us from doing it, but that doesn't prevent us from saying in the design guideline, we don't like ADUs that are 2 ft away from the fans and are pink and the house is gray. I think we have to we have to be careful you know that because um there are very uh specific you know laws state laws regarding ADUs and they've been put there to restrict you know municipalities from putting uh undue restrictions on those because they're trying to encourage it but we have an ADU ordinance and uh I haven't I haven't referred to it but u we we uh you can put in your ADU ordinance that the if you have a detached ADU that has to be subordinate in in architectural style and and materials to the primary residence. Yeah.

Yes. That's good job.

So, yeah. So, there's a you a lot of good a lot of good um topics there. Some of those topics are covered by the code. Some of them are are are uh specific to the uh to the residential guidelines. So, uh but those that's that's that's a lot a lot of good topics you brought up there. So, uh Commissioner Lock, do you have some suggestions or comments? Well, yes, and I I obviously do support the proposed um methodology that's going to be used. Um, a couple other things I didn't driveway gates are another thing that we I didn't see that. Um, the obviously we're dealing with the roof um roof decks and the accutramont that go with that including hot tubs and barbecues and whatever else is going to go up there. Um, the flowchart is important. Um, I think I also would like to support uh my fellow commissioners in requesting that we also get not only the red lines, but a list of the edits that have been made since the last time we saw them to help us direct our review to those sections. I mean, if you can imagine reading that entire document over and over again, I think that's what we're all trying to avoid having to start at A and go all the way to Z every single time. So, if you can just point us to where things were made, changes were made, I think that would be very helpful. Um, and I also agree that um there are certain material lists and things like that that are in design guidelines that really do need to be um the appropriate authority needs to sign off on those things. It's definitely not something that we will say those are appropriate materials when in fact we're not the experts on that. Um, and I think uh I also agree with the objective terms. I've mentioned that at

our previous meeting. Um, including the McMansion removal, which I also say that surprised to hear it's still in there. um and window sizes and and um I'm not sure that that was really thoroughly addressed in the in here as well, although I know that there is context um in there, but I think bring that up in skylights um and the utility locations. That's a great other thing and that also needs to be sure to carry forward into the non-residential guidelines because that's where I see the biggest problem with utilities. So, those are my comments. Great. Okay. Um, yeah, I I think some of these already been covered. I have some top priorities. Um, obviously we've talked about fire safety and resilience. Um, Commissioner Caroff brought up the roof decks. Um, I think metal roofs need a little a little more clarification. Um, we talked about ADUs. I don't I'm not exactly sure how ADUs work into the guidelines. We could look at that though. Um the one of the other things too are garbage enclosures, you know, and and how that is affected by setbacks and so forth. There's some challenges there when you're trying to get your your waste cans as close to the curb, but uh but not have them unsightly. Uh other things, um we need clear standards regarding balconies, hot tubs, outdoor grills, things like that. Um, and what else we have? Well, last thing I have, we need to look at the glossery definitions, but I kind of think that's going to come up during the process if we find something which isn't uh defined correctly or isn't isn't clear enough for for people to understand the uh the intent of the guidelines and also the pe

the bodies that are using them. So, so yeah, I think that's that's a good start. And uh we don't we we just we're just making an informal recommendation to uh to approve the uh to endorse the process. We're not we're not we're not doing a resolution or anything, are we? That's correct. Yeah, it's just Okay. So, is there any further discussion?

Okay. All right. Thank you for those comments and we will and thank you for your presentations and thank you councilmen for making this happen. Okay. Uh I think that brings us to the public hearings. Yes, a few of these have been one of them has been continued. So, I got to be careful I don't jump to that one. Okay. The first uh first item on the public hearings is an appeal. This is appeal 26045. It's the Pledo projects. A consideration of an appeal of a denial of a design study for the after the fact changes in site coverage that exceed what is allowed for a 4,000 ft uh lot. Uh, the property is located on Monterie, 7th southwest of 9th Avenue. Can we have the staff report?

Give me just give me just a minute. Pull this up on the Thank you. Arrows are here.

Okay. Okay. So, my presentation tonight is for the an appeal at the uh application number A26045 uh for the uh Robert and Patricia Pledo. Uh background on this project. Um the design study originally submitted uh was for the removal of a 200q ft patio and the installation of a 42 ft semi-pervious walkway. Uh the site coverage uh in this proposal exceeded the maximum allowed by 339 square ft according to our code. Um, as such, it was denied on February 11th because it was not compliant with the general plan, with the local coastal program or the Carmel by the Sea Municipal Code. Uh, February 19th, there was a timely appeal that was submitted and grounds for appeal. Uh the appellent's contention is that the staff's denial of design study 25311 precludes the installation of a new entry walkway which is unreasonable and unsafe. Uh staff's response to that contention was that the site coverage uh in the amount of 895 square ft was uh actually non-conforming. And just uh I think it's notable to mention also that at the uh site visit today. Um I observed additional site coverage that was never mentioned on any of the site plans submitted. Um so just wanted to uh interject that at this point. So it in reality the uh the overage is more than than what is stated in my presentation here. Uh so the non-conforming site

coverage um according to CMC section 173640E uh requires a correction of any substantial alteration. So the removal of non-conforming site coverage cannot be rebuilt or reestablished at the same location or elsewhere on the site. That's what's mentioned in that particular section of code. So, the new entry walkway would require sight coverage reduction to 556 square feet. This is a site plan of the property in the uh top left corner. You can see a street view of the property that we viewed today. And uh this is the uh the major structures here. uh the northern side walkway uh where uh the stop work order was issued for the the new site coverage at the north side of the property and also uh the patio area that you see uh kind of midway in the site plan there. This is just a kind of a blownup view of the area in question. the the removal uh the appellant is uh proposing to remove approximately 200 square feet of site coverage. That's denoted in the yellow section there. And then the blue section uh denotes the new walkway that is proposed at 42 square ft. And in the top right hand corner is a picture that was taken uh the day the stop work order was issued. Um and that's the area that we viewed earlier today. Uh I did receive some correspondence from the appellant. Uh there was a letter to the planning commission dated April 1st, 2026. It was actually received after the staff report completion. So therefore, it was not included in staff analysis. Uh the letter did request a granting of a variance. However, no variance application was ever submitted and the

variance was not mentioned uh in the appeal application. So with that, um, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution to find the action statutoily exempt pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15270 to deny the appeal by Robert and Patricia Pledo and to uphold the denial of design study 25311 for the installation of an approximately 42 foot walkway. Uh, this concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Leah, can you can you speak to um how this would how a repair would play into this if if an applicant had, you know, I'm just making a scenario, but they had um you know, some site coverage that was used for um that was that was there, but they were in non-compliance because the site coverage requirement has changed over the years

and there's many residences in town that don't have conforming site coverage. So, as I understand it, what triggered this is this um application for the the 200 replacement of the 200 uh square feet of paving in the entryway. Is that what triggered this? No. Well, what it first of all started out as a stop work order because the the site coverage modifications were unpermitted. So, they were they were being done without a permit, right? So, so the site permit, right, without a permit. That was that's what triggered the design study to begin with. Mhm. So as a result of the stop work order, you know, in order to try and clear the stop work order, the design study was

if you had a pathway to your house, say it was brick that had settled and became dangerous and you know, but you were over your site coverage. I mean, can you can you fix a non-conforming repair a non-conforming situation like that? Or is it is the uh the site coverage specifically say that once you you touch the site coverage, change it, you've got to bring it the site into conformance. Um, I do have the section of code that speaks to a substantial alteration uh where it says uh the removed nonconformity shall not be rebuilt or reestablished at that location on the site or elsewhere on the site. Um, is that answer your question? I I know that's not this wasn't a repair, I guess. Um, so this this section of code talks about a substantial alteration requiring correction. So you can't you can't remove any non-conforming site coverage or rebuild it or reestablish it at the same location on the site.

Yeah, but there's no there's no definition of substantial.

If I could u add a bit more clarity. Um the subsection prior to this section which is 030 is alterations and enlargements of non-conforming buildings and structures. Uh subsection B of 030 states that alterations, repairs or remodeling that enlarge, extend or increase a feature shall be prohibited. Um but subsection A before that states that um you can maintain, repair, alter as long as the maintenance, repair or alteration doesn't increase the nonconformity. So spot repairs are allowed per the non-conforming section. Well, and that with if I understand that correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, if you had a walkway going up to your front door that was 3 ft wide and 20 ft long and it needed repair, you could repair all of that walkway. You haven't increased the nonconformity. You're just repairing the walkway. and and and assuming I mean there might be other might be other criteria if you change materials whatever but

but assuming you just you had a brick walkway and you you fixed it with brick and leveled it out but you increase the size that's allowed under the repair correct I think generally if it falls under repair we'd look at it as okay if it's replacement then that's when it starts so how so so my question for Leah is how does this how does this differ from that well it wasn't a repair. It was the the site coverage was being removed and new site coverage was being Was there a walkway there that they were replacing without a without a permit or or did they just Was that area paved prior? Do we have any documentation about that?

I I believe it was brick prior to that. Um I don't have that in my presentation here. Um I I believe it was I believe it was all brick the the patio area and the and the walkway area. And this is this is the area that we saw inside the was close to the between I think there was a a fence there, right? And and the front door, right? And and they had right now they have um looks like cement sand in there which is typically what you use under pavers, right? Was that area that area is the 200 foot area? Yes. And Okay. Right. Okay. I was just trying to get some clarification on that. Thank you.

Any other questions, Commissioner? Well, thank you chair for those questions. They were helpful. The the area that we saw between the columns and the front door that yes appeared to be set with sand. Is that entire area intended for replacement with new semi-permeable pavers of some sort or is it just a narrower walkway between the pillars and the front door? just that walkway that that you saw there. So that where it looked like that gravel material that was there that that's going to be removed. The the appellent has said he's removing that um all that site coverage there.

So if I if I remember your presentation, there will be less sight coverage if if this pathway was allowed to be put in. There will be net less sight coverage than there was prior to demoing the prior walkway. Yes, that's correct. I see. Thank you. But it still wouldn't meet the U over the Yes. Yes. It still is nonconforming, right? Even with the reduction, it's still over.

It does the planning does the planning commission have discretion in considering Yes. Yes, indeed. It's non-conforming. And we also have an element of safety uh in having a safe walkway between the street and the front door. I mean, is there is there discretion? Because it to me the code is very clear if you cannot increase the nonconformity, we we have an established non-conforming situation. And at the same time, um, the property does indeed need, uh, a safe walkway to the front door. What options?

Give give me some options. Actually,

tell us about the variance process. Um well the variance process just consists of a another application and the uh applicant would have to find uh findings uh as far as why why the variance is is sought. Um usually it's meant for very unique situations. Um we don't do a lot of them for a reason because they're just um the need for uh variance they're very slim. So, um that's why um I wouldn't have recommended a variance in the beginning because it would likely be denied because of the the situation

and chair in a um letter from the applicant in October um he describes what was there. It was um it was a brick porch and walkway and approximately 120 square ft of decomposed granite. That was what was there prior. Yeah. I I would just say as far as discretionary decisions, we still have to make findings. So we got we have to make the findings, you know, one way or the other.

And and what so what what would those findings be? Well, I guess a little premature in the conversation right now, I want to let the the appellant uh make their presentation for their case and um before we get into our discussion, I just wanted to get some clarification on uh the codes regarding this and I appreciate uh appreciate that clarification. So, can I can I ask a question about that? Yes, absolutely. Um, when we calculate side coverage, do we also calculate the space that is under the roof? Because this house has like a pretty big roof uh coming out maybe 3 ft or something like that.

How about the side coverage that is right below that? Do we count that as side coverage or is that considered part of the house? You mean do we count the eaves as the site coverage or Yeah, the the the area that is under the eaves. Yes. The area under the eve. So like the brick porch. Yeah. Under the eve. Is that considered part of the house or part of the sight coverage? That would be considered sight coverage. Okay. I don't think the eaves the eaves are not counted as sight coverage. Just any any uh surface paving under the eaves,

right? The only time I think we get into eaves on new projects is like volumetrics. If we get out over a certain distance from the house, it affects volumetrics. Is that correct? Uh I do believe they are also counted towards coverage if they exceed a certain um size. Okay. Yeah, but I I don't I don't think in this application that's that's relevant the ease 24. Yeah, I don't think we're we're we're anywhere near the

with the eaves. So, okay. Having said that, uh I just want to say that uh just procedurally I normally allow five minutes for applicants or appellants to make their their case. uh three minutes for comments from the public. I will allow the appellent to uh come back up and make additional comments to ask for answer questions uh that have been raised during the uh public comments. So, I'd like to invite the the appellent to come up at this time and make their presentation. If if I talk for five minutes, you you can kick me out. Well, if you need more time, you can always request it, too. I I forgot to say that

eaves over 30 in do count for sight coverage. Um this began about u last October just for the record. Uh since then I've looked at at least a dozen properties and none of them met the very met the the site coverage requirements as written in the code right now. They're pretty stringent. Uh I bet if you check your own properties you'll find the same thing. That being said, even if it was properly rewritten to in a sensible way, my my property would never uh get to compliance between the eaves, the decks, the all the levels. I've got five levels, by the way. All the entrance and egress. Um virtually everything except that old patio and back serves a functional purpose. Um, and when we look at the the uh code section 17.36040 that precludes the reconstruction of property, I I know what it's there for. It's there to prevent uh overbuilt properties from being reconstructed, overbuilt. Whether that include whether you're talking about tool sheds, whether you're talking about decks, whe whatever you're talking about, we're to try and get things back to a to right size, so to speak. But in in no case when that was written did anybody contemplate that somebody would end up not being able to have a a safe all-weather walking surface to their main entrance. It it just it it couldn't have been. Nor was that written to preclude the replacement of critical elements to the house again, sidewalks, stairways, etc. If if if you take one out because

it's falling apart, uh you need to be able to rebuild it. Um, and if you don't, it it doesn't just this denial doesn't just limit the functionality of our property, which it clearly does, and resale value, which it clearly does, but it it for us it poses real safety considerations. We're we're we're not quite oxygenarians, but we we're 79. My wife has a lot of issues with with balance and has had several falls. And so on top of that, it kind of defies common sense. Um, this is a dimminimous project, 42 square ft to have safe all-weather access to the main entrance of our house. Um, it'll do zero damage to any neighbors. In fact, I have copies of six letters that should have hit Shelby's desk or Leah's desk u endorsing the the right to have a sidewalk to your front door. So, um having served on I'm the senior me member and chair of our planning commission where our primary house is. So, I've done this a long time and we operate with the with the concept that it's our duty to to uh prevent unintended consequences, which is what this is um due to code enforcement um and interpretation. And by the way, the interpretation and enforcement of this code has changed because previous permits site coverage was never mentioned to me, not once. So, uh, particularly when there's

safety, uh, I believe the planning commission has a duty actually to to make sure that it doesn't happen. Um, and I hope you agree with me. Thanks very much for hearing me. Uh, I had a few questions for you. Could you kind of come back up here? I I just trying to get some clarification on what I saw out there today and and what you're proposing. Um, so, as I understand it, at this point, you're just proposing to uh have this 42 ft square foot walkway up to the front door, 3 ft by 14 ft.

Okay. And then are you proposing to remove any other existing site coverage other than other than what what you mean? All the walkways and stuff. No, no, I'm just I'm just saying I let me be more specific. When I was out there today, I noticed that there was some brick paving uh around a tree there in the front yard. Look, you know, that that would be gone. So that you're proposing to remove that? Yes, that was part of the contract contract. And then what and and what other areas were there any other areas you were proposing to remove in with this with with this you know in the context of this appeal?

No. When I started not knowing that that to put down sandep pavers required a permit cuz it doesn't in most jurisdictions. It certainly doesn't in ours. I was going to replace the entire all the decomposed granite and everything. Now, I'm going to pull all that sand out of there except the sand that's required for the sidewalk. So, I've minim minimized it as much as I could possibly can and still be able to get in and out of the house. Um, and then the rest I'll replace it with top soil and plant roses and whatever. But you're but you're also going to you're proposing to re pull up the uh the paving that's around that tree that's outside. Yes. Okay.

That would be And in the back showed up, it would already be gone. Yeah. In the backyard, you've got a patio, but you're proposing to keep that. Is that correct? Yeah. I mean, it's a lot of expense to tear it out and serves no purpose. It's been there forever. Okay. And and there was there was also some um loose pavers that were kind of circulating around the landscape scattered around the garden. I I guess that was considered artistic, but it didn't doesn't bother me, so I've left. I'm happy to take them out. Yeah. I have no objective. Okay. And and then the other the other question I had, maybe this is more for staff. You you weren't counting the eaves and any of the site covers on this project. No.

No. Okay. Because apparently you have some eaves that that I guess would qualify for.

My point was that even if I could, and I can't. Even if I could, and this was in the letter I sent to you on the first, if I could take out all the porches and sidewalks, etc., etc., etc., then then the deck andor the eaves still count as sight coverage. I still can't get under it. I mean, taking out the patio in the back doesn't even get me close. On the other hand, it's important to realize that if you take the footprint of my house and all the sight coverage, I am way under what is allowed on a 4,000 square ft lot, which allows 800 uh feet of buildable area and another 500 and some odd feet of sight coverage. I'm way under that. It's one of the flaws in the way this is written. I should get some credit for the fact that I have this tiny footprint of a house, which wasn't intentional. It's just what they had to do because uh they had to had excuse me had to build in levels. They couldn't build flat. So I'm way under what a typical house, right? But our but our site coverage has to do is is not about the footprint of the house.

No, I understand. I get your point. Don't don't I'm not trying to uh say I don't. I'm just we have to deal within the context of what our ordinances are. So I I think you've clarified my questions. There any other questions for the opponent? Okay. If you need additional time at the end to answer any questions that come up, we'll I'll have you come back up. Thank you. Okay. Uh any member of the public now would like to come and make uh comments regarding the uh the appeal.

Hi, Shirley Moon. Um, I wasn't planning on speaking, but I'm very concerned with the overall impact of this type of a situation. First of all, when I read this and I see substantial alteration of a nonconforming building or structure, I can't in my mind think of repairing a walkway or even a courtyard as a substantial alteration. That courtyard is a very important part of the architecture of that building which I believe is historic as well. And I'm very concerned that this feels like a gotcha and I hate that in our city. Uh Brandon once said, "Government should feel like an entity that does something for its residents, not to them." And this does not feel like the government is doing anything for this citizen and that bothers me a lot. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Uh, anyone else in the chamber like to speak on this issue? Okay. Any hands up online? No, sir. Okay. Um, I don't think there's any issues raised. Do you do you need do you need any follow? Do you need any any followup? No sir. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to close the uh comments, open it up to the commissioners for their comments. Um, Commissioner Alurn, do you want to begin or you want to pass? I'd like to pass. All right, Commissioner Allen.

Um, so I would like to find a way that uh we can accommodate the this applicant uh because I feel like there should be a creative solution that allows him to have a walkway to his front door. I mean, it's just pretty basic. So, um, so if there was anything that we can come up with, uh, to, um, you know, remove the brick around the tree or or, um, anything else that could get us into an area where we feel comfortable, I would like to try and do that tonight.

Commissioner Lock, here comes. Thanks. Are you trying?

Yes, I'm trying. Um yeah, two different things that come to mind with this and I completely agree that that a creative solution is in order. Um I personally am questioning again in this the substantial alteration of any non-conforming building or structure. I'm assuming we are calling the patio area a structure. Is that correct? and is there a definition in our code on that that specifically states that that is considered a structure. So that's one question. Second question is going to be the variance process. And in looking at the variance process, um variances are allowed, one of the uh four areas that variances are allowed is maximum site coverage and findings that have to be made by the um planning commission as part of that. Um and I believe that we may be able to structure some findings that would potentially work with this project. Um, but I also think that the um there is potential for the applicant to remove the non-conforming or at least a significant amount of the non-conforming site coverage. Um, and so I I think that needs to be part of whatever ends up coming out of this um discussion today. And then also I do want to reference that in the city's files on this property in 1984 um there is a note that lot coverage exceeds 30% on this property. So the property owner should have been notified um that they had had a coverage issue. So those are my comments.

Commissioner Carov. Um, yeah. I mean, I'm looking at the numbers and trying to figure out if the math can be made to work anyway. So, I assume the current calculation of what's allowed on the property does not include the bonus we give for permeable. Is that is that correct? I'm sorry, what was the question? the uh the numbers we're seeing here in the in the staff report, do they include um the 50% bonus we give uh when permeable side coverage is used? Yes. So that's already included.

Yes, it's already included. So they're allowed a maximum of 556 ft which includes the bonus. Okay. Um can they get to

So yeah, we we saw the problem with it today. I think uh you know there's no way to remove the driveway. The driveway is required for the for for the parking basically. Uh you need a walkway to your front door. Uh on the side there was this long walk that gives you access to the backyard. That one is also semi-permeable as far as I can see. Uh and then this patio in the back is only 144 square ft. So even if we remove the 144 square ft in the back, we're still not meeting the requirements. Um I'm glad to hear that you know that all this suffocating structure around the tree is going to go away. I think this tree is going to be very thankful for that. Um so I I don't know. I mean I I my my understanding was that we are not going to count everything that is under the eaves and that's a lot of site coverage and maybe that would help us with the math u but

I understand now that it's counted towards site coverage um and and uh appil made a good argument actually that it should be both it should you you know realistically the purpose of site coverage numbers is to provide open space for trees to develop roots for the water to be absorbed naturally in the ground. Right? That's that's the thinking behind it to open space for uh making everything more inviting and more and to support the village character basically. That's that's really the thinking about it. But um it it includes both what the covered what is covered by the house and what's covered by bricks and stones and patios and all of that. Um so I understand that that argument. Um I'm not sure you know we we need to figure out if there's any flexibility in the way we uh work with this numbers and um I would really like to help the the you know the uh resident uh with with this request because we s we saw that they definitely need a a way to get to the to the front door. Um and um yeah I don't I don't see a a a win-win resolution at this point, unfortunately. Okay. Okay. Uh, here's the way I look at this. You've got non-conforming site coverage. It's all over town. This is not a this is not a substantial alteration. And the applicant is proposing to reduce the side coverage. Now, we we have we have in our ordinances, if you're going to do an addition, you have to remove uh twice the square footage of the of the existing site coverage, but you're still not in compliance. You can still be in a non-compliance. So, it seems to me here uh the applicant is proposing to remove additional site

coverage. He's bringing it down. And I I would also if if the other commissioners think we can make findings to do this, I would also make it a condition that all that loose paving in the backyard needs to be pulled up, but the applicant is is is agreeable to do that. and and um so it seems to me it where it where it fails here. This is not a substantial alteration. You know, it's really it's really I mean there was there was two separate issues. It got triggered because they were doing it without a permit. They didn't realize they needed one. I understand that there's a lot of confusion on the part of the uh the public about what what permits are needed or not. But there was an application and I think and I understand staff has an obligation to look at this and try to bring things into conformance. But we have an existing situation here where it's non-conforming but they are not doing a substantial alterations. Usually we bring we require applicants to come into uh uh compliance if they are doing a a substantial project. you know, they're going to tear down, rebuild, they're doing a big addition, something like that. This is just an applicant that's really where it all started was he wanted to repair the walkway going up to his front door. So, we're making I feel like the finding is here. We are requiring him in order to have repair the walkway, we're going to require him to take out some additional sight coverage, the sight coverage around the tree and all that. loose sight coverage which is in the backyard. And I feel like that is a uh we've improved the situation for the the site coverage allows the applicant to do essentially what he wanted to do

and u and I think it also you can meet the finding that it what he's doing is not a substantial alteration. So I don't think it requires bringing the site coverage into total conformance. So, how do the other commissioners feel about that?

Chair, I'm I'm tending to agree with you. Um, site coverage is something that comes up in every single planning commission meeting and in all almost every single design study that we look at and I I checked and and that code was actually adopted in 2004. So, it's not a new standard for us. It's something that we've had for a long time. your interpretation of substantial alteration. I would tend to agree um that what is being proposed would not constitute a substantial alteration. Uh I take note that there while the end result will still be in non-conformance foresight coverage, it is reducing that nonconformance. I especially like the opportunity for the planning commission to perhaps give a little and for the property owner to give a little back. Um that we can perhaps give approval for this new walkway of of whatever the dimensions are that we know that that have been specified. um and make that make the requirements and the conditions of approval including removing the loose paving in the rear um removing that site coverage around the tree and I don't know I mean there there is 1 2 3 four five six there are actually at least seven locations on the property where they have sight coverage and I don't believe that even includes the asphalt BMS that were at the uh at the street frontage Um, so I would I would support your suggestion, chair, um, that we we find a way that we can make findings to approve this walkway uh, for the property owner. But I would also like to see conditions of

approval. And frankly, I would like to add, including removing the loose paving in the rear, removing the sight coverage around the tree, and also removing the those asphalt BMS adjacent to the street unless unless that asphalt has been added in order to provide um storm water control or drainage control. Are those are those on the site? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Okay. Uh any

Yeah, I'm I'm agreeing with that. Um and I think what's important for staffs on this one is um substantial alteration. Um and interpreting this as more of a a reduction in a simple replacement um where there's no expansion and a reduction in site coverage. um reducing the non-conformance. So, this could also be something to add to those um design guidelines, please.

It's it's more of a code issue than but uh you know, but um any uh maybe have some comments from staff on this.

Um yes, just uh comments in terms of logistics and and moving this forward properly. the resolution, the draft resolution that's presented to the planning commission is for denial. Um, if the appellant is open to it, um, what I would suggest is we trail this item to the end to allow staff time to prepare a revised draft resolution. Um, we could work out the conditions of approval. One thing I would hate though is for the appellant to sit through the entire hearing. Um perhaps they can log on via Zoom um and just give um the planning commission um a sense that they do agree to the condition of approval as it's crafted.

The other way we could handle is we could have a recess. I'm fast, but I don't know if I'm not fast. Well, I mean, are you guys just going to do this on the fly? Another option is you could do a resolution of intent. We can return in You feel like All right. Uh, one of the the opponent come up get some input from him. So, do you understand what we're proposing? Yeah.

So, basically, basically, we're proposing to uphold the appeal with conditions and so staff wants to have time to draft those conditions and the conditions and findings. Findings and conditions. So, we've we've had conditions suggested and findings need to be made to support the appeal. That's fine. I I have no absolutely no problem with that. I I I don't a recess that makes all these people sit around. I know how these meetings go sometimes go four hours when you'd like them to go an hour and a half. So, I wouldn't want Hey, we sit here the whole time.

But anyway, I I guess you know, are are you comfortable waiting for staff to uh you know during the meeting to staff to come up with the the uh resolution and then Sure. Yeah. Or you can leave. I mean, you don't have to be here. Well, I just call my wife and say I'm not driving back up tonight, that's all. But oh you oh you have to you have to drive back. You don't you don't live I one comment the those asphalt BMS I'm not sure they're on our property but the city put those in. I didn't put them in. They funneled it. Yeah. It sounds to me they're probably for drainage. So yeah I don't think that would be uh something we would recommend condition to be removed. Okay. Thank you.

I'll stay as long as you want me to. All right. Okay. Uh we will um can let staff uh draft a resolution and then we'll come back to this later in the uh public hearings. I do need a motion to table the item. Pardon? I need a motion to table the item. And then later you will make a motion pull it from and I'll second the table. Roll call. Commissioner Alorn. Yes. Commissioner Allen. Yes. Commissioner Carco. Yes. Commissioner Law. Yes. And Chair Leage.

Yes. Motion is carried. Okay, let's move on to the next item. Anybody have to recuse themselves on this one? Okay, the next item is a design study. This is uh DS25162 uh 5855 Unipuro LLC's consideration final design study for uh 148 ft addition and a new 264T garage. Have staff report please. Good evening, commissioners. As you said, chair, this is for the final design study for DS251625855 Hunipo LLC. For the project description and background, uh this is a 4,000 ft lot. Um there's an existing 1,298 square foot square ft of floor area. The applicant is proposing 1,64 square ft including a new garage and an addition to the primary residence. Um there's existing near 1,200 ft of site coverage and they are proposing to bring the site coverage into compliance down to 554 ft. And here is the landscape

plan that shows the new PA patio and walkways and driveway as well as the new garage and the addition that um kind of Tetris piece in the middle of the L. Uh conditions of acceptance from the previous meeting uh included volume study and the site passed uh volume, a preliminary grading and drainage plan which was provided to staff and incorporated into the plans and aligns with the rest of the project plans. And then there was a uh condition regarding the siding. The applicant was proposing both vertical and horizontal wood siding for the facade of the um building and the commission requested that they stick to one orientation which they've decided to go with horizontal siding at the front so it's consistent. Uh here is a look at what was previously uh proposed which shows the vertical um siding and the horizontal siding. And then on the right shows what is now being proposed which is just all horizontal siding throughout. Um you'll notice on the south elevation you can see some stucco. On the south and rear elevation there is existing stucco that the applicant is proposing to keep there. Um, for the finished details, uh, everything is earthton tones and muted, uh, with downward shielded lights that meet our lumen requirements. Uh, they're proposing a wood picket fence and permeable pavers as well as a composite shingle roof. And with that, uh, the project complies with our design guidelines and I'm recommending, uh, defining the project is categorically exempt and to approve the coastal development permit and final design study. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Questions for staff? Commissioner Alper. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Olander. Uh, I have a question regarding I'm looking at our our final details design guidelines, section 912, talking about skylights.

And, um, skylights are discouraged on the front of the roof and visible from the right of way. They're preferred minimizing the visual impacts by locating them on the back of the roof. Uh and section 9.14 says skylight should not be visually prominent from the street or from neighboring windows. The skylight as we see in this elevation appears to be rather dimminionative and it also appears to be above perhaps the front door. Um, I imagine that's to bring light into the entry, but do we have any additional information about that skylight? Because that would be visible from the right of way, would it not?

I went back and forth on this one a little bit. Um, the property is set back fairly far from the right of way and they're proposing that the garage doors you see here is the garage that's going to be in the front setback. Um, I was uncertain how visible it would be from the right of way. So, um, it wasn't something that I put a lot of consideration to cuz it was small and it seemed to be for light for the entryway, but if there's concerns about it, we could condition the project such that they put the skylight at the rear of the property because the rear of the property slopes downhill quite a bit, so it wouldn't be visible from neighboring properties. Um,

that surely though would not, I imagine, serve the function of um, you know, that the architect is intending um, by providing some additional light there. Do we have a a size of that skylight? Uh, I don't have it in the plan. We have we have a standard condition in there regarding the skylight. Low profile non-reflective glass. Yes, that's that's that's a standard condition. Okay. Um, but I don't have the window schedule in front of me. I could attempt to pull it up and see if I can. Okay. Well, I'd be interested if my other commissioners have any concern about that. Thank you.

Um, can I ask you a question please? Um, it looks like a very low structure. What was the problem with the volume calculation? Cuz usually something like that would not have a problem with volume. I I don't know exactly. Volume is a we we give our volume studies out to a third party um to calculate. Um, but I know that some of the things that the applicant did was to adjust some of the roof eaves and to lower some of the plate heights. Uh, they also removed the proposed chimney. Um, so I think those were some of the factors that helped them get uh the project to passing volume. Um, but I don't know the specifics of it. Um,

so what is the what is the plate height right now? Is it like like I don't see here on the screen right now. I'm opening up the uh project plans in another window to pull up the window schedule. So uh I can get that pulled up when we we're looking at the plans. Let's look at the plate height. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Mhm.

Any other questions while I'm pulling up the plans? Any other questions for staff? Okay. Um, do you want us to wait for you to pull that information up or shall I invite the applicant to make their presentation? I've just opened up the plans in the agenda so we can look at them now or I can download them and we can look at them in Adobe to have a little better control if you want to get a public comment. Either way works. Well, I'm going to uh invite the applicant to come up make their presentation at this time. Maybe they can answer that that question for us too.

Good evening, chairman, commissioner. My name is John Moore, the designer on the project. Um the it was a great question uh about the volume. The volume on structures that are not on flat ground and when they get close to their maximum on floor area, it's very hard to make them comply. I mean, we went probably what three or four times back and forth, back and forth and redoing the redoing. So, this has a 8ft one plate. You can see the house on the left, other than the siding, looks better, I think, than the one on the right. But we're down to, I think, a 4 and 12 from a 5 or 6 and 12 pitch, 8 foot one plate, totally standard. It's just the square footage. And then when it drops off in the back, whatever, it's probably a 3ft drop in the back of the house that slopes down, you that just all counts. It's not from finished floor. It's from grade. So, the grade drops off. So, that's why this house, other than being looking low, it's just that's all that complied. We're we're like right there. So, um, we work with staff quite a bit on that. and finally got it to comply. Um the skylight, that's actually the front door on this. So if you look more back, um Jacob, at the site plan, you can see that the garage is way out front. The house is that part with the skylight is way in back. Um and it's a 2x two skylight. If he pulls up that site plane, so you can see that the front door is actually, you get it down a little bit, is up the page right there, almost where his cursor is. And so that over in that way, if we flip to the floor plan, one back on the sheets 2.1 right there, it's in the end of the hallway. That happens to be the laundry room area. It's kind of back behind the garage. And so that's where we thought the hallways tend to be dark kind of corridors that when they're lit up, they're brighter. So that's why we actually put another door, French door there. But the front door is up where the family room is there, the living room. But everything we took into consideration, I think it was uh your idea on the the horizontal side and the

owner wanted that, but we went all back to horizontal and I think the house fits the neighborhood and everything nicely if anything gets small or low. Any other questions? Questions for the architect? I guess not. We'll uh we have any, we'll call you back up. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to address the planning commission regarding this application? Okay. No members in the chamber stepping forward. Any hands up online? No, sir.

Okay. Uh I'm going to uh close the public comments, open up to the commission for their comments. Uh Commissioner Cartoff, you want to kick it off or I don't have any real comments. Uh, I was only concerned about the volume calculation because I couldn't understand why would that be a problem and now I've got an explanation. So, I'm I'm good. Okay. Commissioner Lock.

Um, I'm supportive of the project and I actually don't have a problem with the skylight because it's far enough back from the road back behind kind of the garage area and it's a very small skylight. Um, and I appreciate the um, applicant providing some details as to the thought process on that. Um, but no, I think the materials are all good and um, yeah, that's fine with me. Commissioner Allen,

um, yeah, I like the project and actually I think it looks a lot better with the siding all the same way. And um I if there was a way of moving that skylight just a little bit further over toward the laundry room that where we knew that the garage would block it, that would be fantastic. Okay. And Commissioner Alurn.

Yeah. Um I enjoy the redesign. Glad that it met volume. Sorry that it took so many passes, but I know sometimes here that happens. I I actually support the design guidelines where they discourage skylights visible from the right of way. I also think that they're fabulous for what they do for the interior of our homes. U and I'm I'm reluctant to require a condition where that skylight would move. Um that said, I would really love it to not be there. Can I ask a question? Sure. Um to the applicant, would it be possible to maybe do a tube instead of doing something that would

like a solar tube? Yeah. Can you come up? Yeah. Answer the question. Thank you. Can you go to the roof plan real quick? Just want to see if I can get it over there. Yeah. Um I just want to say one thing about solar tubes. Part of part of our standard condition is they have low profile and a solar tube's going to stick up. It has a higher profile. A solo tube. I thought you were talking about getting it over. These look far better than a solar tube. We're moving it. I'm not moving it sound. Yeah. I don't think I don't The solar tubes don't really meet our standard.

If I was closer to the ridge, I can get it over, but I'm far down because of that hallway there. So, it's either it's there or it's not, you know, kind of thing. So, Commissioner Allen, were you suggesting that uh that Mr. more. Move it uh further. Let's see if I can get this toward the south. Yeah. Yeah. South. That might be possible. And and I'm reluctant to redesign your beautiful work. Please understand that. But the guidelines do very specifically speak to this where it is preferred to not have a skylight in the right.

Totally understand. Yeah. Right now I can do it. It's it's aligned. I have it aligned with that door. So coming up, there's an alignment there, but it can you can see where the door is of the laundry room. I mean, it can go align with the door of the bedroom, which is about 2 ft that way. I mean, that's fine. That would be awesome. Everybody, yeah, fine. Done. Okay, that was easy. Thank you. Thank you. Would you like me to add that as a condition to the resolution? Just say move this guy like 2 feet.

Yeah, I was I got I have the uh resolution pulled up here. Um there's only three kind of standard um special conditions acknowledgement no copper gutters downspouts in a construction management plan. So who would like to make make a motion? One more quick just two feet. We'll put it as cuz I don't I just guessed that was 2 feet but we'll put it as close as we can to that wall you know to the to the door where the laundry room is. Perfect. That makes sense. It might be 1 foot8. I just don't want to get too foot and then it doesn't work. Yeah, that sounds

I'll I'll make a motion that we uh accept the resolution as presented with the additional condition of approval that uh adjusts the location of I don't know the number of the skylight this uh the skylight near the front door and shifts it slightly. Let's call it the hallway skylight. Hallway skylight. I can second that. Okay, we have a second. Okay, such a quiet second. All right, any further discussion? All right, roll call, please. Commissioner Alboard, yes. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Careco, yes. Commissioner Law, yes.

And Chair Leage,

yes. Motion's carried. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to item number six on the public hearing. This is uh another design study. This is DS25019 McWarter. Consideration of a final design, study, and coastal development permit for the demolition of an existing single family residence and the construction of a 1,555 ft two-story residence inclusive of a attached garage. Staff report, please. DS25019 Mcuarter. This is for the final details. Project description and background. Uh the site is a 3900 square foot lot. Uh there's an existing 1881 square feet of floor area and the applicant is proposing um to demolish the existing home and rebuild a new uh structure that would be 1555 ft with a 750 ft ADU that would be under a separate permit. Um there's an existing 1,290 ft of site coverage and they're bringing their site coverage into compliance bringing it down to 539 square feet. Uh conditions of acceptance um there's the standard volume study requirement and the site did pass volume. Um tree evaluation wasn't in the included in the plans previously and we wanted it um included cuz it's required. So they have added that and it aligns with the rest of the project plans. Uh we requested a fence and wall detail to show us um the fences and walls on the site. Um but we

added special condition of approval number 36 to add a note uh to the detail specifying the material of the fence. Uh and to add spacing to the fence and the front setback of the as as written uh minimum of 2 in. Um we can adjust that as need be as you see fit. uh continued uh continued conditions of acceptance windows and doors. Uh you requested that the applicant reduce the size of the windows and doors at the facade so they didn't have an appearance of a grand entryway and nonhuman scale. Uh the applicant reduced the entry window a little bit uh and as part of the redesign for volume added two kitchen windows on the north elevation of the property. Um so not on the facade. Um but they didn't amend uh adjust the size of the great room door um that is quite large. Um so staff is recommending adding condition of approval number 34 requiring that no doors would be greater than 7 ft tall and no windows on the facade would be greater than 5 ft wide or tall. And this wouldn't preclude them from having windows next to each other. So, two 5ft windows, but it would create some breaking up of that um continuous glazing. So, they could still have windows at the front that fit with the style of architecture that they're proposing, but wouldn't just be an unbroken um surface of glass at least. Um for skylights, which was condition of approval number condition of acceptance number five, they replaced their large skylight uh with three 3x 3 1/2 ft skylights. Um and then there was a condition about roof deck privacy. Um the applicant proposed instead of a movable privacy screen at the midpoint of the deck to include two privacy screens that would be permanently affixed to the roof. Um there is

concerns about the height at the rear of the property though um as when you're in the 15 ft um rear setback. The maximum allowed height is 15 ft. And with the screens affixed to the roof, that would increase the height beyond that 15 ft allowable. Um, that 15 ft setback wasn't listed at the rear because the ADU only has a 4ft rear setback, but as the roof deck is not purely for the ADU, it is um it is part of the main house. Um, it needs to meet the height requirements uh for the rear setback. So, I added condition of approval number 37 requiring the screening in the rear must be reduced to meet the 15t height limit or moved out of the setback. Um, we'll talk about the privacy concerns a little bit more later, but there are some neighbor concerns about the privacy. So, it's not a perfect solution. So, I'll be looking to you guys to um speak on that and how we can address the privacy concerns while also meeting the height requirements. Um, so here's the design, just a quick snapshot with the existing house on the left and then a rendering of the new design on the right. Uh, for finishing details, they're using um muted earth tones. It's it's some there are some darker elements in there, but it wouldn't be high contrast cuz most of the sides are are um more of a cream or khaki or browns. Um, so the finishing details seem to align with our uh design guidelines and with the style of architecture they're proposing for the house. Uh, for site coverage, the existing site coverage was um largely impervious and that included driveway, brick walkway, steps, fireplace, and barbecue. For the proposed site coverage, 70% of it is

permeable, which gives them that bonus to get them that 5.56 uh maximum. And that's uh achieved through permeable paver, stepping stones, the cantal levered staircase, and their deck. Uh for right-of-way character, they are proposing um tire strips. Um and then they're going to have their driveway that meets the maximum width allowed with the asphalt apron to connect it to the road. Uh and then they are proposing plantings in the front um that are more informal, a combination of ground cover, shrubs and native species um there the city foresters reviewed the plan is um okay with the proposed species that are going to be um planted here. Uh and similarly now we can look at the landscaping as a whole. Uh city forester signed off on the plans and they're meeting the tree density requirements. There's uh existing trees on site that are going to be uh retained and then there's additional trees that are being added and there's a few non-significant trees that are being removed. Uh regarding the fencing, this is why we had the condition of approval number 36 requiring them to add a note of what the material is. Based off the renderings and the design, it seems to be wood which is acceptable. Um but we need to ensure that the um portion in the front setback has the spacing and that they specify that it'll be wood. Uh with regards to the skylight, you can see the existing skylights, the previously proposed large skylight at the front portion of the flat roof and then they've broken those up into three smaller skylights per the direction from the commission at the concept meeting. And with that, um, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolution as presented. I'm here for any questions.

Questions for staff? Um, do you have a question?

Yeah. Um, so when we were on the site today, even the existing house is pretty massive. It's taking up like most of the lot. is virtually no space to walk around it, you know, unless you want to get killed. I almost got killed. Um, now we we're seeing a proposal to add quite a lot of mass in the back of the house. Is is it still in compliance with our rules of sight coverage and and square footage and everything? Is are they meeting the requirements? Yes, there's um they are going to exceed our maximum allowed floor area, but part of that is through the attached um ADU that meets the state requirements for um it's under it's under 800 square foot ADU that the state provides protections for um property owners to add to their property without us being able to restrict that based off of floor area standards. So their site coverage is compliant um and their floor area is compliant um with our standards.

Okay, I I understand that. So but you know in terms of accessibility, you know, I I'm just trying to imagine how elderly people will get access to the house. Is there enough space on the side of the house to actually walk around it? And in case of fire, let's say there's a fire in the back of the house, how would a fire engine actually get access to to extinguish the fire? Is there enough space in the back? Yes, they um they're that's part of our requirements for side and rear setbacks

and ADUs have those requirements also, but actually the ADUs side and rear setbacks are a little bit larger, 4T. Um, so there is around the house and around the rear the 4T spacing for the ADU and the 3 ft of spacing for the primary dwelling and also they meet our composite setbacks.

So in case of a fire, the fire people need to go in this force ft space in the back to extinguish the fire. That's quite unrealistic in my mind, but okay. for the for the ADUs, we don't have any um control over those those setbacks. There's some part of the state protections for ADU development. And then for the main house, our requirements are the 3-ft minimum and then the 25% of the total width of the lot for composite setbacks. And they're meeting those requirements for both of them. Okay. Yeah.

But Mr. Orlando, I had I don't know if it's a question so much as I'd like a confirmation that I'm understanding what you're saying. Um I recognize that um speaking about the ADU, we know that uh government code uh 658522 that talks to the ADU structure itself. We are not discussing that. Um, but ADU law doesn't speak to what's on top of the ADU, the rooftop deck. And so the 4-foot setback for the ADU is clear. Fine. No discussion. to add a privacy screen on top of the ADU's roof then exceeds our code R 171030A that exceeds our code and then pushes the required setback for that roof deck to 15 ft. Is that correct? A total of 15 feet.

Yes. Is the You can't have any structures that would exceed 15 ft in that 15t rear set. That 15 foot I understand. So there so I suppose my final question and and perhaps this is this isn't for you to answer but of course for um for the applicant who will address this I'm quite sure. So the the remedy then is to not have a structure in that 15 ft setback that is higher than 15 ft. Is that correct? Exactly. Thank you.

Okay. Any further questions for staff? All right. Uh I'd like to invite the architect to come up make the presentation passes around. And can you put up my PowerPoint, please? Yes, indeed. And I'll answer your question in a second. Uh, we have thought of that. So,

uh, yes, I do. Should that be Okay. When we uh first uh looked at this property, first of all, my name is Eric Miller. I'm the architect on the project. When we first looked at this property with Scott, um we talked about a twostory 24T high 18 ft plate reverse floor plan uh house on the side. And then, you know, we really started talking about it and think about design guidelines and wanted to make sure that we were um careful uh and made sure we respected the neighbors. So, we decided not to do a two-story. We decided instead to do a one-story house uh with an ADU in the back. So, uh this is the uh site plan. You can see uh Camino Rial where the Taylor House is and uh to the west of that's Carmelo. That's our proposed project. And you can see the Taylor houses in yellow and our house is in green. So, when I first um you know started the project um uh the tailor were nice enough to invite me over to look at what their concerns were. And so u we've got um two areas that we had discussed. Uh the graphic on the left shows uh the lower floor which I called one and the upper floor which I called two. So um what you're looking at here is the existing house the the the netting uh and uh the second floor from uh the

Taylor house from the Taylor bedroom. Uh you can also see the hedge in front. um that was the original height when I first saw the house. So next, so when we're finished with the project and we have the screens in place, um you'll see that um there's complete privacy even from the upper floor. We want that and we want it for the tailor also. You can see the privacy screen there uh with the pisporum planter and then the the the um flat roof over the living room is going to be a meadow. So, we think that really helps uh you know the project. So, uh uh let me see. Can I go back on that? Doesn't want to go back. Okay.

Yeah. So, that's what they see today and this is what they would see uh when we have shared view, shared light, shared privacy. Um, and then so, uh, going to the lower level. So, that's where number one is. So, I'm 6'3 and, uh, the first day I went to the property, this is how high the hedge was. And I thought, okay, I can use that as my design guideline and make sure I don't go higher than the hedge so they can see that little blue peak of ocean uh, and maintain their privacy. So, we had our surveyor shoot the height so it's at 129.0. We used that as our Bible when we went through developing the project. So in fact from the lower level uh they couldn't see us and we couldn't see them. But when I went back the next time they cut the hedge down to 127.4 we also surveyed that and that revealed to me that we're taking the right steps with the design of this because the tailor control the hedge on their side. They can have it low, gone or high but the privacy screens will always be there. So either way, um, we'll have, uh, privacy and the tailor will have privacy also. It's just like a good neighbor fence. But you can see where the orange netting is, you still don't block any of the view that that we, um, that we showed before. So you see that was the hedge when I first went there. And it really when they cut the hedge down, they exposed the netting. So you can see there's our privacy screen. And that's with their hedge cut down. um if they grow it back to where they had it before, that's what it would look like. So for me, it looks better now than it than it did before. And if you want look at it today, it's like any other lot. If you look at a neighbor's lot with no fence on it, no hedge. You go, look, I can look right into their lot, but this is a good neighbor fence. This is a good neighbor hedge. The tailor have control over the hedge on their side completely.

And if they want to take it away and see our uh our screen, that's fine with us. We we want our privacy, too. So, um in the end of the day, um we think we're a poster child for, you know, design guidelines, sharing light, air, views, etc. Uh you can see the image on the left is the final um view from the Taylor House uh of our project if they'd rather hedge up higher, but you can still see our our two screens. And the one on the right is from the upper level. So, uh, you know, I feel really happy about the effort that my client allowed me to put into this to make sure and the money he's going to spend to make sure this is good for everybody. So, the sideyard setbacks right now, we're kind of um denied the light and air cuz it's so buried in here based on the neighbors properties. So, we don't get the light, we don't get the view, we don't get anything from the back. So you can see the netting up there and that was their original uh hedge before they cut it down. Uh all we're asking for is a shared light, shared view, access to air, you know, shared privacy. So and we worked hard to make that happen for everybody. So the image on the left is uh the roof plan. At the bottom you see the green roof. We wanted that to be a meadow. Uh so above that is the roof deck. We bifocated the roof deck. So, um, uh, the tailor, uh, couldn't see us from their bedroom. That's looking down on us from their bedroom. And we checked with our landscape architect to make sure that that planter was big enough to plant a a healthy permanent hedge. So, um, we can do anything in bronze. We can, uh, laser cut some beautiful bronze panels. These are shown more transparent. We're going to have them a lot denser, but we're going to do some beautiful bronze panels the back side of

the deck and uh behind the pitporum hedge. So, pitisporum grows quickly. Uh it's a great u plant to use in a situation like this. And again, I said we checked with our landscape architect and um you know, he was fine uh with the size of that planter. So when the tailor first came to us and before they cut the hedge down, the upper graphic is the one you saw last time. I thought they were more concerned with the view from the upper floor. So um that graphic shows the height of the hedge as surveyed by the surveyor. Now the lower graphic is new because now the hedge is cut lower. So, we wanted to add that other um um um uh panel so that we get permanent privacy no matter how high the hedge is. So, uh I'm going to talk a little bit about the front. So, an average person in a 68 door, so say someone that's 5'9 has about 11 in clearance. My client Scott is 67. So, you know, we really need to have I think it's reasonable to think that there would be 11in clearance below that door that walks out to the front of the property. We used to have that at 86 uh the last time we were here. We reduced it to 8 ft to the bottom of the transom uh because Scott's 67 and uh it's his house. So, you know, we just felt that was pretty reasonable and um you know, we feel like it fits and meets the design standards. So, here's the section that shows you why this is compliant. Um, you see the uh height. Uh, you can see it's 14t 1 and a half to the top of the new um to the top of the new um um uh screen and the next line is 15 ft back. So, the next screen is out of the 15t setback. So, both

screens work. Um they both fit within the setback. So, at the end of the day, um, again, I think we're the poster child for being reasonable about sharing light. I know it's not going to be perfect. I know sometimes the McWthers will hear the tailor when they're having a barbecue and sometimes the tailor will hear the Mcworths when they're having a barbecue, but that's like every other lot in Carmel where everyone's close and, you know, in this case, I'm trying to develop privacy for them. So, I think the final views for the tailor will be better than they are today. And with that, any questions? I'd like to answer questions for the architect.

Okay. One question. Thanks, Mr. Miller. Could could you take me back again? You know, I'm still the freshman here, so I'm still trying to learn a lot of these guidelines. Um could you go back a few slides and show us how I am I am concerned about the 15 foot setback um that's necessary. This is the one. So could you just walk me through that one more time please?

So the natural grade in the back where the uh ADU is is uh uh right higher than the other grade. So it's 14 ft 1 and 12 in to the top of the panel. So then if you look at that next line, that vertical line, that's 15 foot. That's the 15oot setback. So uh that second panel which goes higher is um outside of that setback. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Eric. Okay. Um, members of the public are are you representing the owner or the uh I am representing the Taylor. Okay, great.

Okay. Good afternoon, chair, members of the commission. My name is Christoy and I represent Bruce and Linda Taylor. The Taylor own the historic Fraser residence built in 1913 and listed on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Records. It's located directly adjacent east of the Mcuarter project. I've ex submitted two written comments that outline essentially what our opinion is and our argument regarding why this project as proposed does not meet the city's code or residential guidelines. I'm not going to go them through that extensively. I just want to make a couple points. First, this is a large structure that has a completely flat roof. It also has a two-story portion. Under the residential design guidelines, flat roofs are disfavored. They are not allowed specifically under the guidelines on both large structures and structures that have a two-story portion. This commission and the city has regularly recognized that and as a deviation has stepped into the code and made the actual findings that are required for the deviation from the residential design guidelines. Now I went through that pretty in detail in my correspondence but I just wanted to point out one piece. In order to approve this project because of the flat roof the city is going to have to find that this is a compatible design. Now, in regards to the compatible design, I'm really talking about the rooftop deck. So, in analyzing whether the rooftop deck was a compatible design, compatible with the neighborhood and with the city standards and goals, I did some research and investigation to determine what other freestanding rooftop decks has the city approved in the residential zone of the city. And I really was surprised because I had a hard time finding anything. I reached out to city staff

and he was very responsive and helpful. He dug in too and he came up with a couple seconds story decks. A deck that adjuts out from a second story, but we really couldn't find any freestanding rooftop decks. Now, in my opinion, that makes this not a compatible design because there are no other designs likewise in the city. It also shows that it doesn't support the village character. Now, my time is running out, so I want to quickly make a couple of points. This has already been raised, but the majority of this deck is over an ADU. While you have no discretion whatsoever regarding the placement or the size of the ADU, you have discretion to allow this rooftop deck. This applicant is using state law to get 550 additional feet of coverage, which they're allowed to do and and there's nothing that the city can do about it. But with the rooftop deck on top, that's an additional 477 square ft. So the ADU itself allows the additional 550 plus the 477 on top. In addition, because the ADU allow law allows a greater percentage of the property to be covered, it expands the size of structures just like in this case and it pushes the structures closer to the neighboring property lines. And that's why you get problems like we have here today because this structure is located very closely to the property line of the Taylor's residence. So this is a unique situation and by approving this because I haven't been able to locate anything else, you're really setting a precedent that you see a lot of ADUs in here. It wouldn't surprise me if you start seeing a lot of ADUs with rooftop decks because why wouldn't you take advantage of that additional space? Uh, just to sum this up, I I heard a lot talk about the design traditions 1.5 and I believe three commissioners brought up rooftop decks. I think because you want

more certainty and guidance on how the city wants to treat rooftop decks. In my opinion, it would be really premature and not a benefit of the to the city to allow approval on this step, especially since it is going to permanently damage both the views, light, and privacy of a historic residence. A residence that has been there since 1913 that this city has recognized as being special. Why not instead, let's slow this down. This house can be approved without the rooftop deck. The city can then decide, do we want to allow this type of rooftop deck? Does this meet the village character? Once that's decided, the applicant come back in if the city says, "This is what we want. We want to see, we want to allow our residents to build rooftop decks and enjoy the night sky and everything that goes along with it." That's a big policy decision of the city. I would ask that the city goes through their design tradition process and decides what is the policy before prematurely allowing this project, excuse me, allowing the approval of the rooftop deck. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Uh, next speaker, please.

Good evening. I'm Bruce Taylor. My wife and I and uh our four boys and our four daughter-in-laws and our 11 grandchildren own this beautiful home that you saw today. Thank you for coming by today. Um the objective from our perspective is to maintain our privacy and the views we've enjoyed for the 25 years we've been in the home and uh and going forward as we retire in the home in in about 10 years to maintain that privacy and those views. You saw that you saw the impact of the views with the netting and I think you you saw you weren't able to have a view. So what am I what are we talking about here? So the Mcquarters grew up in California um Scott McCarter and decided to move to Texas. He's in the real estate business. He he um they're in the development business and investing business in real estate. So they know how to play the game in real estate. Can you pull up um page 5A in the plan? So if we look at the before the house they own currently is a 1,700 ft² house twobedroom twob. The bedroom and bath combination in the primary that's it in the primary um bedroom is 400 square ft. So, they're going to spend $7 million to purchase this house, to tear it down, and to rebuild it, and they're going to build 1260 ft of livable space for them. One bedroom, one bath. Scott McCarter is 6' 7 in tall, 235 lbs. What kind of bed do you think he sleeps in? Twin bed. Currently, he lives in a five and a half, five or five or sixbedroom house

in Houston, Texas. That's five or 6 thousand square feet. Also owns a place in Paris. Also owns a place in Park City. And now, less than two years ago, they bought this. So, the bedroom that they're tearing down is 400 square ft. The bedroom they're building is less than 150 ft. It's 10 ft wide. You put a king bed in there, it's 6' 4 in. He and his wife have 1 in at 1 ft 10 in on both sides to exit their bedroom. Meanwhile, the ADU has a bedroom that's two and a half times that and a bathroom that's two and a half times that size and looks like a great primary bedroom. So, the truth is it's not an ADU. It's their bastard bedroom. They're just trying to skirt the law or the intent of the law in doing what they're doing. Does anybody believe that Scott McQuarter is going to spend the next 10 or 15 years in a 10-ft wide bedroom in this configuration? Does anybody believe that's really an ADU? Of course you don't. And so to add insult to injury, they then put a roof deck on top of that ADU that shouldn't be there. The ADU now extends the house 8 ft closer to our house, 8 ft closer to invade our privacy. You saw the impact of the of the house. You saw now we're have two screens to block our view of Carmel Bay instead of one or none. We trim our hedge every year. That's not an accident. We trim our hedge to maintain our view. So our objective, maintain our privacy,

maintain our view. Don't let them make a mockery of this group, this planning commission with this thing that's named ADU. That is no way an ADU. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Anyone else from the public like to address the planning commission regarding this application? Uh, any hands up online? No, sir. Okay, I'm going to close the public comments. Oh, do you Oh, uh, the architect like to make some comments. Closing comments. Yeah.

Yeah. First of all, um, the attorney was incorrect. Uh, I did a twostory house with a rooftop deck on it for Tony Lombardo right across from the pocket. Uh so there is record of uh two-story houses with rooftop decks. Uh and if she looks closer, she'll find quite a few. So that was incorrect statement. Uh also um Mr. Taylor is concerned about how Scott's going to use the house. I can't tell you how Scott's going to use that house, but nobody can tell you how to use your house. And and you know, just because Scott has other real estate doesn't mean he's not going to live there. And so he does intend to retire there. Just as Mr. Taylor owns a house, a beautiful house in Markham Ranch, and I'm sure he's going to at some point spend time in his Carmel house. Uh, I think it's disingenuous of them to say that Scott's going to use this thing uh and shouldn't be using it the way he's proposing it. Also, I do think the tailor cut the hedge down so it would be more of an impact when you went by today because it couldn't be cut every year because if you look at the pictures of the top of the hedge, a lot of those branches are 3 in and it doesn't grow in a year. So, you know, I'm just trying to make a house that they can both be happy with. Uh, if we're lucky enough to build this house, I'm sure that the tailor will be uh the view will be exactly the same because I measured all that stuff. I had it surveyed. So, all this stuff I showed you today was 100% accurate. And uh I, you know, I think the tailor are going to have a much better view from their second floor, and they're going to have the same view from their first floor if they let their hedge grow up 1.6 ft more. So, I mean, personal attacks to me aren't don't belong here. And uh everything that we're doing is uh consistent with either state law or the zoning code that's allowed here in the city. uh and otherwise uh then Bruce controls the whole property you know uh

we started by saying let's not build a two-story reverse floor plan house here for that very reason so we would be reasonable so I really feel that personal attacks have nowhere uh to have no party in a planning commission hearing like this uh and I hope um you know I hope we can all agree on the screening and uh and the and the landscape so thank you. Okay. Thank you for your comments.

I'm sure Eric will claim ignorance, but Eric, is Scott McCarter going to spend a lot of time in a bedroom that's 10 ft wide that has a detached bathroom that's half the size of the bathroom in the ADU. He must be putting a prince or a princess in the ADU. I'm not sure. Eric turns red when he uh has trouble with issues. Thank you.

I'm not going to thank you for those comments. I'd like you to all uh make your comments uh applicable to the application and not make them personal. Here at the planning commission, we cannot make decisions based on that. Okay. Uh any hands gone up since I uh last checked? All right. I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to the planning commission. Um, Mr. Carpet, would you like to begin or?

Um, yeah. I um I think I already expressed my concerns about the mass of this house. You know, it's the the fact that it's so close to the property line that um it's not accessible in general. Uh that that would be my my concern. Uh I am really concerned about safety in this house. Now I do not I I don't I understand that it follows the the book. That's fine. I personally would not consider living in a house like that. I would be concerned about you know an accident or a fire or something and how do I get out? But um if it follows the rules I guess we cannot cannot change that. Um, as for the concerns of the neighbor, um, and the attorney's position that we should discourage rooftop, um, roof rooftop, uh, activity in general. I guess that that that's the best way to put it. I I think that that is something we want to do and we express that when we discuss the design guideline. uh is is it's it's very difficult to um and I I I remember actually seven or eight years ago uh even before I joined the planning commission there was discussion about that there was a project on ocean uh house that you see when you come into the city and there was a discussion about a rooftop and that was the previous planning commission none of us was on that maybe Michael you were on that but it was uh again the argument and I vividly remember that argument was that once you put a rooftop on a building, you cannot really control what's happening on it. It can be explained in one way when you get the permit and then you can use it

in a completely different way. Ownerships of the houses changes. The new owner may decide to do something else. So there's always a risk when you put a rooftop, you know, always a risk that something is going to change and the way the rooftop is used will have impact on the neighbors. So that's why in general we should discourage rooftops and I think we do discourage rooftops. Um in terms of um views uh there is some impact I don't think it's a huge impact of the new solution especially since um you know the architect Eric Miller made a lot of changes uh based on our comments from the previous discussion. Um so I'm less concerned about the view component. I'm more concerned about the way future owners will be using that rooftop and will that be, you know, creating problems for the neighborhood. Um, so two problems. One is what's going to happen with the rooftop not really in support of that. The second one is how do you access this house and is it safe to live in it because it's very difficult to get access to the back. So, just look to my comments. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Lock, you want to make your comments? Um, yeah. I I'm just concerned about the rooftop deck and um if there was no ADU being put in there, would they be able to put in a deck area of that size in the back? Would the coverage work? I don't think it would. Right. So, this to me is one of those ways that I think people take advantage of the ADU ordinance, the state law, um to increase square footage. That bothers me a lot. Um I am very concerned with the size of this project. Um the proximity to the neighbor. I think they have done what they can do to screen but the size of the deck is to me overly large. Um and I am concerned about this the comment with the design guidelines, flat roofs, large buildings and um I think that the um statements that were made um by the attorney um who spoke earlier um really are things that we need to consider going forward because we keep seeing more of these types of things where people are taking advantage of um a law that's kind of forced on us. Um, so I'm not really supportive of that part of this project. Um, I'm also, um, two things. One, the, um, direction from the planning commission at the preliminary hearing, um, was pretty clear about reducing the size of the windows and doors and that they

chose not to. Staff has included a condition of special condition in there. um that I'm supportive of. Um I'm concerned that that um the skylight was reduced, wasn't removed or changed in any real material way other than to break it up into three similarsized um panels. Then to me, that does not accomplish what um I think the commission's direction was. Um, so I guess really those are my comments for right now. You guys go on. Okay. Commissioner Allen.

Um, I feel very similar to Commissioner Lock. Um, I'm a big stickler about the size of doors and windows and uh, and so that's huge for me. And then I'm uh, I'm concerned about the flat roof. I'm concerned about the uh the roof deck. Um and yeah, I don't I don't think I'm ready to move this forward. Okay, Commissioner Albert.

Thank you, Chair. The at the concept hearing, the planning commission did speak to human scale for windows and doors. Our municipal code 1710 talks about neighborhood design and character. I know that in town we have some rather large glazing on that particular street for that particular property. Um I happen to think that that great room door is cool as heck. And I also don't think it meets the character of that particular street. I I think that it stands out too much. And I uh did take note that that particular piece of direction that we had given at a previous hearing was not um completely listened to. I also have a question about the skylights. Uh going from the original was 3'6 by 10 1/2. the um the replacement or the the revised skylights are now a set of a trio that are 36x3 which is essentially taking the same amount of space. So my question to my fellow commissioners would be, okay, if we're going to allow that much skylight, then maybe they should have one single skylight and not do the three or we should get a little bit more specific about the size of a skylight that we think is okay on a roof. Um, I also had a comment actually on the the stone wall that is adjacent to the garage on the front elevation of the home. Beautiful stone and I know um Mr. Miller's architecture I know that his stone selection is always exquisite. Um and you know for our mass and bulk again the

same same section of the code 1710 this is you know section D talking about mass and bulk um where we we don't want large large expanses so um as uh and it discourages large blank walls. So I and it does not look like there's a planter that is designed for that space. It's it's not a deal breaker for me. It's just a a comment to me that just does seem to me to to create a larger massing than we ordinarily like to see. Um uh for the deck, my first I have a question for staff, please. Um because whether it's a rooftop deck or another deck, I actually see it as simply a deck. because it's a it's an elevated space without a roof that is being used as an exterior room. Is a rooftop deck considered a second story?

No.

Okay. Thank you. I I have I have great empathy for the all of the comments from the neighbors and I juxaposed those well first with my own site visit. I'm 5t tall. I don't see anything. Um so I did not see much view but that doesn't say very much. Um, I juxtapose the neighbors uh concern, the neighbors to the east, their concern with the renderings that Mr. Miller showed us. And I also know I mean Mr. Miller has has has been building in this area for a very long time. So we do have the benefit of knowing what he presents in his plans as well as what he produces with his building and um there's always a very tight correlation between what he presents and what he produces. the renderings of the deck um and the showing of the uh partitions and the landscaping. I'm I'm I must admit I found it rather lovely to look at. Um but that doesn't speak to any usage that would involve entertainment or music or cooking. So, I'm I'm rather unconcluded on a number of areas and uh but I'm fortunate in that I have some very smart people up here with me that we can talk this through. Thank you.

Okay. So, um the issues we have with the project are the uh the height of the the doors and glazing, but there's a special condition from staff to address that. So, but it it kind of comes down to the deck. Um, I appreciate Commissioner Krap Pedoff's concerns about access and so forth, but you know, we have standards as far as setbacks and it meets all that and that's why we have those. Those are all those are all objective standards which it meets. So, it really really I really the impact here in the bone of contention is this rooftop debt between the neighbor and um and I don't care where the guy sleeps. Believe me, I really don't sleep where we want. That's not really what this is about. And I don't care how many houses you own. That's not about that. We we look at each specific project. So the problem with rooftop devs is simple. They have impacts. You know, they have impacts and that's why we struggle with them. And uh Mr. Miller here has done a a lot of work to identify what those impacts were and to mitigate those impacts. I'm a little concerned why the neighbors cut the hedge down so much. you know, it it didn't look to me like a yearly trimming because there's a lot of exposed wood there. And um so I I don't know what that's about and I would never presume to decide what intents are. I don't know what goes on inside people's heads, but um the roof tech deck does have impacts to to that neighbor. Uh I guess what our decision is, are they significant? You know, I don't I'm not so concerned about the usage. If there's people out there having a big party making a lot of noise, call the police. You know, that's a nuisance. Just deal with it that way. Really, it's really um it's really about

how does it affect the privacy of the surrounding properties? Um how does it affect their their quality of life in terms of their view? Uh, I think this in terms of the the roof style here, going with a one, you know, essentially a one-story flat roof. It's a modern house that's appropriate for a modern house. And it says in our guidelines, the roof styles, architectural styles should be appropriate to the style of architecture. We're not talking about a flat top on a tutor here. This is a modern house, so it's an appropriate. It's an appropriate and just having a flat top roof mitigates the impacts to the neighbors surrounding that. and and so Mr. Miller's done that. Also, he's got a green roof. I think uh I think that mitigates the look of of not looking at some shingled roof. Uh there's a nice green roof there. So, that that needs to be acknowledged that that does mitigate and uh preserve the the the quality of the view. Uh the owners in the back don't own the view. our our um threshold for impacts is usually substantial uh which is a uh a subjective word. I mean what Mr. Taylor considers substantial and what Mr. Miller considers substantial two different things. I as a commissioner approach it this way and I've said this before. I try to quantify it. Is it taking more than is it approaching 50% of their view? If it's not approaching 50% of their view, then I don't think it's substantial. Um, I will be honest though, looking in in Mr. Taylor's house today with the netting there, uh, you know, in the hedge cut down, you know, it's kind of approaching substantial, you know, um, it's taking a, you know, the the water's left, but I don't know if there was a, you can see the beach there from not.

I'm not really sure. was hard to tell. Um, so I'm not real crazy. I mean, I'm not I think the the approach to try to mitigate the impact with the screens, I'm not sure that completely works. Uh, particularly this the screen that um is is further closer to the property line, although that may be the one you're not really going to see. So, I guess what what I'm asking the other commissioners here and I want some input on is, you know, how substantial do we think the screens impact the neighbor's view? The deck deck itself doesn't really impact the view. It's the screens that are impacting the view from what I saw. If I'm wrong, you know, let me know. But that that's you know that's that's what I saw because the orange netting that was up there I was told that that represents the height of the screen. You know if you took that orange netting down it's a really low structure and you could their view would just you just see right out there. What they're going to see though is they're going to see the deck. So we have to decide are there um potential impacts to you know significant or substantial potential impacts to the neighbors you know if if the screens were gone you know what's the benefit of the screens

just to block it so you don't see people well those are the is that a significant impact I don't know I'm just asking questions well I mean that's a good question you know if you if you remove the screens both of them um but you still use the deck with furniture, right? You're going to have furniture. I mean, would that be a would that be a preferred view from neighboring homes? Is that the question? Well, I think we what we're asked to do if we if we if we want want to preserve the view,

you know, then you take the screen down. So, what this, you know, the screen seems to me are a privacy issue. They want to they want to preserve the privacy for the tailor and they want to preserve the privacy for uh the Mcuarters. Go ahead.

Would the applicant consider reducing the size of the roof deck so that where and on your plans it was pretty clear as you came up the stairs to the roof deck there's a kind of a little jog. In other words, you'd come up the stairs, you'd have the walkway that would go where right now it goes around the screen, but that would be the end of the deck. So, it's much further back from the Taylor's property line. Sure. Yeah. If the and I'm just throwing this out there asking a question. If the deck is pulled back or is made smaller, the you know, if if the portion to the west is reduced, it's pulled back. The east is reduced.

Yeah. So, the east, the east is still there. Um, it seems to me that addresses addresses the view issue and potentially could address the privacy issue because they're not going to be able to see as much of the view from up above and and also for the Mcuarters, they're not going to be able to see as much up above.

But do they then have a deck at all? Because that you of the meadow in the front and also the solar panels. So if they move if they don't use that privacy screen that's at the far east right at the property line if they don't use that then where will the where will the deck be? So there's there was one are you trying to find it Jake or Eric it was one of Erics that he had up when he was giving his presentation where it showed the where the location Oh it was the one that showed the location of the planter boxes on that upper roof.

Yeah, there we go. I'll keep going. that one. So, in this one, as you can see, there's a slight as you come up the stairs, there's a slight little jog in right there. And if that were the end of the deck, um I mean that that would be one thing that would reduce the size of the talking about right there. Yeah.

Yeah. And I'm I'm assuming you're leaving that screening area if you wanted to do that. Yeah. And I'm also concerned because pettisporum can grow to 30 feet and that's going to be a bunch of really tall trees unless you have some kind of an agreement to keep it at a certain height. But well, what I'm wondering is if we just, you know, the deck just cut the deck in half and get rid of that that screen there in the middle. I mean, it seems to me that's what's causing the view issue. that we conse,

you know, and and if it's got, you know, I mean, I'm sure that uh they could come to an agreement as far as trimming it, but but it seems to me the just the height of it, it's the physical structure of it, regardless of the uh vegetation is going to be is going to block the view. Yeah. So, the deck, if you reduce the deck size by half, so it's Yeah. and you just and you just have if it's back up against that back of the property, it doesn't have as much impact on the tailor and the talking about in the back. Well, I think I think the deck needs to be in the back, not forward.

So, are are you suggesting perhaps we've got the stairs coming up and then um putting the privacy screen essentially where those stairs screen? I think the privacy screen screen is causing a problem for with the view. So So none would none whatsoever and no planter there and just have an open deck. I'm not so sure that the Well, you have you have the privacy screen at the at the at the far eastern edge of the deck. Okay. So keeping the small

but but this this mid one seems to me like it's in the view. And then you just if you just took the front edge of the vegetation privacy screen and made that the front of the deck. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the neighbors didn't want the the deck in the back right next to their right next to theirs property. You know, nobody's going to get everything they want here. No, I I'm trying to find a compromise and I'm trying to identify what are the impacts and you know how we mitigate those. Um

like I said activity on a deck if it's out of control call the police. Yeah. You know but I think if you if the privacy issue if you see a lot of activity from you know that affects the privacy. So if what I'm suggesting if it's further back it's up against the heads they can't see it. So they have privacy.

I mean, this is this is a big deck, first of all. I mean, this can house a lot of people, so it's not like it's um you know, I mean, uh and then is there is there a consideration that maybe the deck moves to the front of the house? Does that does that do something better for us over the Would this be a good time perhaps to to see if Mr. Miller could come and talk to us about what some of the rearranged options might be? The what? Would this be a good time to see if Mr. Miller might have some

uh Yeah, I'm I'm get him involved in this because obviously we're throwing a lot of stuff out here. Yeah. Um I just wanted to I just I just wanted to hear where the planning commission was on this. So, Eric, why don't you come up and and uh tell us why we've got some crazy ideas here. I I'm always impressed with um wants to hire us all. I'm quite sure. Did you need assistance?

I I was on planning commission myself for 10 years in PG, so I understand. Um uh so um we studied this a lot and I understand exactly what the geometry is. And so when I was first involved in this uh uh hedge uh this is I'm going to show you the picture of the hedge when I first saw the site. Okay. So uh back. Okay. So this was a hedge when I first went there. I'm 6'3. The only part you see is that little ocean part, right? That's the hedge right there. And then so when I came back out, they cut it down. But see the hedge before was hiding that netting. So that further netting out there doesn't block anything because you can see it's the same see the same little piece of ocean still there. So the only reason I put that other netting up there was cuz Linda was concerned that she could see it wasn't from the main level. It was from her bedroom looking down on the deck. So I'm happy to take that middle screen up. That was only so Linda would have privacy from her bedroom because as Michael says,

this is the the uh this is the further furthest west screen you're referring to because we got we got to distinguish between these two screens so I know what you're talking about. The one furthest west

uh is the one that helps from the Taylor house looking down. And as you said, Michael, the further you push east, the further you are up against that hedge. And as as you push the deck west, you're going to see more of it. And if you pull it east, you're going to see less of it. Um, and so, you know, I'm happy to get rid of that middle screen. I that doesn't do anything uh for the tailor on the main level. The only reason I put that there was because I was trying to mitigate the view from the upper level. And please remember this deck is more like a neighboring yard because we're not looking down on somebody. Usually a roof deck you're up looking down. We're kind of we're lower. And so the whole idea is it's kind of a think of it as a fence. If you are building a new house next door, you have a fence and you have two yards next to each other. Uh and it's not like you're on a roof deck looking down on your neighbors. So that's why we did it on a one story. So, we'd be happy to get rid of that screen to the west. Uh I I know the geometry. If you look at the section, um it if you look at the section, okay, I think I have to go the other way. Uh it clearly shows that the original hedge, which is there, not the cut hedge. That's the screen I was going to put in. That was the final hedge at the same height. So you really wouldn't see the either screen much, but the second screen doesn't matter to me. I think not to my client either.

But the section, the furthest west screen doesn't matter to you.

No, because that's only to help from the upper floor. So see this section right here, the first meeting we came to, I just drew the upper section cuz I was worried about the upper floor. So I added that center furthest west screen and planter. So they couldn't the tailor house wouldn't be looking down on a deck. So then when they came back and cut the hedge down, I had a surveyor measure it. And then that's the yellow that you see. So you actually need some kind of a call it a fence or a screen, call it a good neighbor fence cuz you need a fence there. Um because they the tailor might want to have a lower hedge or a higher hedge.

Okay. Let me let me ask you this here. Are you uh agreeable to making the deck smaller and pushing it towards the east? Well, as we get rid of the planter, that takes up space. So, I'd be willing to make that uh the size of the planter. If we're getting rid of the planter on the west, cuz it takes a lot of room up. So, if we just made the deck smaller based on the footprint of the planter, what's the footprint of the planter? 4T. It's 30. What's the width? There it is right there. I don't have a 30T long. I can't. It looks to me like it's um it's like 4T. Looks like 4T.

Yeah. So Stephanie's not too far off where that jog is. So if she if if the tailor want to pull it away from the property line, but that doesn't help them as much as keeping it more to the west. Keeping it to the west that that really helps, you know, but if you do if you what? So the portion So I'm sorry to the east. The further east the deck is, the less impact there is because the fence head. Yeah, that's my impression. So So but you're just you're just offering to remove uh 4 ft of the of the deck from the west. Yeah.

Or if they want them removed from the east, I don't think it matters to us. I just want privacy on that main level. And I think they deserve privacy, especially from where they'd have a barbecue and their friends and stuff. Okay. All right. Let me uh let me let me I'm going to let the tailor come up talk. All right. So, I'm going to invite the tailor to come up and and you know, we're just we're just uh working on the fly here. So, we just kind of want to get your impressions of what we're proposing.

Hi, I'm Linda Taylor. So, the discussion with the screening with Eric came up because he is putting a portable hot tub. It doesn't have to be put on the plans because it's portable. And that is where the planter box, the hot tub was going to go on this side of the planter box. Then the dining table and the entertainment area was going to be in the back part of the deck right closest to our property. And screen or not, from our bedroom, we will see a hot tub. We'll be affected by noise. We'll be affected by light. You know, it's just going to be a very different environment than what we've had for 25 years. Will it be beautiful? I'm sure it will be. Eric designed a home for us. I mean, we know Eric while we were friends, and this this project's been very stressful for all of us because it's just clearly neither of us are getting what we want. Um, I don't see moving the deck to the east helping us at all because you saw how close those people are when they're on the deck. And Scott is, we've met Scott. We had him to our house. He's 6'7. That's a big man standing up there. And we prune our hedge once a year, usually twice a year. We may have been off a year. So that I don't even know where Eric got the original picture because we didn't even know they were designing the house when he took the pictures of the hedge at a higher point. So that's not relevant. I mean, we should be able to trim our hedge. We planted the hedge, you know, 20 years ago to provide the private.

So your your position is no deck. No. Well, I think you you all rightision ahead of you. Just want to get that. That's your position. That's fine. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Commissioners. I'm for a compromise. I'm for making the deck smaller, pushing it to the east. I don't think I don't think four feet is enough.

I think I think we need to How How long is that deck? It looks looks to me like it's about 30 ft square, you know. I I think it ought to be pulled back to uh you know the you know I think it ought to be half that. It ought to be like 15 by by 30 is what I think.

Can we push it to where it's over the actual residence and not over the ADU? Well, we keep, you know, I mean, I just think that's going to make Well, I don't know. You know, that's that that that's further away or we we we push it the other way. I mean, we make it so it's it's uh we pull it away from uh the tailor and um you know, make it that half. I'm sorry, what were you going to say? Go ahead. Staff have some input. The only input um I had was if the ADU was pushed to the front. No, no, no. I said the roof deck. Oh, the deck. Can we push the deck?

Can we push the roof deck on top of the actual Yeah, we're just we're just we're just dealing with the roof deck over, you know. So, uh I mean it's I think the deck needs to be I think needs to be smaller. Um, yes. What the tailor are saying is they feel it's too close to their property. It's a valid concern. Um,

Commissioner Allen has an interesting question and this again is going to have to go back to you, Mr. Miller. the location of the green roof. I mean, can that be swapped with the location of the roof deck? Yeah. Not not all of them. And and and we are all we are all available to come in as assistants in your office.

So So I I I think that that would actually be worse because they would really have a much better view of that side. But I like Stephanie's idea of where that little jog is just cutting it right there. So it moves it away from the Taylor property line and it reduces the size of the deck. Yeah, I think I'm hearing that that is not significant. That is not enough of a reduction.

Oh, so I I said let's reduce it the planter, but then that's a lot more than the planter. Cutting the whole back off pulls it back at least 5 ft from the deck. And that that uh picture on the left right there, the only reason you see any uh screen beyond that's the screen furthest to the west, which we're talking about taking it out

and taking out the pitis form. So just think of it as a fence like between two neighbors, right? So if we have a fence that we're moving back, say from the property line, you know, so it's if we move it another 5T, it's already uh I think 4t back from the Taylor property line. the house is the the ADU is if we move it another 5T that's 9 ft back from the property line as a fence and I think that they won't be impacted relative to their view cuz I in fact I know they won't cuz I took that picture and I'm 6'3 and I think Bruce is 6'2 I I think I'm a height where I I think they won't see the netting and they won't

so so if we're looking at this um proposed south elevation here the stairs are coming up and then it looks like there's a landing. Yeah. So, you're proposing that we you pull the deck back to the the eastern edge of that landing. Yes. Mhm. And then and then the rest and then the and then the front of it would be where the dotted line is. Is that correct? The vertical dotted line. Yeah. So, I'd pull it back to the landing. And if the tailor wanted where that deck was, we could put uh uh plants and and we could work out a deal with the tailor where we keep it trimmed based on their request. So that

you could move you could move the uh you could put some plannings there. Uhhuh. Yeah. That sounds workable to me. Oh, there's a laser pointer. Okay. I I always wear them and appoint it at the planning commissioner because when I was on planning commission, I used to Oh, that one's better. Okay. Thank you. Oh, thank you. That's very kind. So, my Yeah. So, right here is the landing. Yes. So, we took this whole area here and made it into planting and we uh recorded something at the county so Bruce and Linda could easily uh talk to us annually and say, "Hey, can you cut it down?" Mhm.

Uh then that takes the setback from here. And by the way, this is a 4ft setback as an ADU. It could be a three-foot setback if we're under 15 ft if it's not an ADU. If it's just a piece of the house, but we don't want that. So if we move it back to here and work out some kind of deal where we have a hedge, I don't think they'll ever even see it. Mhm. I I don't think so. And I I do know that from her bedroom, if it's important to her not to see it from her bedroom, then you need the middle screen. If you don't if it's not important to Linda, then we're happy to take the metal screen out. The only reason I put it in there is cuz she showed me that it was a problem for her and I

Yeah. I Yeah. Well, it it needs some screening. So, if it's whether it's metal screener or the or the vegetation, I'm I'm I'm going to leave that up to I'm still having issues with the size of the deck, though. you know, four 460 square ft of area when you're not counting those planter areas. Is that right? Yeah, the the planner area is No, but Eric, that's a lot. That's a big Okay, I'm going trying to go back, Stephanie. Look at the project, not the presentation. Oh, can I see the presentation? Yes, because that shows the deck size.

So, what were you comfortable, Stephanie? I I mean, I've got to ask that question. I The side Can I say one thing? the size of the deck doesn't really mean anything in terms of privacy. I I understand that. I think my my concern I have a couple concerns and one that is really running through me right now is this ADU square footage creates this ability to put um area. I completely agree. And so I would say half of the existing I I mean we could pull it back to that jog and pull it back from the west until it's I'm not saying the jog half of

No, no. I mean pull it back to the jog so it goes away from the tailor and pull it back from the west so it turns into half. Do you see I'm saying reduce it both ways cuz the tailor want it away from the fence. Yeah. So you're saying half. Okay. That that seems like a good place to start. So, well, if you if you take the if you take the jog, cut this off, Stephanie. And cut this off. You have to look up here. Cut this off. Take some off the front. And cut this off. Do both things and make it a smaller deck. Half size. Just make just make it half the area. Yeah. Half the area. And and and and you know, take it from the jog there. That increases the setback significantly to the tailor. Right. And it also reduces the deck size. So the uh

Right. There you go. and and I don't have that middle planter so it doesn't hurt us. We can use the deck. Well, that that that does actually I mean fit into you know as you all know our mass and bulk and our our village character. I mean by making it a little bit smaller I think that is bringing it closer to proportion so long as you think you can get this to work properly. I think I can with your architecture. And I and I also think that having it back here, it's not affecting the village character because it's not on the street. I always try to put the ADU in back because you don't want to put it on the front. So, yeah, it's from the front of the property. It's way back. Yeah. No, I Yeah, I don't I don't uh

but and Eric Eric, while while you're here, and I don't mean to change the subject off the deck, but what's this thing about 3 and 1/2t by 10t skylights? If I make that smaller, the no one sees that skylight and it unless the tailor would see it at night, but it has a screen that closes it down. I was just trying to get light in the kitchen cuz, you know, that lot doesn't have a lot of light. So, we could make it any size the planning commission wants it to be. I just don't think it impacts anyone around.

Well, I I'm just I'm just wondering truly if indeed the architecture requires a 10 and 1/2 ft of skylight. Why would why we why we would have you break it up into three? Why we wouldn't do just one single? Cuz we asked him to make it smaller. Well, I know we did that, but but he did. Why not just and then do triples? So, I I think we we have to get practical here. I think we were looking at the front of the house. That would be way too big. People could see it. It would be a problem. But since it's way back, no one will ever see it.

It It just seems reasonable to let more light into the kitchen. But if you guys want it to be whatever size, let me know. I'll tell the owner. It's It's like doesn't seem to hurt anybody. So, why not just a standard size skylight? It doesn't need to be an oversized skylight. Okay, but but what does that benefit anyone to make it standard size? I do it. I'm sorry. Light, sunlight coming in. Oh, no. But, but I mean, it doesn't impact anyone's enjoyment of their property to have it a bigger skylight. And if we're just going to do a standard size just so we can say we did a standard size, it helps us a little bit, but a bigger one helps us a lot, but it doesn't hurt anyone else. So if it was in the front and it hurt other people and it should be standard size. I get that part.

What if we just have three separate skylights?

Well, so I know how you keep saying that it's not going to impact. It's not going to impact. It's not going to impact. But all this stuff impacts and um and so I know you say, "Oh, there's a screen that comes across." Well, what if like at night sometimes it doesn't go across? I mean, there's a lot of things here that um that really concern me. One is you you say, "Oh, and we can have an agreement about growing um you know uh the height of our bushes and and and trees or or um whatever we pick for the rooftop, but it sounds like a contentious relationship anyway. And so it seems like there's things that could be done to each other that like why would we even set that up?

That's illegal to do that. That's a a bad neighbor uh like growing a tree. That's that's a spite tree. No, that's illegal. You can't do There's not going to be Scott's not that guy. It it just got to this just recently in the last couple days. Bruce isn't that guy. Scott's not that guy. Those guys It doesn't matter. Neighbors change. It doesn't matter. So, I'm just saying I would like the least amount of opportunity for issue and I am not happy with the size of the deck or um uh having it on top of the ADU. I'm not happy with that.

Okay, we need to uh we need to move on from this. So, let's let's get a resolution going. See if this thing passes. If it doesn't, it doesn't. If it does, it does. We spent a lot of time on this. So, um I'll make a resolution or somebody else make a resolution. You want me to start? Uh chair, interject briefly. Go ahead.

Sorry, Lemon Head. Um, we've had uh previous projects with um similarly I don't want to say contentious, but uh not being able to find a middle ground between neighbors and property owners when they're developing. I don't recall the project specifically, but I know there's one that was continued six times in order to mitigate view impacts from a second story that was being proposed. in the direction from the commission was to work with the neighbors to find a design that was um amendable to both parties or at least as close to amendable as they could achieve. So, I just wanted to throw out the possibility that we could continue it with direction to work with the neighbor to find a solution that is more um that that works more for the tailor. And like you said, it may not be that we can find something that makes both of them happy, but they could come back with a design, trimming the deck on both sides or changing the screening. Um, so just wanted to throw that out there. Thank you.

Well, that's certainly an option and and uh if that is is that you think that's a better better route to go? I would support that. Okay. All right. Then I'll make a motion that we continue this item so that the uh architect can work with the tailor to come up with an an agreeable option on the on the deck. But if we do that it we're we're we're we are uh basically endorsing second story deck once you oh see so that so that that and I commissioner Allen is not supporting the deck. So

so if um but but that's that's the motion I would make. So if do I have a second? If I don't then we need to have a substitute emotion, right? We can just continue it but we have to give them specific direction. I understand. I mean I

and it seems to that the uh the the point of contention is the is a second story deck. I I would I would support a a a compromise that reduces the size of the deck as you were speaking of. I I think that I know that we already have a condition of approval 34 that speaks to the the glazing and the size of the windows. And uh I know that uh Mr. Oander has a couple of other conditions of approval in there that that I support. Can we come to an agreement about the reduction in the size of the deck that would be proportionally appropriate?

Well, that's another motion. That's what I'm saying. You can make a substitute motion. I can't I haven't got a second on my motion, so it's dead. But we need we need a motion here. If you want to make a motion that would uh stipulate the the size the the deck be reduced to certain size, I think staff's um suggestion that we continue it so that they can the the architect and the neighbors can work on an acceptable deck design is allows a more um opportunity here and they can decide how they want to change it. They may not be able to resolve it. I don't know. But um

so chair, are you saying then if they can't resolve it and they come back um we are free to uh make a motion to remove the deck?

Well, if that's your opinion, you can you can certainly I guess I didn't mean to uh state that. I guess I stayed that wrong. I said if it's in the motion that the uh planning commission is approving of a second story deck, that's not the case. It could come back and we could, you know, we could decide that, you know, based on uh the findings of impacts that couldn't be resolved and, you know, basically, you know, it be a new new motion. So to either approve it or not approve or whatever happened. So, I move that we um continue DS25019 Mcuarter uh to a time uncertain to allow the architect to work with the neighbors um on kind of redesigning um a proposal that uh takes into consideration the comments we've made this evening.

I'll second that. Okay. Can we have any more discussion? Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Alburn, yes. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Careco, yes. Commissioner Loach, yes. And Chair Leage, yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. Okay. Um, Chair Leage, pardon. Um, I would like to suggest that um the item that was um tabled uh A26045 Pledo um staff is prepared to Okay. by the commission the revised uh All right. So, do you have a revi or a

I need a motion to pull it off the table? You have to make a motion to pull it off the table. I move we pull the the tabled item off the table and consider it. If you need a second, I will second that. All those in favor? I I Yes. No. Who said no? Old school there. Who said no? Are we going to get a break at some point or we get a break? I'm trying to get there. Let me tell you. I was going to go on break, but I'm not going to. Okay. So we have this is a motion to

alteration under accept the appeal with special conditions. Okay. So we are finding that the work is not a substantial alteration in falls under repair and maintenance. That's correct. The uh okay basically okay we're finding that the work is not a substantial alteration falls under repair and maintenance. Yes.

Okay. And approval of the design study is subject to the following condition of approval prior to commencement of work on the 42 ft walkway. The owner applicant shall revise the plans. illustrate removal of all brick uh material surrounding the tree in the front yard and the loose stone pavers placed on as a pathway in the rear yard. I would change that. I don't know if it's a pathway. It wasn't really a pathway. They're just Yeah, I I they they should say they remove all of the the loose papers in the rear yard. Yes, in the rear yard. So strike placed as a pathway and replace. Yeah, just put pavers placed in the rear yard.

Yes. Okay, we're going to strike that. So uh for the 90 days of planning commission, the owner shall remove the site coverage. Okay, they have 90 days and the staff uh shall per uh staff performs a site visit to verify the project is been implemented consistent. Okay, I'll make a motion that we accept this motion as per staff with the modification of the uh papers. Second that. Okay. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Who seconded that? Clear. Thank Yeah. Commissioner Carco. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Alort.

Yes. Commissioner Allen. Yes. Commissioner Carco. Yes. Commissioner Lock. Yes. And Chair Leage. Yes. Motion is carried. Okay. We will take a 15minute recess at this time. 15. 15. What is that? Enough. There's food in the back. Is that

Yeah, we we need fast. All right. Dropping No, Yes.

Okay, we're all here. Um, we'll reconvene the meeting. Can we have roll call, please? Commissioner Alort, here. Commissioner Allen, here. Commissioner Carco, yes. Commissioner Lock here. And Chair Leage here. Okay. Where did we leave off

trail stage? I have item number eight, diamond up on the slide, but we're with item number seven, Teresi. It's a continuence. That's yeah we so we have to do a continuence on that's the next item correct correct okay so the next item on the public hearings is DS24046 teriy project but staff is recommending that it be continued to a date uncertain correct okay do we need to know why or is there is that uh the applicant didn't uh complete the noticing um so it it wasn't properly noticed for hearing uh They're just simply working through additional changes to the project.

Okay. All right. Are there any questions or comments from the public regarding the the continuation? Seeing none. Okay. I will uh make a motion that we continue this item into to a date uncertain. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Albourne, yes. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Carov, yes. Commissioner Law, yes. And Chair Le Page,

yes. Motion is carried. Okay. So that brings us to item number eight on the public hearings. This is a design study 25206, the diamond project. This is a consideration of track one design study referral uh for the construction of a new roof deck associated with construction of a new 800 ft accessory dwelling unit located on scenic 5 northwest of 8. Have staff report, please. Thank you, chair. Uh, so I'm going to actually go ahead and start off with my recommendation, then I'll walk through the staff report. Um, so staff's recommending that the planning commission find the project qualifies as a class one categorical exemption. Uh, two, denying the design study referral for construction of the new roof deck above the proposed ADU. Three, approve the uh, CDP to allow for non-excluded development being ground disturbance for the ADU. um landscape improvements, drainage improvements, and associated site work. And then for approving the design study referral for the installation of landscaping consistent with the proposed landscape plan as authorized by the coastal development permit. And all of those recommendations will make sense as I go through the presentation. So, a design study and coastal development permit um has been applied for by the applicant for a 800 foot ADU, new roof deck above the ADU, and landscape drainage and associate site work. Uh the site is 16,000 ft. It's located in the R1 zone district park overlay, beach riparian overlay, archaeological significance overlay, and is adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area, uh which pulls the site into a ESHA buffer. Uh so the site uh or the residence was originally constructed in 1925 with uh major remodels occurring in the late 80s

and late 1990s. Uh the site is currently non-conforming um as it relates to floor area and site coverage setback encroachments as well as exceeding the height limit for the beach and riparian overlay. Uh there is a previous use permit on file uh associated with the work done in uh 9798 uh with conditions that say uh excuse me that limit the height of the uh rear yard uh structures and those are identified on this slide as conditions number seven and 8. Um so staff is recommending the inclusion of condition of approval number 27 which prohibits the roof of the ADU from being used as a deck. Uh that condition is outlined in full on the slide. Uh the supporting evidence for this condition is uh character impacts. So municipal code section 17.20.160 20.160A3 states that all developments shall be compatible and designed with the existing buildings in the area for the purpose of protecting the neighborhood character and consistent with the R1 design guidelines established in uh municipal code section 1710. Um that is the uh design objective uh section of for the R1 district. Uh this generally prohibits uh dominating and monumental structures that diminish the city's rural charm. Uh it also speaks to balconies and decks should be sensitive to similar improvements on neighboring properties. Uh this feature also conflicts with the prior use permit conditions that I also uh previously spoke to which specifically limited the rear yard structures uh height uh to minimize visibility from the public beach and neighboring or and to protect uh neighbor privacy. Uh staff has also identified that it's incompatible scale. The combined terrace area would be uh in excess of 1500 square feet. And then

also relates to privacy concerns um and issues with adjacent neighbors. And I just want to identify I know there's a long discussion with the the last project uh that that first section 1720 168.3 that's specific to the beach and riparian overlay. So there is a specific finding in the beach riparian overlay that all development shall be compatible and designed with existing buildings in the area for the purpose of protecting neighborhood character. That is a specific finding for the beach and riparian overlay. Um so turning towards the coastal development permit. Uh the site is located within the archaeological significance overlay district. um an archaeological reconnaissance manage excuse me archaeological resource management report was uh prepared for the site and the results were negative. Uh however we do have a standard condition that requires uh notification uh to the city should any uh resources be discovered uh during construction. Uh as I previously noted the site is adjacent to a environmentally sensitive habitat area that being the the Delmard dunes. A biological assessment uh was prepared for the site and concluded that no uh impacts to protected resources are anticipated based on the scope of work. Uh we do have five conditions of approval um that were provided as recommendations based on the biological report uh which implement a number of municipal code sections which have been included as conditions. Um uh being located in the beacharian overlay district uh staff has not identified uh obstruction of public views or alteration of natural landforms. Um, the site also includes a comprehensive landscaping plan for the areas around

the disturbed site consistent with the park overlay district. Uh, this brings us to probably the the most substantial portion of the presentation. Uh, the dune setback. Um, so the planning commission is required to establish setbacks that are consistent with the purpose of the beach and riparian overlay district. um for any for all irregularly shaped lots or lots exceeding 8,000 square feet in area. Um so private development uh shall comply with the setback requirements applicable to the zoning district. So standard R1 setbacks except where a lot line is adjacent to a coastal bluff or sand dune and private development shall be set back from the top of the bluff or adjacent sand dunes as provided in this subsection. So I'll walk through that that procedure. Um, so we do have a uh procedure that says when you have a uh uh there is a a requirement for a bluff retreat setback and that is determined by a uh sorry I'm trying to get my little cursor a study that identifies the location of the development uh relative to the bluff. So that is uh what this is right down here. Um so this was prepared by uh the contracted um uh uh the as part of the the geotech report

for the the project. Um so here we have a uh the toe of the bluff and a 20deree ascending line which identifies um that the building is not located um within the the seawward or the the the front side of the bluff or within 50 ft inland from the the top of the bluff. So here we have the top of the bluff and none of the development is located there. So a geological port was not required because the building is located or the proposed addition in this case is located outside of both or it's set back 50 ft from the top of the bluff as well as outside of this uh 20° ascending line from the toe of the bluff. Um so therefore this bluff setback was not required because it's not the a geological report was not required. Um also if the building was located within that bluff retreat setback area there are certain restrictions as to what can be located. Again because the building was not or no development is located within that bluff retreat setback uh this section is not applicable. Which brings us to uh this last criteria. Additional bluff top andor dune setbacks may be required in compliance with LCP policies to establish a buffer from natural sandune areas to reduce visual intrusion or to accommodate public access and enjoyment of additional adjacent recreation areas. So the commission could consider whether additional setbacks are necessary, warranted or needed. However, based on the information in the record, staff recommends that the planning commission find the setback for the proposed development adequate and appropriate and that the pro development be constructed

consistent with the proposed plans. And then that future development or future application shall require a determination for setbacks based on factors including but not limited to changes in the context of the site and or changes in environmental conditions. And with that, staff recommends the commission adopt a resolution as previously described. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Evan, um, you might have said this, but where did you get that geological section profile that established the it was it was prepared by uh the engine or it was in the geotechnical report. So they had a geotechnical report. They have they have a geotechnical report. Yeah.

Okay. And that that um that establishes the setback requirements. Correct. It was specifically requested that the applicant provided as part of them providing the geotechnical report as part of the project. And just to be redundant, can you can you just go over that last part about the dune setback requirement? Yeah, the dunes. Can you go over that again?

Yeah. So additional bluff top and or dune setbacks may be required in compliance with local coastal policies to establish a buffer from natural sand dune areas. So that's one establish a buffer from natural sandune areas. Two, and I'm I'm adding the numbers. Two, to reduce visual intrusion on adjacent recreation areas or three to accommodate public access and enjoyment of additional adjacent recreation areas. So what was it? So what was it? Is there a quantitative criteria for the additional setbacks?

Um so there is a 15t minimum being adjacent to the park, but there there's nothing uh that's expressly quantified that says a building needs to be x number of feet from a sand dune. um that would come from, you know, a a sightspecific biological report or a sightspecific geological report that that says this sand dune needs to be protected and you cannot build on this. Um, where this might come into play is if a development is proposed that might be, you know, visually intrusive. So,

so those are dependent on subjective standards that there are there are in their I mean they they are and they aren't. Um so through designer view you you could apply subjective standards but also I mean it it it is subjective in the sense that you know a biologist might say you need to be 30 ft from the you know some some plant species. Yeah. But then we have reduce visual intrusion and accommodate public access. Mhm. So what was what was your next slide? Can you go to that next slide again?

That's staff's recommendation. Okay. Yeah. So commission. So so the recommendation here is based on information in the record. Staff recommends the planning commission find the setbacks for the pros development adequate and appropriate based on what we have here and based on the proposal. Did you have a discussion on visual impact in your report? Uh there there's no public public view. There's no there's no there's no public you can't see this from the from the beach. I was I was there this morning actually. And there's no there's no adjacent uh recreation access issue. There's that that comes into play, right?

Um so there there is public access um hasn't been consistently applied. There is a provision in the code that allows um the city to provide for um public access easements, vertical or lateral easements. Um however there is a finding in the resolution right now that says uh it cites the uh land use plan that says Carmel is one of the few cities in the state where public access generally is not an issue. So there is not a recommendation for uh establishment of a vertical or lateral uh public access easement because there's there's sufficient access to the beach. Correct. Okay.

Okay. Just want to get a little clear. Uh any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you. All right. Um, so, uh, is the applicant's representative here make their presentation? Yep.

Good evening, Anthony Lombardo. behalf of the diamonds. I hope everyone was able to get a copy of my letter of April 7th in which I um especially after the last item I we uh agreed to eliminate the rooftop deck in the ADU and replace it with a garden roof to landscape the roof instead of including a deck on it. So, if we could bring up the There we go. Tada. Um so here we see the the property uh its relationship to the beach and the dunes and the three homes two to the south mallister mlache and dilks on the north they've been the principal opponents uh to the application answer to the question about u public views. Uh this is a photo taken from the beach directly looking back at the top of the diamond's home. And as you can see, you can't see anything uh except for the top story. So that the ADU is down below it. Uh this building will in no way be the furthest west building in the neighborhood. You can see there is six or seven structures, three homes to the south and I think three homes to the north. It's hard to see in the trees that are located further out than the proposed ADU which you can see is in the area adjacent to the diamond's home. Um this is uh a photo badly taken from Google Earth uh showing the relationship of the Dilks home which you were in this afternoon to the Diamond's home and the ADU. Uh the Dilks home has a rooftop deck and uh two floors below it. This is from the city's building and planning

files shows the view from the Dilk's rooftop deck which you can see is panoramic and unobstructed. This is a view uh looking back. you can a person standing there to give you some sense of scale at what was the original proposed top of the parapit around the rooftop deck. So because that's rooftop deck is being eliminated the the height will be somewhat lower but as you can see it does not enter into the viewshed in terms of blocking any coastal views from the dilk's home which is confirmed by the photo that the dilks circulated amongst the neighbors showing a picture from their home uh of the location of the ADU and as you can see it it blocks nothing but view of patio walkways and some landscaping. This is looking to the south now towards the mlache home. It's the dark home past the diamond's home. Again, the the ADU is lower than the floor of the Mlache home. I spoke to the Mlache representative who wrote you. Uh I spoke to him yesterday and told him we were eliminating the rooftop deck and he was extremely pleased. Spoke to Mrs. Mcclache who was also pleased. So I hope that addressed their concern or appeared to have addressed their concerns. Uh the Mallister's home is not adjacent to the Diamond's home. It's two down to the south. Uh it looks more across the vacant area in front of Mlache's home. And this was our attempt to illustrate the the west southwest corner of the ADU. Uh remember, which will be lower now. But as you can see, it doesn't

break the break the skyline of the hedge and doesn't it would appear not to have any negative impact on the view across to Stillwater Cove, Carmel Bay, and of course completely un unaffected by the westerly view is that's the Mallister's home. You can see the hedge on that's the hedge in the foreground on the Diamond's property and their home is more oriented to the west, but the windows looking to the northeast have the view that uh was shown there. So, um we agree with the staff recommendation. We agree with the condition to remove the rooftop deck and Mr. Siliano, who is here with me tonight, who's the designer, uh will work with staff to comply with the condition on the redesign of the roof to provide for a rooftop garden uh instead of a rooftop deck. Uh I'd like to reserve a couple of minutes to respond to any comments and thank you very much.

Questions time. Thank you. are as uh June, are you going to address us about this? Sure. Well, since Tony mentioned my name, I guess I need to step up here kind of square it up.

We we're changing it to a rooftop garden and Tony mentioned lowering it. We are going to lower it about 9 in, but we need some height so we can have dirt and plant over it. Otherwise, we won't be able to have a planter. So, from what you're looking at on the netting, we're going down about 9 in from there. About 9 in. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Any any questions for the architect? Uh I have Oh, I have a question for you. I have a question. Okay.

Um I I I noticed that um the windows and doors that you use on the dish on the ADU are kind of different. So on the side you have more traditional kind of curved windows with shutters and on the front you have straight kind of a I think it's a sliding door. Yes. That is squared. It's not following the same. I is that because the whole building is curved and you cannot get windows that are following the same kind of design arch. Well good question. If you look at the current house of the diamonds, their oceanf facing windows are like that. A doors, not windows. Doors.

The doors. Yeah. So where we have the influence of the shutters and divided lights, we were carrying it over from the front of the house cuz on the ocean side they don't have that character. So in our mind, see they they see at the top part that's all glass. That's what we're trying to mimic. you we don't want to have an arch top opening and then curving walls. That's kind of contradictory with each other. Yeah. So, hence we you know decided to just mimic what they have there and just have square top doors on the ocean side and and is there a will there be a patio in front of the ADU?

A a patio in front of the curved section? Yeah, the the glass won't be curved. It'll be it will be sectional. The curve is not that strong that we cannot do sectional sliding doors. So we we we all um allocated thick enough walls so we can slide it straight. Okay. I understand. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, J. Okay. Uh are there any members of the public that'd like to make a comment to the planning commission regarding this application? Evening. I'm John Dilks and I own the house next door and have for 45 years. And uh one of the things that I'm really concerned about is coastal erosion. Uh Mr. uh the attorney, forget his name now, uh he argued that it's not an issue, and it is an issue. And just because you use a a 100year uh margin for erosion, that that doesn't cover it. Ask anybody that lives in Florida or along the Southern California, Capistrano Beach or any of those areas in the Southland that's being impacted by erosion. Uh you'll know when it starts, forget the hundred years, forget 50 years, forget 20 years. Once it starts and gets exacerbated, you can't control it without begging coastal commission approval for seaw walls. And my whole worry is that there are there are five unsubdivided beachto street lots. They're all in a row. And if Mr. Diamond thinks he's going to put an ADU out right up above the the maximum setback and other people aren't going to follow because he creates a tunnel vision of the ocean. He's wrong. Now, I want you to just picture that beautiful area you saw today with all five of them with 800 more feet of concrete ADU. And if you don't think that's going to have a negative impact on the backside of that dune, you're sadly mistaken. And there's not one

coastal engineer that could predict the outcome of that. Uh once that escarment gets dislodged from the backside through uh what they call diagonal vibrations, you can't control it and then you get the exacerbation of a really stiff winter storm which we have about every other year here. I mean at least every other year I walk out to take my daily swim. I go in the water every day and you can't get over the dune and there are some Februaries where you actually see the spray coming up over and we have a an old chain link fence that you step over this far and it used to go all the way down to to six feet the the fence and I've left it in order to hold the dune and um that's my big concern. I lived with beach erosion on my house in Hawaii and it's catastrophic and you can pick up any Hawaii newspaper and read about what's gone on on Lanekai Beach and the Northshore and the houses just fall in because the state won't allow seaw walls and they won't allow the homeowner to tear their house down. It's it falls down and then the state goes after them for proliferation on the beach. And you don't realize how quickly this that this can happen here. And if you go back to the slide where it shows the uh plot plans. Now I've I've owned this house for 45 years. So believe me, I can speak from experience. If you can go back where it shows the the lots. Just this morning, front page of the Wall Street Journal had a big picture of beach erosion in Nantucket

and it's costing everybody millions and populations are are fighting one another because they have to move houses and they're not. And I'm telling you, if you take a look at this inscarment right here, uh there's Diamond's house. There's mine. And I come down to the beach every afternoon and take a dip. And that that can change so quickly. It can change from June to February like that where you can't get down and water is bashing up against uh the escarment. Now there's a very well-known expert in coastal engineering and coastal erosion. Uh he's passed away now. His name is Orin Pelky and he's a professor amiritis at Duke University and his proteége is Dr. Chip Fletcher who runs head of the oceanography department at University of Hawaii. And they have both written over and over again that it's a mistake to think that coastal erosion is attributable only to the oceans force. It's not. It's often started by decentralizing and de stabilizing the dune from the backside through construction, through vibration, through not having proper setbacks towards the ocean. And then everybody's dumb and happy enjoying whatever they built out there. And then a few years later comes a catastrophic winter or worse yet a tsunami. And there's no stabilization because the slant that holds that dune from the back is gone. And the escarment on the ocean is now vertical and perpendicular. And the waves have nothing to resist it. That's why a couple of years ago, if you'll recall, the city was toying with putting a boardwalk along that dune

and taking out the acacia. And it was Mr. Lombardi who was hired by one of the coastal front neighbors of ours to fight it and they came up with the idea that it would destabilize the dune that was one of the reasons and I just for all of our heirs and everybody who enjoys Carmel Beach and I I know that the minute in a coastal community the minute a beach goes away the tourism goes away and when tourism goes away tax dollars go away. Don't allow it to happen here in order to check one more box for an ADU for Sacramento. Don't allow it to happen. Another thing I want to say, if you look at this diagonal here on the beach, if you went further back towards 8 Street, every year I've watched, it used to be a straight line of the coastline. Now it's like a half moon. The water's getting closer and closer and closer to 8th Street and to those three houses that are down closer. In fact, one of them is even worrying about having to apply for seaw wall permits, which their house will be wiped out before they could get approval.

Takes so long to get approval for something like that. I'm adamant about this because I lived in Hawaii and people have lost millions and neighbors are against each other and houses are falling off the ocean off the bluffs on the north shore and the state won't allow them to fortify the shoreline. Instead, they take their land from them as public domain as it falls off onto the public beach and then they cite the homeowner for proliferating the beach. You got to move your house. Okay. Yeah, I think it can happen here. Can you can summarize? I think you're you've used your time. So, I think we I think we understand that you are not in favor of the ADU because of coastal erosion.

Yeah, I'm very passionate about it because I've lived it. I've spent millions in Hawaii fortifying my property and getting permits. It's impossibly difficult. Okay, don't you can't let it happen here because you are so close to Ocean Avenue. It will deeply affect the public beach and it will deeply affect your coffers on uptown on those shops on Ocean Avenue. That's that's my concern. Okay.

And I don't know why somebody with 5600 square ft has to add another 800 square ft just just to be grander and bigger. And I'm not against ADUs. Put it over the garage. Find when you got 16,000 square ft of land, find a spot somewhere else, but not in this precious area that's so vulnerable to mother nature. That's it. This is my lovely wife, Patty.

I have questions. If if there is going to be allowed planting on top of the roof, how do you how do you get any guarantees that the planting isn't going to get 6 feet tall or whatever? Uh he's talking about bringing it down what a few inches for soil, but how is there any assurance of what's going to be planted? I think that should be part of the what you agree on ahead of time. Okay. And I'm against the ADU being on the beach. I'm against the um entertainment center that he was planning to build. And I appreciate you all seeing that and nixing that. I do appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Hi, I'm Diana Mallister. My husband and I live two doors down south of the Diamonds. Um, we've lived on Scenic for 40 years. We waited till the right property came on the west side. We always wanted to live on the west side because of the beautiful open space. Jun Siliano was our architect and built us our dreamhouse. We have windows facing north. We enjoy the beauty of the open space and the thought of having anything built there because like Mr. Dilk said, if one person does it, all five will do it eventually. Maybe not even in our lifetime. But to think of five structures on our beautiful B bluff on the coastline and the erosion factor which is a factor. All of our properties are sand. It's like kitty litter. It's it's just loose sand. And I can't imagine doing that to our beautiful coastline. I understand that the Diamonds want a caregiver unit. We all want that. I want that eventually, too. But why not put it on top of their garage? Don't put it on our beautiful coastline. I urge you to oppose this, please, for the beauty of our city. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. The next speaker, please.

My name is Larry Chasen and I speak for Nan Nelson who has the house next to us. We live just to the east across on on scenic and actually the last thing I would want is them to put an ADU on their garage and it is as it is we have a difficult time seeing the ocean over their house as it is. Uh as far as being concerned about the diamonds uh landscaping their property. I assume that you people visited it today and you can see that they use the same gardener as we do and he's terrific. So anyway, we're we're in support of the project. Thank you for your comments. Uh any more speakers like to address the plan commission regarding this application? Okay. Anybody any up anybody on line?

No, sir. Tony, you want to come up and answer some?

Anthony Lombardo. Again, I can't speak for what tragedies have occurred in Hawaii, but we have the reports required. We meet the standards set by the city. So, uh there's nothing about this house that's going to either exacerbate or cause coastal erosion. And then Mrs. Diamond would like to briefly address you. Well, I I think uh we have so many contemporaries um our age, 70s, 80s, and um many of them need to have some help now. They have Parkinson's or their memory loss or they're just hard to get around. And our daughter passed away of pancreatic cancer about a year and a half ago. I didn't think this was my concern because I thought she would be there really to figure out what was going to happen to us and who was going to take care of us and so forth. And that's when we really started to think, okay, we we are on four lots and what we're proposing is not going to affect the beach. You can't even see what we have from the beach and it is on our property. It's on our in our garden. And so this thing about ADUs, I don't know what the other people are going to do on our street as far as ADUs are concerned. And maybe they will be in compliance. Maybe they have enough room to put an ADU there. I don't know. But we have done everything right and proper to be able to get this permit. And I'm begging you um Chair Leage and all of you commissioners to to look at this and figure this out for us. And I

hope that you vote in our favor um to do this. Whatever we do do on that roof is going to be beautiful. it it's it's not going to be any kind of deterrent to our neighborhood. You know, when the Mallisters were building their home, I didn't contest it. They have a window in their I believe it's their kitchen because I have not been in there, their eating area, and it affects it. It It goes right into my bedroom. So, I have to be very private. I have to pull the shades down uh when they're there. And I'm not complaining. That's the way it is, you know. And so this has really saddened me to know that the neighbors have created so much animosity towards us and to towards this. We we really wanted to meet with them to go over the plans with them and they did not respond. Um, and being a good neighbor, I I really wanted to go over this with them. So, something's not right here. I don't think this is a popularity contest. I know we've done everything right, as I said, and again, I'm I'm hoping that you will let us proceed with this. And thank you so much for listening.

Thank you for your comments, June. You have some comments?

Yeah, I just want to add to what Tony said. First of all, the reason Evan or the city required us to have a June technical report is to study erosion. I think GRC is very known in the county and they address that issue. We are quite far from that I would say critical area that he's talking about. number one. And number two, with regards to planting, the fact that we only have so much height of dirt, that kind of restricts how plants will grow as we know it. They'll be restricted. And uh the city has an ordinance of drought tolerant plants. So, we really can't put big palm trees there or anything like that. So, it'll all be shrubbery. And um again, this is not an open ocean scenario. This is you're in a bay and you are protected by dunes and acacia. So that's it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody who thinks that dune is a protection is sadly mistaken. When erosion hits, it moves so quickly and can be so catastrophic there's nothing you can do. You get a a winner with 20 30 foot surf out there, you can't there's nothing you can do. Man can protect, but just get out of the way. And I'm telling you, you weaken that dune with construction. It's not going to be just one ADU will do it. But if you end up with five out there, keep in mind, you may not be listening to us about it. We're all older older gents. the properties are going to change hands and everybody wants to get as close to the water as they can get, but it's a big mistake. Every city in the in the country that's on coastal on the ocean is pushing back setbacks. They're pushing back against giving permits. They're telling people you cannot add on on the ocean side of your house. Don't don't allow this to happen. If we can't if the city if the homeowners and the people who enjoy that beach every day can't look to the council to be their advocates to keep this beach for next generations, who do we look to? You know, we're looking to you not not for Diamond's ADU or not for Dilk's view. We're looking for you to protect this environment because it adjoins the public domain. It It's not just like my lot adjoins you, Michael. It disjoins the public domain. We have to look to the municipalities to be our advocates. And not based on just what's going on today, but based on what science is telling us that's going to

get worse and worse and worse. And that's coastal erosion due to global warming. You've got to look ahead because once it happens, you can't fix it. You can't fix it without more concrete and it just doesn't work. So, please think about everybody's grandkids and the tourists that enjoy this place because as the beach goes, the tourists go. As the tourists go, the economy goes. And another thing to think about is what Evan was talking about is lateral access. There's no guarantee that the coastal commission won't say, "Sure, we'll allow all you guys to build as close to the ocean as you want, but we want another public access from scenic. Let's put it between Dilks's and Diamond's house." Just what we all want. Think about all this. This this could be catastrophic. Over 18 ADU to satisfy Sacramento. Push back on Sacramento. Say not not on this not on this public buffer land that's own basically going to be owned by the uh the public domain and affect everybody. Not just affecting Diamond and I. It's affecting everybody.

All right. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay. One last call for speakers. Seeing none, no hands up. All right, I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to the commission for their discussion.

Um, chair, can I ask Evan a question? Would your recommendation change knowing that they weren't doing the um rooftop deck? Were you aware of that before we came? Uh the recommendation in the staff report was made not knowing the I'll backtrack following publication of the staff report the applicant uh submitted a letter stating their concurrence and then

uh the first I have learned that the deck will be changed to a effectively green roof. Uh, I'm I'm learning of that. And does that change your thought at all about this? Not necessarily. Um, I'm I'm not concerned about the the landscaping growing to a certain height. If it views are impacted by anyone, most it would be the diamonds. I'm sure they want to keep the landscaping low to keep their views clear.

Okay. There also is already a condition of approval that requires the landscaping plan be be approved um by the city forester. As June mentioned um there's minimal soil also 75% drone tolerant requirement. Yeah cuz am I confused? I thought your um recommendation was to deny this deny the roof deck. Oh, okay. M but then also approve the landscaping plan which is separate.

And Evan, what what authority do we have to restrict the ADU? Do we have any? You have the authority to establish setbacks for the site to establish what the setbacks setbacks. Yeah. Yep.

But you had a pretty thorough discussion about the setbacks and it meets the setback standards. So my recommendation is to find the setbacks that are proposed appropriate for the proposed development. Um the planning commission can make setbacks can establish setbacks for the site um based on the criteria and I can pull that up. And and Evan, while you're doing that, the looking towards the geology report that was done in December, I have a note here that the the setback the property line is actually 56 feet from the proposed development.

Am I remembering that correctly? So, it is quite and coastal uh the coastal act speaks to about 15 feet, I believe. So they're significantly um further. So our our zoning code establishes a 15-ft setback from any property line that is adjacent to a park boundary. Yes. And then the um the the geo report that you're speaking to identifies that the or I I think just in general the proposed development is set back approximately 50 ft from the property line. Yes. Thank you. Yeah.

Shelby, would you mind switching the the screen? Are we we waiting for something? He's going to pull something up for you. Bring up the what? He's he's pulling up to answer your question as far as the setbacks. Yeah, the setbacks,

right? So for for any site in the the beach riparian overlay also with the park overlay um it's it's a different standard but very similar uh the planning commission shall establish setbacks that are appropriate appropriate for the property and that are consistent with the purpose of the beach riparian overlay where a large lot size creates an opportunity to establish significantly increased setbacks from adjoining beachlands and the topography or shape of the site allow for sufficient area to build away from the beach. The planning commission may designate larger setbacks for the property that preserve an open space buffer adjacent to the beach while providing a reasonable area to build elsewhere on the property. So that is that is one part of it. Um, private development proposed on ocean fronting parcels shall comply with the underlying setbacks except where a lot line is adjacent to a bluff or sand dune. Um, then we go through this exercise saying what is applicable.

Mhm.

And these sections were not applicable. So then that leaves us with this um the dune access recreation setback. So an additional setback may be required to establish a buffer from natural sandune areas to reduce visual intrusion on adjacent recreation areas or to accommodate public access and enjoyment of adjacent recreation areas. And for me noteworthy on this particular slide, it's not quite so easy to see, but if you look at the image that's the lower image to the right where we can see the netting, the location of the proposed um ADU is actually not as far seawward as the structure that is to the south. And that also is specifically referenced frequently in coastal act language about um seawward and uh going more westward when you are um proposing new development. So they are actually um not as seawward as existing development.

Okay. Um did you want to did you have did you want to begin discussion? Sure. Good. I'd love to. Thank you, chair.

Uh, so we did see we we we did have a report for the archaeological overlay that was done in October. We know that for the park overlay zone, uh, we need to have a landscape plan and Mr. Court, you've got some conditions of approval in there to cover that. uh number 21, 30, and 31 that are going to cover drainage, uh protecting existing landscaping, and also transitioning to parkland vegetation. Right. That's going to follow our our municipal code 173409 A2. Um Mr. Court, you asked specifically, did we think that the dune setback was adequate? And I would say yes. In my opinion, it is. We have a geology report from December. Um, we have a biological report that was done in January by Thompson Wildmanagement. And we also have a soils report that was done in November by Grace Engineering. Um so we do have a full complement of um expert technical reports that um have done an analysis on this site as to whether or not the proposed development would be appropriate. And I am inclined to um support those conclusions rather than to uh suggest a few amateur conclusions of my own. Um, I wouldn't mind seeing a condition of approval that would speak a little bit to that green roof and plant height. Um, unless it's already kind of baked in there. I understand that our architect has explained 9 in of soil is only going to support, you know, a plant of a certain height. Um but other than that, that really concludes my comments and I would

be supportive of approving um staff's recommendation. Thank you. Commissioner Allen, you want to make your comments?

What is happening? Um, I'm not real happy about approving something um, uh, coming uh, encroaching further into the space. But I do agree with um my fellow commissioner around the fact that we have reports that show um they've done all of the homework um to ensure that this uh this is actually um uh valid in ter um and um and not negatively impacting. And so, um, I would say that I would be in favor of it.

Okay. I just want to remind the commission that we are our decision is pretty much limited to the uh disturbance of the site and the setbacks. Right. Okay. Mr. Lock.

Yeah. I think that I would agree with um my fellow commissioners and particularly um Commissioner Auburn's comments that that the homework's been done, the project meets those requirements, and so I'd have to be supported. But I also want to say that I think we're all very aware of um what the potential is for um beach erosion, and it certainly is a concern. Commissioner Kov, your comments.

Um, yeah, I just want to think back to December when we got this uh report from the coastal erosion study. Um, and um I remember that one of the conclusions was that Carmel lost about three three and a half ft of beach. Um if you look at the roots of the trees on ocean where ocean hits the beach uh there a bunch of trees you can go see them they were underground and now they're 3 and 1/2 ft above ground. So obviously we lost 3 and 1/2 ft of sand. Um the other conclusion was that it's a process that has been going on for long time and it's not reversible. So every year we get less and less sand on the beach. And if you remember uh we had a discussion uh about how many ships do we need to bring in with sand from some other place maybe from Washington state and dump them into the bay so that we can recover from that loss of sand. And the gentleman who was presenting the report said that it will take 10 years to get on a permit at least 10 years to get a permit to bring sand from some other place to Carmel. So if we want to get sand in 2036, we better start thinking now. So work on the permit now. So these are kind of memories from December. It was a good month, excellent month. Um but um the other more practical concern I have is about the construction logistics. Um that site where they want to build is not accessible from from the um from the road from the street. You cannot go on the left side of the house. You cannot go on the right side of the house. You can use a helicopter right to bring the materials. That's

going to be an interesting experience for everybody in Carmel. or you will need to bring the material over the beach again disturbing the sandium. So I would like to understand what is the plan in terms of bringing the construction materials to the site in excavating.

Well, it's a standard condition they have to have a construction management plan and those are those are issues that they're going to have to address in that. So yeah, but the regular a regular cyber construction management plan basically says we'll stop trucks on the street. We'll dig out 50 cubic yards of soil and bring them to the dumpster in Marina. Um in this situation you cannot do that. So it it's much more complicated. How do you get access to that particular location? Is this you know there's no way does staff want to speak to the specifics of a construction management plan how it's developed?

Yeah. I mean the the logistics of the construction are for the contractor to work out. Vehicles are proh prohibited from driving on the beach. So you you couldn't take a you know backhoe and drive it up through the dunes. Uh that just that wouldn't be permitted. Um the construction management plan deals with uh material storage, staging of where where vehicles are parked. Um but in terms of the logistics for construction and site access, um that would be a logistical um item for the contractor to to figure out. But again, we vehicles can't access the beach,

right? And um typically the uh the on-site conditions other than storage and eliminating runoff and so forth. Uh other than those being part of the building permit application, it's up to the contractor and the homeowner to facilitate whatever development they are trying to improve on their property. That's correct. Correct. Yeah.

Okay. Um, I think I mean I appreciate the neighbor's passion and concern and I know what he's talking about and I know he's he's had that. I think where he's making a mistake is how much authority he thinks we have. You know, we don't we only have a very limited amount of authority when it comes to ADUs. Now, when it comes to beach erosion, um, some of you know that I went back to college back in 2014. I was the oldest graduate graduate of the graduating class of 2016. My capstone project was sea level rise. For the capstone project, I took a digital elevation model of the Monterey Bay and I created a masking. So I just had Carmel Bay. So I had a baseline of elevation and then I took the the models that were provided by the uh the UN's uh intergovernmental panel on climate change and I took the most conservative model which for the next for midcentury was 1.5 m and at 1.5 m without accounting for king tides or storm surge The water's right up to the bluffs.

That's 5 ft for the little 10 m.

So, I appreciate your concern about an ADU possibly causing erosion, although I think everything has been demonstrated here that this ADU meets the setbacks as required in the present code. Uh, but we as a community are facing severe beach erosion on the long term. We could be looking at a mid-century situation where there is no Carmel Beach and those homes which are right there on the beach almost are going to be very much at risk. So this homeowner is going to take a big risk here about building this. And obviously I don't think they're going to make it to mid-century. I'm certainly not. But uh there's a good chance that a lot of those homes along Scenic are going to be gone and there's going to be very substantial erosion of Scenic Avenue. And when that happens, there's going to be a huge call from the community to provide armoring along there and protect those properties. And typically armoring is only works on the short term or it just shifts things around. I don't know if you how many of you remember Stillwell Hall that used to be out on the dunes out in Fort Well, that's gone now. That's a park. And those dunes, they just eroded right up to the back of that building. So, yeah, we're look we're looking at at long-term erosion and sea level rises. You know, even if we stopped today putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it wouldn't matter. It's baked in. It's going to happen. Um, so yeah, there's there's a lot of there is probably a catastrophic event that's going to happen sometime in the future which is going to be a threat to all those homes. Uh, whether or not this ADU is has anything to do with that. Um, you know, my non-professional opinion is that it's not. I think it's just going to be the victim like all of that down

there. But I could be wrong in that. But the bottom line is I don't we don't we only have the authority here to determine the setbacks and I think all of the findings have been met. All of the scientific and and professional studies have been made to establish that this this meets the setbacks. So I think we are I I I have no other choice but to support this this project. So we have um unless unless there's any further discussion here, we have a motion. Uh the special conditions are uh 27 eliminate the roof deck. Um 28 is the uh site cover limitations.

There is a motion here. Yeah, I'm just going through I was just going through the motion. We have a motion from staff. So, as I typically do, I kind of look at the uh special conditions to see if there's any any other special conditions which we feel need to be added or eliminated. Um, we're pretty limited here. We're pretty much we're just basically talking about ground disturbance and setbacks. And I think I haven't and the landscaping one about the height to respond. The landscaping here is concerned on they've got a special condition. It's got to be It is C.

It's 32. It's C. It says um I recommend looking at number 17. 17. Yeah, that's a standard condition. It's a standard condition.

Okay. Landscape. Prior to issuance of the building print, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the community planning building department and the city forester. Landscape plan shall be included in the construction drawings and will be reviewed for compliance with the landscape standards contained in the zoning including and not limited to the following. And then there's I guess just basically two things says all new landscaping shall be 75% drought tolerant. Landscaped areas shall be irrigated by drip and sprinkler system on a timer and the landscape plan shall identify the location where new trees will be planted with new trees. That's that doesn't really apply here. It's just generic. So that that and then there is also uh in one of the special conditions as I was reading special conditions C for landscape improvements consideration shall be given to using plants that are native or naturalized to the region and are well adapted to this mixed urban woodland and coastal environment. Plants selected for landscaping operation shall be drought tolerant. It's kind of just repeating says less flame flammable and more fire resistant non-invasive uh to habitat open space areas suitable appropriate for the coastal environment. So it's pretty it's pretty covered.

Um so I I don't I don't see any um professor conditions need to be added or deleted unless the commission has any. No sir. So I make a motion we accept the motion as presented by staff. I'd second that motion. Okay. Is there any more discussion? Roll call, please. Commissioner Alborn, yes. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Carco, uh, no. Commissioner Lock, yes. And Chair Leage, yes. Motion has passed. Thank you everyone. All right, that gets us to back to our public hearing here. How we doing?

Where are we? agenda. What am I doing? Okay, so that brings us to item number nine. This is another design study DS260. Was there a uh was there a was there a recommendation from staff to continue this item? There was a recommend or a request from the applicant.

A request from the applicant. Yeah. Okay. So, procedurally, do we need to go through the full staff report before we let the applicant make that request or um you probably do. Two choices. You could because the request came in prior to the hearing, you could um entertain the continuence and then take testimony on the continuence. Um or you can open the hearing, hear a staff's report and then consider how how many people are here to to uh speak on this particular

Well, I think we better we better do the staff report then and we'll let this develop. I don't want to I I don't want to waste the time of the people who showed up for this. So, can we have a staff report, please?

Uh, so again, I'm just throwing the uh recommendation out to begin with. Uh, by the way, this is DS260, loss OLAS. It's a design study referral. Uh, so staff recommends the planning commission find the project categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15303 and 15304 of the SQL guidelines and um approve a track 1 design study referral for the construction of a fence and retaining wall on the southern property line, construction of a trellis, installation of a iron handrail, and landscaping modifications to the site. So, in September of 2022, staff approved a design study application uh in part for new landscaping improvements, including the addition of a new wood fence along the southern property line and new planter beds. In October of 2024, uh building and planning staff identified that retaining walls were constructed inconsistent with the approved plans um that were approved in 2022. direction to submit application for changes was provided to um various individuals including uh contractors between April of uh last year and February of this year. Uh meetings with various project representatives were held between planning staff. Um and those representatives um staff identified no less than six meetings and phone calls. And then in February of this year, uh, an application was submitted for the proposed changes. Uh, that's this application DS260. Includes the construction of a new fence and retaining wall on the southern property line, construction of the trellis, installation of iron handrail in the rightway, and landscaping modifications. Uh, so staff has referred this project to the planning commission for consideration. Um, subject to these two code sections,

planning commissions shall conduct designer review for all non-administrative uh, a typos. The, uh, director shall conduct designer review for all Oh, I'm sorry, reading it wrong. Uh, that's all right. Uh, the director may require a planning commission to review any application that raises new policy issues or presents unusual circumstances not addressed by adopted policies, guidelines, or review criteria. and the director shall have the following power and responsibilities to refer any decision to the appropriate hiring authority including the planning commission. Uh staff is specifically requesting the planning commission review uh review in concurrence of staff recommendations for areas pertaining to implementation of design guidelines pertaining to partial approval of after the fact work. the determination of height measurements from pre-construction grades, the appropriateness of all cladding materials, and expedition of resolution of the outstanding items of this project. Uh so these are photos from a October 2024 inspection of the site um identifying uh the subject walls and fences that were constructed. Uh it's a little difficult to see, but there is a string line. Uh this kind of a pinker red that identifies the proposed height of the fence on top of the wall. Uh this was done as a mockup. You can kind of see it here as well. Uh so the issue was that the retaining wall or the fence on top of the retaining wall would have exceeded the 6ft height limit. Um as we measure height from the most restrictive of existing or finish grade um fences are measured to the the lower side of the grade. Um and then we have a revised proposal um

that we're considering now. Oh, and in addition, um, we also have the portion of non-conforming or non-approved wall that was constructed in in this vicinity as well. And that's shown right here. Uh, so a revised proposal was submitted. Um, that includes removal of the planters, that's the curved area here, and then extension of that CMU wall. Um, but generally it's the the same idea. We have a uh CMU retaining wall with a wood fence uh set within the planter or excuse me the CMU wall. Um so staff's concerns regarding the proposal is plan consistency. Um so as I flip this diagram around so the bottom view is the view from the neighbors point of view. The view on the top would be the view from the subject property. Um, as you can see here, the two elevations do not align. Um, so we do have inconsistency between the two elevations. Not a huge deal from the staff perspective. Um, again, we have a 6ft tall fence being proposed on top of a retaining wall. Where those steps are, it doesn't really matter to staff. Um, we're just looking for consistency in the plans. Um, we are looking for grade consistency as well. So, this plan identifies that we have a 6-ft tall fence located immediately on top of a retaining wall. Um, again, viewing it from the other side of the wall. It identifies that grade um is at the bottom of the fence with a 6ft tall fence um being measured from grade. However, looking at this side, we have a uh CMU wall with then a six foot tall

fence on top. Um what this staff's concern here is this assumes that the grade would be filled in all the way to the top of the wall. Um when in reality, um based on field observations, the existing grade u may actually be much lower. Um so staff is looking for um uh additional evidence from the applicant um regarding where that existing grade is as a means to not not further raise the the height of the fence. Um and then in respect to finished materials, we have a number of the design guidelines that state um not to use uh or only use stucco finishes for walls when they are consistent with the uh architecture of the building. Um so as we saw on site today, there there's really nothing that ties the stucco finish to the existing building. Um so staff is again here's just the the back side of the the residence. uh staff is recommending an alternative finish. Uh back in 2023, um the landscaper identified that they were exploring a um a wood finish for the retaining wall. Um so staff has ident uh provided the option to use a wood retaining wall um in lie of the stone wall which is encouraged by the design guidelines. Um, but in staff's opinion, as outlined in the staff report, um, doesn't necessarily need to be stone, says a wall should have a matte masonry finish. Staff leads this to be, um, that it should just appear structural. Uh, masonry doesn't necessarily mean like masonry out of stone, but just it needs to have a structural and solid

appearance. Um, which a wood retainer is is a typical finish of that nature. Uh so with that staff has identified a number of conditions of approval um related to the issues identified above. Uh staff just notes that there is a typo in condition of approval number nine. Um it should say is not permitted right here. So that should read back filling or raising of grade above the preconstruction level is not permitted to increase the allowable fence height. Um but other than that um staff is recommending condition of approval 8 9 10 11 12 and 18 um which would implement the uh the items we just discussed. Uh the applicant has also proposed a comprehensive landscaping plan. Um as we saw on site today most of the landscaping has been removed or is proposed to be removed and then uh replaced with new landscaping. And then these are the uh recommended conditions related to landscaping. Um 14 is fairly standard just that all landscaping needs to be installed prior to final inspection. Uh 15 relates to the tree density on site. So right now there are three trees uh based on the scope of the landscaping plan. Uh staff is recommending that some of the landscaping be swapped out for um at least six trees based re for selected from the city's recommended tree list. Um as a way to to bring the site up to the tree density for the site and then also that invasive species be removed. Um right now English ivy is proposed to be uh planted uh which is inconsistent with a requirement of the zoning code. and then that the irrigation plan be removed or revised to remove uh irrigation from the rightway which is also a requirement of the zoning code.

And then just some minor items here. A trellis is proposed, no issue here, and also a uh wood handrail is proposed to be replaced with an iron handrail in the rightway. That will require an encroachment permit. If you would like to provide a recommendation to the appropriate authority, um, feel free to do so. And with that, uh, staff recommends the planning commission adopt a resolution approving the project. And as described on the screen, that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Ever. Are you asking for a recommendation from the from the commission regarding the rail material? Is that is that what you're

for for the railing? So the the railing does require a separate encroachment permit. If you want to comment on whether it should be allowed, whether it should be removed, um whether the material is appropriate, that's that's fine. Um you are not acting on it, but if you wanted to provide it just thumbs up, we love it. Or it just be a recommendation one way or the other. Okay. All right. Just I just want to get get that clear in my mind. Thanks. Okay. Questions for staff? All right, the applicant come forward. The applicant's represented. The applicant has to come forward from New Zealand if he's going to come forward tonight.

Good evening. Or I think that's where he is. Anthony Lombardo on behalf of the applicants. I I sent a request u yesterday for continuance. Yeah. Um because when I received the staff report on Monday and read it, there was a whole lot of stuff in there I had never discussed with anyone. Evan pointed out some inconsistencies in the drawings which we weren't aware of. We had spoken about other inconsistencies in the drawings but not about those. So um I didn't have any way to address them. I subsequently talked to the planning director and to Evan about tonight and uh and proceeding or going with a continuence. My concern about proceeding is that would be ill equipped to answer questions about some of these issues. I can give my presentation and if you feel we need more specific answers and I guess we could consider a continuence based on what Anna and Evan and I discussed in the last 24 hours. We may be able to arrive at conditions or Evan's conditions may address those questions because I can start off by saying we are not proposing to raise the grade. The grade will we know what the grade was and will remain the same. The wall was constructed by the contractor who happens to be the same contractor for both the neighbor and my client under construction at the same time. You know, he maybe was trying to please somebody or displease somebody, but he obviously didn't build the wall to the right height. There's no we have no disagreement that the wall can be needs to be 4 in higher than the grade. That's all. And it it appears from, you know, the rough estimate you can see and from his staff report that it may have been built a course too high. So I we don't have any argument

with his conditions other than, you know, my client is not interested in in facing the wall on the neighbor's side uh with Carmel Stone, which would be staggeringly expensive. And I've got a PowerPoint presentation that um I think will help you understand the dilemma that my client has faced since the neighbors project was approved after theirs and was allowed to do things that I think are flatly unpermitted under the code, but the city allowed it to happen. And it's created this situation that we have with the extreme differential you saw on the site today between the the grade elevation at the neighbor's site and the great elevation. Thanks Evan. Uh on the client site. So these these are photographs prior to work starting on the projects. My clients the Los Solas property is on the right. The neighbors property is on the left. As you can see, the the wooden fence, which looks like a real Carmel charmer, uh was at equivalent grade. In other words, the grade on both sides of the property line was the same and the the fence was built on the surface of the ground. Um the city approved uh something other than that on the neighbor's side. This is from your residential design guidelines which says you're supposed to avoid abrupt changes in grade on a site between adjoining properties. Makes sense because someone then is going to have to retain their site to keep it from collapsing onto the neighbor's site. Um and you can see the second bullet point says avoid designs that require retaining wall revetments where feasible. However, what happened was the city apparently Oops. went dark. What happened?

I see it on here. I'm not sure what's going on. There we go. This is what the city approved. U the property line. See the yellow string there? That's that supposed to approximate the property line. Well, what the city approved was the complete excavation of the backyard apparently up to the property line which created this escarpment. You can see the workman standing in the hole that's waist high. So that's got to be what 4t below grade on the neighbor's side. In fact, Evan's staff report I thought was telling because he said in the first page or so, "This is an unusual circumstance because the uphill neighbor is now having to put a retaining wall in to retain the downhill cut, which should never have been the case. It should never have been allowed per this code section, but here we are. Um, the cut was taken right up to the property line. uh and that you can see the old we saw that old vegetation that the property my client's parents planted who knows how many decades ago. So that I mean that that was the condition until they chopped it back to the to the property line or beyond the property line and then made this cut. Here's a photo looking across the neighbor's backyard. You can see the mountain of grading spoils from the hole that was being dug. You can see the excavator which is below the level of the of the original so uh soil profile. A couple other things I'd like you to take note of. You can see the oak tree, I think it was that was supposed to have been protected. You see the orange netting around it and you see the soil elevation at the base of the oak tree. You also see the other fence on the south side of the neighbor's property. And that's important because they were allowed to replace that wooden

fence with a masonry wall that had a fence on top of it. I was told by the staff that that we couldn't do that on our site because that was an existing non-conforming situation and ours was not. Well, that's the exact same fence that was located on the northern side of on the southern side of my client's property. a a 6-ft tall wooden fence that then became this. As you can see, the ground has been completely dug out. The oak tree is gone, and now we have a masonry wall on the south side of the neighbor's property with a 6-ft wooden fence sitting on top of the wall. Uh, part of the time it took the actually, Evan, you underestimated my ability to talk. We had 14 meetings, emails, and telephone calls over the last year trying to figure out how to solve this problem. But uh um so we were told that we couldn't do what the neighbors had done even though their fence was exactly the same fence we had previously. Uh that we had to solve the problem created by the grading. And as you can see in the foreground, uh the the retaining wall built on our property, which should have been built on their property, uh is too high clearly. Uh the contractor, whatever, uh when contractors gone wild, I guess he built it a course or so too high. Uh and so that's a situation that we've been when you know that's a situ situation we're left with now. So what we are seeking approval of is to build the retaining wall which has to be extended 17 ft beyond the existing approval to build it 4 in above the existing grade which this is not. That's that needs to be you know lowered to meet the grade

requirement. And we've been told we have to build we can't build the wooden fence on top of the wall like the neighbors did as you can see in the background. We have to build it inside the wall on the dirt at the level the ground of the level of the dirt. So if that's the requirement then we will build a six-ft wall stepping down as Evan showed you. Apparently somebody on the landscape architecture team doesn't know how to draw or does can't doesn't can't figure out how to do things from two different sides that look the same. But uh we're we'll put the wall at the correct height. will put the ground ground back cuz as Deon said in his staff report obviously it was excavated uh to put in the footings and they will go back at the level which we have surveyed what the level of the of the grade was and will be and of course rear corner where we saw that vegetation it's still natural so we know the grade there as well so we can match the grade and we'll build a fence again on our side uh on the neighbors side we've offered them the ability to construct uh or to face the wall with the the stones that they you can't see it there. It's hard to see. I'm sorry. But you can see the bottom the wall that they put their fence on top of has stones like river rock I think on it. It's not Carmel stuff for sure, but we've said that that we're happy to allow them to match that stone if they want to on the side. Otherwise, uh, we propose stucco. What whatever matte masonry finish is, I have no idea, but we do that or wood. And I think Evan spoke to somebody on the development end of our project about putting wood facing on it. So, I'm not interested in spending a more money than we need to to fix the problem created by allowing the neighbor to dig a hole in

their backyard. but wood presumably is reasonably priced or the neighbors welcome to put the stone they used on their side. So, um as to the other two items, the trellis was a replacement of a trellis that was demolished during construction and the handrail I don't we didn't really look at the handrail today, but there's no way to grab that handrail. It's it's imaged in a living English ivy cocoon. and that probably would could probably be kind of rotten anyway. So, it's replacing it. I we had a meeting at the site with public works and they looked at it. They didn't express any concern about replacing it. The reason it has to be a handrail is cuz there's a grade separation between the street and the entrance to the house. And so those steps that have been there for I don't know when this house was built, 100 years, I don't know that that's been there for eternity. So the the trellis, the replacement of the handrail, and then um if we're talking about conditions that require us to bring the wall down to within 4 in of the grade, uh place a 6ft fence stepping down. It should be on the wall but if we can't do it on the wall adjacent to the wall uh directly adjacent to the wall and then uh estab you know reach making sure that the grade is returned to the original grade then I guess we go forward tonight. If you have questions about any of the other things in his staff report I can't answer them tonight because um I only saw him two days ago or day and a half ago. Question

I have two questions. One is what is the in in the box on that picture? Is that a generator? That's the neighbor's property. I don't But but do do you know what it is? Is it a generator or or air conditioning unit? Air conditioning unit. Yeah. Okay. And and and the other thing I don't know if that's a pizza oven or a fire pit or whatever it is. Okay. And the other question is when the neighbor was excavating and working on his project, did they miss to include the retaining wall in the project? I don't I don't know that. I don't rep I didn't represent the neighbor. I don't know anything about the permits. But um when was when was that when was that that project done? Do you know the neighbor's project?

20 it was at this project was approved in 2022 and that project was approved afterwards. So, was it 23 or 24? Okay. I don't I don't know. But yeah, it was obviously a mistake. They should never have been allowed to make a vertical cut. And had they've been allowed to do that, they they should have been required

to put the retaining wall on their side so we didn't have to. So, it's an a very unfortunate situation. In fact, frankly, it violates, you know, I have a little bit of history with the law in California 40 something years now. And silicode 832 says that it's the obligation of the neighbor to retain the soil, you know, to provide what's called sublateral and subjacent support to the neighbor. You can't just make a cut and then hope for the best. But, you know, whatever. We're stuck with the problem. So, we're trying to fix it. So, okay. Thank you. see if we have a long way of saying continue it if we need to.

Well, it it sounds pretty thorough, but I think we're sounds like we can proceed. Um the next speaker, please.

Thank you everyone. I have a My name is Paul Salomi. I am the next door neighbor. Um that's our project. We worked with the city for five years on a fabulous restoration of the historic home. Um, I have tremendous respect for Mr. Lombardo, but there were some things presented as facts that just simply aren't factual. Our project was surveyed by Lancet. The points along our grade line have been certified by Lancet to be exactly where they were supposed to be. Everything was done in appropriate manner every step of the way. We were uh uh subject to evaluation and approval by the city. Um what they're showing is a dig. There was a deep foundation that had to go under the fireplace and under the patios. uh in terms of the lot line, the slope along that lot line and the points uh the the elevation at the corner of the house and the elevation at the back and that slope line are exactly proven by Lancet to be exactly in accordance with the plans that were worked through with the city over a course of three years with a professional landscape architect and with Lancet looking at every step of the way. Their first survey was in 2018. They finally completed their surveys in 2021 after working with all these professionals. We've worked with the city in terms of their comments about the south wall. We never created that. Our understanding is there was a that the people that built that house and you can see the house if you look in the picture and you can see the house next door. They were the family that was the original family that built the historic home on our property. and um that lot was part of the historic homes property.

They tried to buy it back. They said, "If you don't sell it back to us, we're going to build this house right on the property line." And they built the retaining wall and they built the fence and they built the house. And we put in at tremendous costs, really deep shoring to ensure that that house stayed stable. When we went through our construction, we were required to put all that in. And we also uh restored that retaining wall. So their yard which they had built up high and their yard where they had put the the house back and as close to our house as possible. This is long all all before we bought it. Um we made sure that that wall was retained and rebuilt and we actually got approval from Marne at the city before any of it was touched. that was existing, historic, and we told her the heights of every single spot, and we got approval for that work. Now, everything on our north side is exactly to code. I don't understand all these accusations and Mr. Lombardo has been to my home and he's never mentioned any of this to to me. And now he stands in front of the city and states things as fact which are just simply not factual. We worked handinand with the city every step of the way. We got approval for everything we did. We never ever did anything in advance without approval from Marne or approval from the city or approval from Brandon or other people that we spoke with over the course of our project. So that's the record. You can go talk to the planning department if you need to get that clarified. But that's where we are. We've done nothing illegal with respect to the grading on our property. It's all signed off by Lancet. Everything is as it was. all the all the grades are where they're supposed to be. Now, with respect to the project that that that we're looking at here,

it strikes me that for this has been going on longer than it took to restore the cathedral to Notradam. It's getting long enough. I don't know that we really need continuences here. Um it it really disturbs me a bit that for six years we had a plan that we were looking at that was approved where they were going to face their wall with caramel stone and now they've decided they don't want to do that. They wanted to throw in plaster. There's no plaster. Our house is a historic home. I don't I don't think you should introduce a new element like that. That's a violation of guidelines. And now they're talking about some wood cladding. There's no wood cladding either on their property. their entire property, their entire perimeter, the front, everything. They did it in caramel stone. Their their original plan said caramel stone. And for the longest time, they still have pallets of caramel stone just sitting on their lot. Some of them out in the rightway. And they did at one point say, "Well, why don't you clad it with your own stone?" Uh, but when we looked at what they built, we thought, well, we don't we can't we don't have anywhere near the stone to to clad that wall. And then ultimately, it took so long. It's been years. The city came to us and they said, "You can no longer store your stone on your property." So, we had to get rid of our pallets of stone because the city told us it had to get out of the rightway. Well, their stone is still in the rightway, but we we complied. We complied within days. We got rid of it. So, we don't have it anymore. So, that's that's all factual. Now, I'm I'm very respectful of we have been this way from the beginning. We we totally respect your work and the and the planning department's work. And I told them years ago, whatever the city will approve, get it done. We're we we are not going to it's your wall. Whatever you want, just as long as the city approves it, we're fine with it. We said, but you're going to need access to our yard to do it. So,

I'd like you to get it done more quickly if you could. That was two years ago. This wall, this cinder block wall has been sitting there for a year and a half. These discussions have been going on forever. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. This is not that complicated. It's it's a wall and a fence. Um the the last thing I would say is that well two things. Their original plans they even stated that the combination they had they had two feet of this wall on their side exposed covered in caramel stone. Now they're putting nothing but dirt. And but they even stated that the combined height at no point along along this this stretch was ever going to exceed 6 ft. The combined height of the wall and the fence. It's in their notes in their originally approved plans. They stated that. And now they want a 4'9 in high wall. I guess we're now going to lower it some, but they want to put what they're calling a separate fence. Right. So what does separate mean? and they're going to move it like 1 in or 2 in away from the wall. They're going to have another 6 ft in height. And then the next thing they want to do is they're saying they're going to put a privacy hedge around along that south side. Well, if you look at their planting, they've got nine MA California and 10 Ramis Alteras. Those those grow to 15 feet tall and 12 feet wide for the the the ladder and for the former 30 feet high and 20 feet wide. And they're going to put them right on the property line. And that's for a privacy hedge in addition to the retaining wall and the fence and this privacy hedge. Now, by the time that's done, um they will never trim it because they've never trimmed anything on that side. I look out toward their house when they look straight out, they see to the west and it's all

trimmed. They look to the north and it's all trimmed. But to the south, the bushes that they have there are 30 ft high. And now they're they're they're saying, "Hey, we're telling you we're going to put 19 of these." And they're going to grow so wide. They're they're putting 20 foot wide, 30 foot tall plants that they're saying are there for a hedge. and they're putting them right along our property line and we're in now a high-risisk fire zone and all this stuff is going to grow over our roof and we were required by the city to to put a cedar roof and our house is all redwood. It makes no sense. A privacy hedge fine but that the other thing that that's going to do is there are guidelines that say you're not supposed to impact the views of your neighbors. You're supposed to respect that. Well, why are theirs flat on their north and west, but our north, they're growing 30 feet high? I I I like to stargaze. I can't even see the North Star. That's a little bit crazy for a privacy hedge. The last thing I would say is that um there's there's nothing that they've really mentioned about the drainage to retain the integrity of this of this wall. They put in drainage in their lot, but it's way back. They have some retention trenches, but there's nothing behind the wall to relieve any water pressure um along this along and everything we did around our our guard. We had um extensive drainage plans that included, you know, French drains, etc., retention pits and and the like, but there's nothing along this retaining wall that says how they're going to relieve any water pressure from their lot. And that's it. Um I again, I would say the same thing that I've said to Mr. Lombardo and I've said to the applicant

and and I'll say it to you and I've said it for the planning commission. I have tremendous respect for what you ultimately decide is right and I will say nothing further when I hear your final decision. I just want it done. It's been a long time and and I really um am a little emotional now because I'm really shocked after inviting this gentleman into my home and telling him and letting him look at our property and hearing nothing of this nothing of any of these issues until it's all just dumped on you without any verification of the facts. And I just laid out my perspective. You can check with Marne. Um you can check with anybody in the planning department. My wife was there every week for four years. We never did anything on our job without pre-approval from Brandon and from Marne. And it was a treacherous journey with a great outcome and we're super happy and and I've sent we've sent notes to Brandon about how wonderful everybody was to work with.

All right. Thank you. We we we have we uh note really your what you've done on your property is not really an issue here. So, thank you. All right. But I kind of felt like after this I had to defend. I I understand. Okay. All right. U is there anyone else here from the public that makes wish like to make a comment regarding this application? You want to make a followup, Tony?

Yep. I just want Paul to know I don't think I said it. If I did, I I didn't mean to say it. I I have no doubt that he received a permit for everything he did and whatever was surveyed was surveyed. What I what I said I think in the beginning was the city should not have permitted that. But as far as I can I know I'm sure they did. Um he's correct. The original plans did show Carmelstone. That was on those planter walls. It wasn't long though. It did not show Carmelstone all the whole length of the property cuz those plans didn't exist. Uh the landscape plan has to be approved by the city. I'm sure they'll approve the appropriate landscape plan that's neither a fire hazard nor a nuisance to the neighbors. And then as to drainage improvements, again, I I assume that's a building department. You know, if they if the building department feels that there has to be a drain at the bottom of the wall, the good news is we can still see the bottom of the wall, so they can still put the drain in. So, thank you. Uh, as I said earlier, if if we can if those conditions are acceptable that I discussed with the staff, then I guess we can proceed tonight and move forward and try and get it done.

Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Uh, no other comments. I'm going to close the public comments, open it up to the commissioners. Um, Commissioner Alurn, you have a question or comment or both?

Uh, thank you, Chair. I have a question. Um and it has to do with uh uh the the neighbor forgive me I don't remember your name sir but speaking about the plant material that uh is proposed as a privacy hedge and the scale that it might grow to be is that something that would ordinarily be reviewed as part of the landscape plan Mr. report and uh possibly um be recommended for modification. Not specifically um not not without specific direction.

So if if you would like that as part of the the direction to staff then then that would need to be included as part of the direction to staff as part of the review of the landscape plan. Thank you. And also um in all of this the total height of the wall andor the wall plus fence um will be conditioned to comply with our guidelines and code. Correct.

Correct. So So as it stands now um I'm going to flip back to the other So as it stands now there is no um prescribed height limit on the fence or excuse me the wall. So for example, if based on the the grade this wall um the plans call it out as approximately 49. If this actual retained soil is only 3 ft, then the wall would need to be reduced to 3 ft and then uh the approved or the excuse me, the recommended conditions say that the fence would then be stepped in from the wall and then an additional 6 ft from from that. Um

Mhm. There there is always the option that the commission could approve a taller um wall and fence that is within your authority, but staff's recommendation is um to allow the the minimum wall height and up to six feet, which is effectively the standard that the code allows. Okay. And the drainage plan is a is a standard condition inside the landscape plan. Yeah, that's just a standard requirement for retaining walls that that the building division would look at. And did you have any objection to the extension of the wall, the additional 17 or so feet to the edge of the property line? No. All right.

No, that that that's just part of the the wall approval and and adjusting the height as as needed. Perfect. Thank you. Um Evan, so the the the issue with setting not having the fence on the wall is because of the measurement from the lowest side. Correct. So by by setting it behind the wall, then the measurement is from the finish grade on the highest side of the wall.

Correct. I I think I can do a Sorry, I hope I'm speaking into the mic. I think I can do a little doodle right here. I mean, if if that's if that's a definition, I understand totally what you're saying. I just wanted to clarify that. They can't Well, if you build on the wall, you have to the rule is you got to go to the lowest side. So, if they want a 6ft fence and they've got 3 ft of wall, essentially they're going to have 9 ft and they can't do that.

Yeah. So the the little line I drew next to where it says existing grade that that could be 6 feet tall. If you put that wall on top of the the retaining wall that's shown in the actual figure, that fence might only be 4T with a twoft wall. So if you're standing on the uphill side, you're looking over a 4ft wall instead of having a sixft wall. Okay. All right. I have two questions. Um the the first one is uh is the wall on the property line? Where's the property line? Is it exactly where the concrete wall is?

The the property line is is or the the wall is completely set in on the the Los Solas property on the on the left property the left. Yes. And does it have a footing the wall? It it does. Um I think you can see it here. The footing is L-shaped. You can see it in the middle photo. Oh, so it doesn't go to the neighbor. Correct. That's I'm sorry. The footing goes to the right. I think I said left. That's not very stable. It should The footing should be on both sides so that the wall is stable. But that's okay. That's a different problem. So it it is engineered. It

it is engineered. We we do have it engineered. Engineered. Okay. Okay. It has been inspected by our building inspector. comments. You want to you want to continue with your comments?

Um yeah. Yeah, we can do it. Um so so basically there are so many different options to solve that problem. So I don't know exactly which one uh again the two neighbors should figure out which one is the best. Um one option is to reduce the size the height of this wall. It's not they haven't poured concrete yet. So it's relatively easy to remove the blocks. Once you pour concrete, you forget about it. It's so difficult to cut. But now right now there's no concrete in it. So it's relatively easy to remove the blocks and go lower. It cannot be on the level on the same level as um the grade. It has to be a little bit above because otherwise all the dirt on one side will go over the wall and come on the other side. It has to be at least I don't know 4 in. I think staff is specifying 4 in a little bit bit higher.

Yeah, staff is specifying 4 in.

Um and then um and then so what so the most stable solution for for for a fence is to put it right above the the concrete wall because then you can put the poles in the concrete and they will stay. Uh if you offset the fence, the benefit is that you can if you have enough space, you can plant something and you can kind of break it down. It doesn't look like one thing. It looks like two smaller things. Um but here there's not enough space to do a lot of offset really. Um and and then the owner who is in New Zealand, I understand, wants to put this giant um what is that? Um PL plants around along the wall, right? He wants to put some trees, bushes.

I I don't know what the species is. Something. Yeah. Um we don't I don't think we have a landscape plan. So that is That that is the question though. If if you want to put so much vegetation like a live wall, do you really need to have a wooden wall there?

Uh is it a safety issue? Is it a privacy issue? Uh may maybe the wall should be smaller and the plan should replace that like play the function of a wall. I I I do not know what we're trying to we're working with three different materials with stone with with concrete with wood for the fence and with the um and the vegetation. So we're trying to solve the same problem in three different ways, right? Um theoretically you could basically add additional blocks and make the the concrete wall a little bit higher and that's the end of the solution with a little bit of vegetation. um you can cut the concrete down and put the wooden wall and maybe not do the vegetation or maybe do the vegetation in addition. There's so different ways of solving that. So I I I don't know exactly which one is the best. Uh they're all possible. Uh on the stone side, I don't understand exactly the whole story with the carell stone. The stone I saw on the other side, the one used on the fireplace uh and on the walls on the other side of the neighbor's property, that's not a caramel stone. This is more like a river. Is it like a river stone or something like that? So, if you put carmel stone on that wall, it's going to look strange, right? You'll have a caramel stone kind of yellowish wall behind riverstone fireplace. It's going to look ugly actually. So, I don't I don't think that that's a good idea. In fact, concrete itself, it's going to look better because it's it's more neutral. It doesn't have yellow in it. It's more of a grayish color. Um, so yeah, again, multiple options how to solve the problem. We just need to understand what's the purpose of the whole thing. I I don't understand the purpose. Is the purpose really to separate the two properties and to what level? Uh is there concern

about privacy? Is it about noise? Is it about something else? I don't know. Okay, thank you. Um, just to kind of speed things up. It sounds like uh the applicant is agrees to lower the wall, uh, build the fence off the wall. Really, and really the only issue is about what's what's going to go on the wall. And the neighbor doesn't doesn't want um the wood, which I understand. It doesn't really match anything in his house. And um they don't I guess the stucco seems to be inconsistent with the two styles of architecture. Although there's this def there's this statement about matte masonary finish in in the guidelines, right? It says garden walls should have a matte masonary finish. So masonry is referring to stone.

Is that correct? The the interpretation that that I was pitching was that Matt and masonry just means structural. So structural stone or structure. It just structural could be could be the CMU. No. Well, it says gray gray concrete and concrete block are inappropriate. So structural structural meaning

you know like a the wood boards that that is is structural you know like a what's it like a sto a soldier pile wall like a soldier pile retaining wall would be consistent with matt and masonry like you don't you don't have to have a stone retaining wall. Okay. That is not the only option or a a plastered retaining wall. Those are not the only two options,

right? But but the issue seems to be here how the how the wall is going to be finished. Everything else everybody's agreeing to. Neighbor's agreeing to it and the applicant's agreeing to it. So, let's focus our discussion on what we think about what should what should go on the wall. Staff is recommending stone u a caramel stone. Um, I don't know. I I didn't really pick up whether the neighbor was agreeable to that or not. Kind of sound like he I don't know. I'd have to He's got two. There we go. All right. I like I like the thumbs up. I like the thumbs up or thumbs down? That works. But question. Do both sides of the wall have to match? Pardon?

Yeah. Do both sides of the wall need to match? Well, typically the part that's exposed would would match. So you would you you'd wrap the stone over the wall and down just a little bit below the grade. Put a put a neutral cap and then do different things on either side. Do what? Put a neutral cap on the wall like a like just some uh mason some and then have the neighbor some shaped mortar something that goes with the neighbor's historic house and then have the property owner. Right. But but the question is are we going to make it the responsibility of the applicant to post stone on? That's that's that's what staff is saying.

Yeah. I'm going to let you decide that and I'll and then I'll follow. I can't decide that alone. If the neighbor I'm just trying to get this focus okay with the caramel stone. I say just do the whole Yeah. Just do the whole thing. Um I I I believe that it's the applicant's responsibility. do the whole um fence in stone and um go to our requirements in terms of um uh height and take the retaining wall down to the the lowest that it can go. Okay. Agreement.

Are you saying Carl Stone on the neighbor side as well? Yeah, he said it. He likes it's got it's got to go on the exposed side. I agree with that. You like it, Mr. Chair. Um, I also support the handrails as proposed. Yeah. And Yeah. And what was the other handrails? There's a fence retaining wall, handrails, and trellis. Oh, and the trousers. Yeah, we're we're not doing the enclosure permit. We're just making a recommendation that it should have a handrail. Yeah. And it should be whatever's I I just recommend that I I I would recommend that it be metal. It's just the best. So, um, did you want to come make a quick comment with the emphasis with the emphasis on quick? Yeah.

Yeah. You're telling the guy who gets paid by the minute to be quick. The uh the Carmel Stone doesn't work for us. I don't have authority to agree to that. So, it's it's it it doesn't match their house. It's expens very expensive to do. We're building this wall because of a cut on their side. And so, I you know, there are other options. Matte masonry, whatever that means. I mean, something that's not shiny, I guess, like marble or something, but we need the ability to do something that isn't going to cost a fortune to to face this wall. And they they can put whatever they want on it, but if we're going to have to pay to do it, it should be something that's reasonably affordable on on that downhill side that doesn't have to be car.

Okay. All right. We got we got that. So, neighbor neighbor wants to come up. Come I would just say what it they moved the wall into their property so they could control what they wanted to do with the wall. They've never talked to us about it other than that one mention of do you want to put stone on it. That was years ago and as I mentioned we no longer have the ability to do that. So whatever is com you're comfortable with and whatever meets the guidelines as them we're fine with it. All right. Okay. Whatever you guys agree to whatever they want to do we're fine with it. We'll put plants. It doesn't have to match the rest of our yard. It's their It's their property. All right. Okay. Good. All right. You want to say something, Evan?

Yeah. I mean, if you are inclined to go with Stuckco, I I I've been thinking of opportunities. Um but just so notwithstanding what the staff report said, a plain textured plaster wall may be appropriate if kept low in scale when consistent with the building architecture. So other times we've discussed consistency in material saying something needs to directly relate to a building. So for example, if someone has a stone garage and there's no stone on the house, we say well there there's no relationship something within that vein. So that that was the the connection that I was pulling from here. Um in this case consistent with the building architecture could be you know there it doesn't necessarily detract from and it could be conditioned to say you know the the wall is painted to match the stone on site.

That's what I would say. The what the wall what the wall is painted to match match the the color of the stone the stuff that matches.

Yeah. Well, I I personally I think the guideline says says matte masonary finish that's stuck. You know, it could be stone, it could be stuck, whatever. And the stucco certainly mixes in with the style of a stone house. I mean, it's it's a very uh very plain and I so I think I think we can make the findings easily. We could condition it that um well, you know, I I don't know if we need to condition it other than the color needs to be uh it can't be white. We don't want a bright white. It should be a uh a color that's consistent with the uh the architecture of the uh existing building,

right? Within the palette of the existing building. So, with that being said, I think we have a motion from staff that we can modify here if I can find it. And and are we okay on the height? Do we have an agreement on the height of the fence? We do. Cuz we have Yeah, they can have a sixoot fence. I mean, we can we can go up to 8 foot. It's discretionary, but that isn't being required here. So, if if and the applicant's agreeable having it off the top of the wall, that's fine. The neighbor doesn't care. So I I just think we don't we don't have any issue there that we need to uh can we put a timeline on this? So so that that is addressed in the the

if we get a motion it's going to get done a lot sooner. Yeah. So the the timeline is it is modified. Usually we give applicants 12 months. This is reduced to 6 months. Um perfect. 6 months from the date of action unless a building permit um has been issued. So 6 months to get a issued building permit. Okay. Excellent. All right. I've got the motion up here. Could you put some uh um Yes. What conditions have you got in there that we need to

So, we we will need to modify number nine to number not permitted and then modify number 12 regarding number nine. Grade uh grade wall and fence height shall be determined based on pre-construction. What what what do we need to modify about that? The number nine. TW uh nine. uh is that the uh raising or backfilling or raising the grade above the preconstruction level is not permitted. There was a typo. Um Oh, it's okay. All right. Not permitted. Um and then number 12 relates to the wall finish. Okay. So, the wall finish should can be uh can be stuckco and be a color to match the existing residence. Mhm. Correct. Perfect.

Okay. All right. That's What else? Go ahead. Oh, I was going to say um the hedge and well, you know, I looked at that. I looked at that. That is um that is called Italian buckhorn. It typically grows 10 to 15 feet. I think it's big.

I don't know. Maybe can it go to 30 feet? It does doesn't really say it here. So, um I I I don't see that it grows to 30 ft, but maybe somebody knows something. I don't know. This is this is just a description of it. I mean, I think we could put a condition in there that uh uh they plant a uh uh plants along that side that uh will not grow to um an excessive height. I would I would like I would I mean, are you comfortable with 10 to 15 feet?

Um yes. What I was pointing out is there's two types of plants along that whole southern road, there's a set of 10 and a set of nine. And the set of nine that are up near our house, those grow to 30 ft high and 20 ft wide. Which ones are those? The myrtle uh myrtleia and then there's a bunch of plants behind it. It's the Yeah, I'm looking at the landscape plant ma Californiaica. It's called We've got Lantana. That's that's that's Pacific wax myrtle. It's right there. It says you can see it in huge letters. Mica, California. Well, up on the screen up above. Not where you're looking, but up there you can see it.

It's that row all up along where our house is. Those are This is This is your house here, right? My That's the south. That's my north. You're looking at That's your north property, right? So, my house is 3 ft from that line. Yeah. So those that species there it's those two those two sets there. There's there's a set of nine the mica Californiaica those grow to 30 ft high and 20 ft wide. Well then we'll we'll we'll and then the the other set grows to 15 ft high and 12 ft wide. All right. Well we will you be uh are you comfortable with the just having the same species along there that the lower I'm comfortable with the loweries grow on my roof and doesn't block the view privacy edge.

All right. So the uh another condition another condition of the resolutions will be that the uh the uh my California should be eliminated along the south side and the uh Italian buckhorn should be uh replace it. Okay, I like it. Is that a motion? It's a motion I've been working on for a few minutes here. Okay, any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll call, please. Commissioner Auburn, yes. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Careco, uh, yes. Commissioner Lock, yes. And Chair Leage,

yes. Motion is carried. Thank you. Okay, where are we on this never on the never- ending agenda? Okay, we are on um we have a use permit. No, no, you're on another Oh, maybe maybe it is. Where? Yeah. Number 10 use, right? Uh chair, I am You have to recuse yourself and so does Mr. Albert. Okay.

Okay. So this is um a use permit. This is UP 26053. This is uh PRG Carmel LLC and this is for the modifications to the uh spins guards. Right. So staff report please.

Good evening commissioners. As stated, this is for a use permit amendment uh UP 26053 PRG Carmel LLC and design review 262 PRG Carmel LLC project scope. The use permit amendment for the original use permit for Svengard in UP2192 um is to make some minor adjustments based off conversations with the applicant after the previous approval specifically to maintain the non-conforming parking 33 spots and to strike the condition regarding a manager unit to be replaced with a condition stating that uh Sven's guard would have a 24-hour awake employee. um on-site available for any emergencies would be able to help out with any occupants. Um this was discussed with the city attorney um to determine that the awake employee on site would satisfy the state regulations that if the owner doesn't live on site that there'd be an on-site manager uh 24/7. And for the parking, there was some attempts from PRG to bring the parking into conformance with the 35 spaces for the 35 units on site. Uh but they were unable to do that due to several different factors including a P gen transformer um and some EV charging spaces that take up a little more space than it was expected. Um and our code allows for um existing operational standards such as parking to be maintained at their non-conforming levels um when ownership is changed. So uh that's for the use permit amendment. For the design review, um the rooftop equipment uh needed to be larger than was expected for their HVAC system. So it's in the same location, but it's gotten wider. Um it's tucked

behind the ridge line and they're maintaining the screening around it. So, um, we'll look at that here. Here are the two conditions, uh, that we discussed. Um, specifically striking the manager's unit requirement and having the on-site staff 24/7. Uh, and the parking, uh, we hadn't actually had a condition previously about the parking on site, but we want to memorialize it since it would be non-conforming. Uh as for the um expanded screening, you can see in the top down view there, it's maintaining the 4 1/2 ft and the 5 1/2 ft of the existing screening, but it's now extending to 11 ft 9 in as opposed to 6' 6 in uh as previously proposed. It is tucked behind the ridge line though, so when you see it um from the parking lot at the front, you just see the top of the screening and won't have an impact on the right of way. With that, staff recommends the planning commission adopt the resolution as presented by staff. I'm here for any questions.

Questions? No. But can we make a motion to approve? We can't. We got to I just I was I was thinking the same thing, but we I tried to go quickly. Can't do that. Okay. Uh no question for staff. Someone would the applicant like to come up and make any comments? I like that. I like I like that applicant. I really like that comment. All right. Any comments from the public? Anybody online? No one left. Okay. Close close the public comments. Open it up to the commission. Uh I mean, do we are we good with the resolution?

I'm good with the resolution. You good with that? Okay. Um, so can I make a can I make a motion to adopt the resolution as specified by second that motion? All right. Awesome. We have roll call, please. All right. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Carpa, yes. And Chair Leage, yes. Motion's carried. All right, let's don't lose momentum. Thanks for staying, Asher. Thank you, commissioners. All right, I think that brings us to the last item on the public hearings. Oh, you want to invite the uh They probably were laying around. Thought they had another 10 or 15 minutes, huh?

Oh, hi.

I got through that so quick. You didn't need it. Okay, they're back. So, uh, last, well, last item tonight is another use permit. This is use permit, uh, UP25373. This is Gelato by the sea. We have the staff report, please.

Thank you.

Good evening. This is for use permit 25373 Java by the sea and um it was previously approved uh for use permit 25150 allowing the establishment of a specialty restaurant uh within the subject property as proposed by the applicant and as incorporated and approved. Condition of approval number 18. The permitted hours of operation are 12 pm to 7 pm, seven days a week. The project scope for this use permit amendment is to uh extend their hours an hour earlier in the day and into the evening until 11 p.m. Um, pretty pretty simple. Uh the staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution finding the project categorically exempt from an environmental review pursuant to secret guideline sections 15301. Um and approve a use permit amendment to extend the hours of operation from 12 to 7:00 p.m. by 5 hours resulting in the operational hours of 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week for Gelato by the Sea, a specialty restaurant located in Carmel Square. Um, there was a proposal by the property owner to uh continue this. Um, I don't

I'm objecting to that and that is our applicant. You're you're the applicant, right? Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Okay. Um All right. Is there any questions for staff? Not this time. Not this time. Okay. Um, so the athlete want to come forward and make their presentation? Yes, absolutely.

Thank you all for spending the evening with me. Um, the reason we're here is to address the hours. When we opened up in August, about a month after we were issued our use permit, we quickly realized that especially a lot of families are looking for somewhere to go after dinner or people also after a date and to have a more wholesome experience than going to a bar. and we fit the bill for that and become um very popular with those hours. I naively, like a lot of business owners, didn't understand that the hours are advisable to be updated with the use permit with the city. And as soon as I found out about that, I pushed for that. And uh when I had the landlord agree to that and sign the documents in December, um and now we're here for that. I'd like to reserve time if there are any questions about uh any comments or or anything for me regarding this. Okay. Any questions for the applicant?

Yes. Good evening, Mr. Holla. Yes. Um, good evening. Uh, my question has to do with um the planning commission resolution um that I'm presuming you received the 202532-PC. And in there, it does speak to your use permit application, the 25150. You received this? Yes. Um I I'm not sure. You're not sure what I'm looking right. Okay. So, this is the standard document that the planning commission and this is Can you speak into your m microphone? Yes. And it was part of our packet this evening.

This is what was issued on July 9th when you approved the business. Correct. Correct. And in here it it does mention um that you're authorized to operate from 12:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. daily. Correct. Yes. as a specialty restaurant. That's right. Perfect. That's my only questions for now. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Um, yeah. I have So, we received a letter from one of your neighbors saying that this long cues and lines of people from the landlord or from the neighbors. I'm not sure. It was a neighboring property owner.

So, it let me clarify something, Cory. We've always operated this way and with the encouragement of the property owner and the property management and I've attached text messages, screenshots and all of that um confirming that that they knew that we were always open until 9:30 or 10:00 at night and they were very happy about the line and how many how much vibrancy we bring to um the square. All the um tenants inside of the complex have my personal phone number. I'm there constantly. I only live two blocks away. If I'm not there, my wife is there. No one has ever complained to us about ever blocking entrance to another business. It's never been an issue. We actively manage the line. And if you understand also the layout of Carmel Square and the location of Gelato by the Sea, the only tenant that's uh next to it, that's where people line up at all is called Exposed Gallery. That's only open one day per week. Um sometimes not even open one day per week. So, the only way that anyone could block any business could potentially sometimes be that door, but that's never been an issue. And if you look at even the photos that the landlord submitted from their surveillance cameras, you can see that people are able to clearly walk through across from where the line is up and down to Barmell, Barmell Supper Club. There's also additional um access that is from San Carlos Street down the alleyway to the signs where Barmell and Barmell Supper Club are down the alley. There's also access from the Wells Fargo parking lot in the court of the fountain on the other side. So, we absolutely don't block anyone's access. I was very surprised about um the letter you got from the landlord at the same time. And without going into too much detail, the landlord and I are in a contract dispute and I believe the only reason this letter was submitted is in relation to that. But we've always made sure that all um other tenants have access to their businesses. If anyone complained about that, we would take every single extra measure that we possibly can to make sure that we don't cause problems for anyone. We keep a very clean operation.

We have our staff regularly clean the entire courtyard, the property, even of other trash from other tenants. I clean the gutters in the morning. Me and my son go almost every single day before school to walk and check even if there's a tiny little piece of wood from someone using to eat their gelato. Um, whatever we find, whether it's candy from the neighbors, anything there is, we clean as well, too. and we actively manage the line and we train our staff to do that as well. We've been very very popular and at times people are waiting. We give samples which is something unique about our business. I know a lot of other shops don't do that and we have a very big display and people like to try the flavors so sometimes there's a line but we actively manage that and make sure we don't cause any disturbance to anyone else. Okay. Any other questions?

All right. Thank you. Oh, we got another question. Thank you. Uh thank you chair. Well, one more question, Mr. Holla. Um, staying open until 10 p.m. Yes. So, you stay open until 10 p.m. We are open until 10 p.m. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any uh comments from anybody? One thing I want to add, I'm sorry. About 40% of our our revenue is after 7 o'clock at night. just so it's a major contributor for our business for me to be able to provide for my family but also for the sales tax for the city as well too these hours. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Is there u anybody in the chamber here that wants to address the commission regarding this application? I don't see anybody any hands on line. No sir.

Okay. Um I'm going to close the public comments opened up to the commission. Commissioner Alurn, you want to begin? Yes. Thank you, chair. Um I I asked the question about um the use permit because it is very specific in um granting. The use permit is for a specialty restaurant. Uh and that comes out of uh our CMC 1714 I4 restaurant specialty. Um and it does include a um the requirement in subsection K about a practical plan for monitoring and implementing uh standards where they need to clean up and so on. Um and it also speaks to I believe this section speaks to queuing though it might exist elsewhere. Um, but the use permit for this business very specifically stated um some hours of 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. And again, I'm I'm a freshman. I'm still learning how we interpret code here in this town. But to me, if a use permit says I can I can be in operation until 7:00 p.m., then I should be closing my doors at 7:00 p.m. And I question whether or not I can grant a modification to a permit that uh currently actually isn't being used and complied with. So I am um and in addition there have been reports from the uh property manager about queuing and um trash and so on. And I actually spoke with another one of the tenants um

in the last few days just asking them um if they were in support of e extending the hours for Gelato by the Sea. and their response and this is of course I am giving you hearsay but to summarize it they uh were delighted with the popularity of the business and at the same time felt that um some additional management was needed before additional hours should be granted having to do with the queueing um how much staffing uh the trash uh and also the hours that they're operating. So, I I don't have a conclusion right now. I'm very interested in what my fellow commissioners have to say. Um but that is where um where my thoughts are at the moment. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Allen.

Um so, apparently we have some issue with uh use permits here in town that need to be cleared up. Um, I I love the fact that we can have a few businesses that stay open later because it's kind of a bummer when, you know, you have guests and it's Friday night, Saturday night, and you can't go just get ice cream um because everything's closed. Um, so I actually am in favor of this, um, as long as it fits in with all of our, um, requirements and and use permit um, uh, regulations. Um, actually, if they're open later, all the businesses around them will be closed anyway. So, I mean, it's not going to make a difference whether they have a line down the street um, because everybody else will be closed. Um, so, uh, so I I'm in favor of this. Um, and, um, I I'm never a fan of after the fact situations. So, I do wish that you would have potentially followed the use permit that you had, but um, but I would I would move forward with this one.

Yeah. One thing real quick based on what you said, the um property management and the landlord constantly advised me not to come to the city to change the use permit, but told me to continue to operate this way. And I have text messages from them that show that they can send to you. Yeah. Remember to disregard anything that anyone else tells you and come to the city.

Yeah. So, that's why I'm here. I wanted to make sure that everything was right. And if um there's any concerns about trash, I can assure all of you that there's no trash around. I go even at night to the neighboring businesses, the Wells Fargo parking lot in front of Neielson's Market, and I check it myself. But if you wanted to make as part of a condition of this that I pay for a specific service to come and clean the whole block, I'll pay for it. I just want to offer that up. Okay. Um All right, Commissioner Lock.

Um yeah, I kind of interesting. I actually would say 10:00, not 11:00. I have some concerns about the um interaction between the Gelato business people and how they interact with uh Barmell, which switches its clientele between 10 and 11 and it becomes more of a bar. Um, and I also have a concern that the owner of the property and the landlord has an issue with this. Um, and I don't know how that should weigh in to our decision or not or whether whether that has any bearing on any and I'm kind of looking at you Anna and on this um whether that's something we should consider.

Um, I think it is important for the commission to consider because the use permit ultimately runs with the land property owner and not with the operator. So without well on one hand we do have an approval through the signature of an application. We also have evidence showing that um they are requesting a continuence.

Um it sounds like most of the issues that the property owner has brought up is really a tenant property owner civil type matter. But um I I do think it is important for the commission to to consider the the holder of the permit. So then if by chance um they did not come to an agreement and um Gelato by the sea needed to move out, the use permit stays with that location at that at those hours. Yep. So the uh the property owner requested a continuance. The property owner requested the containment

based on what? Um the issues that u Mr. Holla mentioned with maintenance. Um they made suggested conditions of approval. Um it sounds like more of a tenant agreement. Um, I think Quinn's staff reviewed it. It was it was letter here kind of an overreach of the planning commission's police powers to to require some of those conditions of approval. On that line, can we and and this comes from the property owner's letter. Can we condition approval for a specific period of time and then review that use permit

like for example, these hours are good for a year. Come back for reassessment. Yeah. And come back for a reassessment. You can do that. Okay. And do we have a written something from Joanna? Yes, we do. Okay. Okay. Okay. So then who actually owns the use permit? Property owner. Property owner is white. And so the applicant doesn't even have authority to change the use permit without the owner. Without the That's correct. The owner has to be in agreement.

Agree. Yeah. So the property has to be in agreement. Right. And they're not. So So the property owner is has given a written statement that they're not in agreement with this. They want to continue and that's why they're Have they Have they said they're in agreement with any particular hours of operation? They signed that hours of operation to be changed from 11 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. It had to be signed by them before it could be submitted. They signed that. They signed that. That's correct. And they only brought up only when I was in dispute with them about a contract. That's the only time.

Yeah. Come up to the come up to speak from the chair. This was only brought up once we were in dispute about a contract. Before this, none of this was mentioned. We've always had cues and lines all the way since August when we opened up. So, all of this was only brought up, you know, in the last few weeks, right? All of these things. I don't know when all of these things were received in the last what 10 days or so. So, this is all centered around the the dispute I have uh with them. And to explain more about the use permits, the use permits are attached to a particular property because of, let's say, the amount of water that's available there. But if the use permits go dormant, then they disappear. So for example, if a business doesn't operate that use, then that that use disappears after, I believe, 6 months. Yeah. Yeah. And then it has to be reapplied for.

Sorry. I I think so. If it's a restricted use, if it's a restricted use, yeah, if it's not a restricted use, the permits there, they live forever. So just another operator could come in and open up. If you lost your lease, another operator could come in unless it was closed for a certain duration of time. Right. Mhm. That's abandonment of restricted use because then they're abandoned if they're not used. That's on a restricted permit. Right.

And well then one thing I wanted to mention to Commissioner Lockach, the reason that we put up to 11:00 is because we typically only open till 10 and that's on the weekends. I don't have any plans to operate past it, but if we're at, for example, 10:05 and someone comes in, we serve them. We don't want to be out of compliance for that. If that makes sense. So, except that you've been operating out of compliance for the last year. So, my my mistake, but I want to make that right. That's why I'm here. I don't want And there's a lot of businesses in Carmel that are operating that way, and I'm not going to point the finger at anybody else. I spoke with someone uh today who actually wrote a letter who sent in and he owned a business in town. He didn't even know you needed to change your hours.

Okay. I have another staff question. Um, so Joanna White signed the application for this amendment. Is that right? Correct. And she will have to sign the use permit for this as well that does have owner on it. Getting away. Do you mind testifying at the podium, sir? Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. Uh I we we could check the resolution specifically and I know that we have a signature block on some resolutions uh for the applicant and or owner to sign. Uh but it's my understanding that's more an acknowledgement of the conditions so that you're basically saying I will comply with these conditions but that it's the chair and the secretary signatures that actually finalize the resolution. So, they don't have to agree to the conditions.

We want them to. Uh, I don't think that is what finalizes the use permit. And, uh, speaking candidly, I think there's quite a few resolutions where the owner and applicants just never get to signing them. And that we just deem it good enough with Leage and Shelby signature.

Yeah. We have them sign this, but this is more of an acknowledgement of the conditions. It's not a requirement to complete the permit. It's once the motion is uh made and finalized by the commission that a used permit is approved. So, what if a property owner doesn't sign? It's not a requirement of the the code enforcement goes to whom? The the business owner. Okay.

Okay. So, um how does the commission feel about this? I recognize that the property owner signed the application. Um, and then at some point um, between that signing and this hearing today, they have changed their mind about that application. Because the use permit goes with the property, I am inclined to to deny this application or continue this until there's some sort of resolution where we understand specifically what it is the property owner is supporting in terms of a use permit. Yeah, I would move we continue this item to a time

and specify what what where what we where we continue it for because we don't have to allow the property owner to to participate in this hearing. I have one more thing. Just a minute. Just a minute. Commissioner Careco, um I I agree. We we can continue and and then go get a gelato. I guess if it's still open handling

they're closed. I do I do want like what crosses my mind is the fact that um we have apparently we have owners of properties that are not I don't know I mean if I were somebody opening a business in Carmel I might be a little bit concerned at the pattern that we're seeing. Mhm. Well, I think I think it's I mean there's an obvious inequity here and and a risk that's put on these operators. Yeah. They don't own the permit and they're at they're at the mercy of the landlord. Y

you know, my my normal uh thought on this is I don't want to do anything that restricts a business from being able to operate profitably. you know, and I don't see anything wrong with this request other than there seems to be some tension between the operator and the landlord, which could be anything. And and I really don't want to put be in a position where they're being able to use undue leverage by making accusations, which we have no record of. We just have some accusation here. There's no sub substantiation of this. I don't know if uh this place isn't being kept clean. There's there's no complaints on this business, are there?

No, there is no there's no complaints. So, you know, so why are we penalizing this from a from a uh you know, an unsubstantiated claim? Okay. If we approve this, can we do it conditional for a year? For a year. Yeah, we can do that. Okay. I mean, I'm I'm willing to go that route. Let's do that. Okay. Okay. Um, you make that motion. I move we approve the use permit extending the hours of operation from the amend Yeah. The amended

Yeah. amended use permit from um 11 to 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week for Gelato by the Sea and that it be conditional approval for when it comes back for review and staff's re, you know, staff's resolution. I'll second that. Any more discussion? Roll call, please. Commissioner Alboard, no. Commissioner Allen, yes. Commissioner Careoff, uh yes. Commissioner Lock. Yes. And Chair Leage. Yes. Motion is carried. Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you, St.

Commissioners. I just want to thank you very much. I'm very, very grateful. You helped me put food on the table for my family. It means a lot. Okay. I'll be I'll be coming in for that free gelato. Dad, go. Go away. I'm just Go away. Bad joke. Bad joke. I didn't say that. Okay. I think that brings us to to the last item. Director's report. Oh, so we have a director's report. Yes. And it's a long one. Okay. It's a long one. Of course it is. First of all, I'd like to start.

This is day three of three that I'm here past 10:00. Um, so I'm just sharing the uh experience with y'all. I will

I will go quickly. A couple of announcements about upcoming meetings. April 14th, there is a community meeting that will be put on by Chief Trey. He will present on AB481, which is the MIT military equipment annual report. He will also have a discussion on the evacuation drill that will be May 30th. Hopefully all of you can participate in that evacuation drill that'll be held here at the council chambers and I believe it's during the day so you will not be here at night. Um April 29th the objective design and development standards community workshop number three will take place. Um and then details for time, location and what that will include will be forthcoming. Um and then what happened earlier this week on Monday, the at the city council special meeting, um they were provided with a water allocation update. Um some of the uh discussions revolved around potential options on how to move forward now that we're in a different situation. when um our code was adopted, that was back in 200 2004 when the water situation was drastically different. So, do we need to look at it more often versus the annual um report we're supposed to do? Planning Commission is supposed to review what has been allocated, make any recommendations to city council. So, um the only direction that we received from the council is really to draft a letter um and send to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to formally request um direction on what happens if we're running out of water or do we come to you when we have

like one acre foot left or you know what is a proper threshold. So, we will be working on that. Um and um I'll report out to the planning commission when that's done. There was also a discussion on the CIP projects. Planning commissioners should be um kind of tracking that along um because annually um you will all have to make a determination that those projects are consistent with the general plan. Um there's also a presentation on the fee schedule update. um fees are proposed to be raised um but nothing has been codified. Then yesterday um the council um heard the AWS Shucks appeals. So there were two appeals um one by TSD properties LP who's the property owner and AWS Shucks LLC who is the operator. those appeals were consolidated. Um, uh, it was the decision for the council to grant the appeal grant the appeals conditional upon approval of a use permit amendment to emit the limited food with and replace with full line restaurant as an ancillary use greater than 10%. Um they also included a refund of the appeal fe appeal fees. So that's 21.90* 2. Um I do want to mention that the council uh did identify that they appreciated that the planning commission really tried your best to uphold the law as um as you read it. Um what happened uh yesterday is that um the the council relied on

past determinations and past um histories. Um one specifically was the the formal determination of the planning commission in 20 2015 that AW shocks was one of the three bars. Um so application has not yet been received. Um but once uh it is it will come back to the planning commission for consideration. Um and then can I ask you a question on that? Yeah. Couple questions on that. Sure.

So they will come back to amend the permit to be what? to So the permit was for limited food sales because the drinking establishment was so primary.

Well, it w it's primary and it was established prior to the requirement of use permit and prior to the identification that a drinking place was one of the three or was restricted and we would only have three. Um so the amendment would be to change limited food to fullline restaurant as ancillary to a drinking place and that ancillary use would be greater than 10%.

Wow. Um, my second question is, is there a way to bring the definition of drinking establishment back to the planning commission for discussion about an actual definition that could be used universally going forward? So, we don't have um this situation happen again where we have um restaurants and bars. Um I mean to me this is yeah we we're going to end up with this situation and I think we really need to have this cleared up.

Yeah. Um planning commission can provide me with direction to return and report out on definitions. We can you know look at a suite of options what other jurisdictions use um what would be fair um maybe what existed before 2004. Um, I do think that's a good idea. As we just discussed on the last item, if tenants change hands, permit stays with the land, what happens if you have a new tenant, the tenant wants to do something else.

Can can we say that you are within the definition of whatever your use is. Um, so I will write that down and add it to our short list of things to do. Um and then uh last and final thing is or two things. Um in light of recent issues with lot coverage, changes in law coverage, non-conforming lot coverage, people being over trying to fix things, asphalt's messed up, I just want to driveway. Um and the planning commission's um actions tonight. Uh, I think it would be appropriate for the director to bring an interpretation on lot coverage relative to repair and maintenance. So, we will work on that. Um, and then prior to its finalization, we'll bring it back to the planning commission just so you guys can have eyes on it. Then, last but not least, um, driving into work today, I take Pacific Avenue and I saw our new fire truck and she is gorgeous.

Yeah. Okay. Y

I haven't Is it? I didn't know we got a new one. Okay. Thank you everyone. We were journal.

Oh, your pain. the pay. I don't know. This meeting was so long my earbuds went dead.

Buds went dead. That was a long Good job though.