Historical Advisory Commission - Regular Meeting

Over that one.

I don't know. Yeah. Yes. Sorry. How are you doing, miss?

This. For the last while.

The package was so big. I didn't Yes. And everything. Yes. Okay. It was in that package. Yeah. Sorry. I missed that one. It's pages one seventy four five six seven eight. Same. Know. That's.

Think I haven't Yes. Somewhat. I don't wanna answer.

Well, I think it was I'll answer that. Okay. By the board, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Think you wanna make it. But there's a purpose of that. It is not It's still the integrity of the buildings. I see. But I'll be glad to speak to that. Okay. You. Have you heard from Sally? I

am not. Okay.

Okay. K. I'm going to call to order the Thursday, January 2026 meeting in the Monroe County Historic Resources Viewport. May I have roll call, please?

John Scorchise? Yep. Kelly Morgantini? Michael Billy.

Here.

Judy McLeland. Present. Sheila Lee Prader. It's Prader, and I'm present. Salvador Munoz. Belinda Talavan. Present.

Jerry, you have a quorum.

Okay. Thank you. So at this point, I'll move forward to public comment on agenda items. Anybody has a comment?

I'm sorry. Did you just ask for general comments on public?

Okay. Excuse me. Okay.

Only staff and board member videos should be on. Members of the public should have their videos turned off unless they are presenting. This helps with the bandwidth and helps with reducing distractions. Staff will help monitor and turn off videos as needed. We do ask that you keep yourself muted unless you are presenting. To mute yourself on Zoom, on the Zoom platform, there is a mute button at the bottom of the screen that looks like a microphone. To mute yourself, if you've called, press 6. To participate during public comment in the Zoom platform, you can raise your hand by opening reactions at the bottom

of your screen and clicking on the raise hand icon. If you've called in, you can raise and lower your hand by pressing 9. Another way you can participate is by sending an email to the hrbhearingcomments@happymoderate.gov.

This email address can also be found on the agenda for today's meeting. Staff are monitoring that email. So if if you have a question, comment, or document, staff will do our best to respond in real time.

You. Thank you, Marks. So back to public comment on non agenda items. Anybody have speak at this time?

There's no hands upon.

Okay. So seeing no one, I'll close the floor to public comment. Agenda additions, questions, questions.

Yes. For the record, we received and distributed additional correspondence for agenda item number one, which is scale in 240141, Carmel Valley Mass.

Yes. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So move on to scheduled matters.

Item number one. It's PON240140141CarmelValleyManor. Public hearing to consider a recommendation to the Monterey County Planning Commission for a combined development permit to allow operations of Carmel Valley matter, including the demolition of two duplex units, five single family dwellings, and seven visitor guest units to be followed by the construction of 24 new independent living duplex units and eight visitor guest units. Additional new construction would include full bed assisted living memory care facility and additions to the existing fitness center and meeting house. Project also proposes the removal of 81 protected old trees and development on slopes in excess of 21 excuse me, 25%.

Project location is is 8545 Carmar Valley Road. What's that?

Here. Apologize. Looks like a hand went up on Zoom, and I'm not sure if it's left over from the public comment section.

Just

went up late possibly to you how you'd like to proceed.

Okay. Let me just what would you show me?

Apologies.

I I guess just ask what the reference might be at this point.

Hi, Rick. You can unmute yourself.

Okay. Thank you.

Is this a public comment on a non agenda item?

Actually, I'm a I'm a neighbor adjacent to the property, and I just kinda got involved in all this.

We can see that you're speaking, but we don't hear anything.

Okay. Hang on. Let me see if you can hear anything.

Anything yet?

How How about now? Okay. Well, we'll move on with the

project with the planner like that. Planner, Steve Mason. I'm gonna defer to the applicant for their presentation. But first, I wanted to make sure do all the board members have what this is is in blue, the structures proposed to be new new construction in red on the second page are the structures to be

destroyed prior to construction.

There was a site visit in June by the HRRB. Were there anybody here that wasn't at that meeting? Okay. Yep.

It just two of us. Okay.

It just the site review committee.

Okay. The project really hasn't changed since that time. The only difference is there's proposal to put a gate on Los Arberleys that would direct all the traffic from the homes on Los Arberleys Drive through Carmel Valley Manor and not down Los Arberleys Drive. That would be a fire department gate. And before I hand this over to the applicant, I wanted to correct one glaring error in my report.

I state in the report that the cottage named Ennis Free, was on the estate site, and it burned to the ground in 1960. This is the cottage that the author Langston Hughes resided in. In fact, Innisfree was owned by, mister Sullivan, but the cottage is in Carmel, and it's still standing. So just wanted to put that on the record.

Okay. Let's see what I'm

I guess you wanna if if you would start off. Sure.

That's the. It's

Stuart. Good morning. Jason, president and CEO at Calmell Valley Manor. For those of you who may not be familiar with the matter, we've been in business for sixty three years providing housing and services and and health care for senior communities from. In 2023, we put together a group of residents, board members, staff, and professionals to plan for the future of of the community.

And what we're going to present today represents the physical changes that we're proposing as we as we move into the future. The centerpiece of of this project is the addition of 24 independent living units and 12 memory cube beds in a in a a new assisted living room in the building. We have very strong demand throughout Mulberry County for these services, and oftentimes, I have to turn people away because they just don't have, you know, the capacity. By by building these these these new apartments, will be able to better serve the residents of of the Monterey County. The residents on their own without any encouragement from management have have raised $5,000,000 towards the construction of.

So I think that, you know, demonstrates, you know, both the need and the interest in in seeing what these services are provided. These, you know, these, again, you know, represent the, you know, the the cornerstone of our future both for financial sustainability as well as for care. So I'm hoping you give this, know, your your greatest consideration. I'd like to introduce our team today. Joel Panzer is our lead planner.

Ashley Chung is our architect. Seth Bergstein conducted our historic, review. John Hopp is our capital projects manager, and we also have a board member present today, Kathleen Ventimiglia, who also served on the planning committee. We'll be happy to answer any of your questions, today, and thank you again for giving us the time to present. Thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you, Jade, for that introduction. My name is Ashley Chung with Perkins Eastman, the master plan architects. And so today, we will be walking us all through with the master plan goals overview of our proposal with also big attention to the fitness center and the meeting house additions as well as our approach to the independent living units that Jay was mentioning earlier. We'll also follow-up with some historical preservation considerations with Seth and then a q and a session, but also feel free to pause us at any time if you have any questions you would like to discuss.

So to really talk about the master plan, we have to take a step backwards, specifically into the nineteen sixties. 1963 was when Carmel Valley Manor was first constructed, and they recently celebrated their sixtieth anniversary three years ago. So it's very cool to be able to see this postcard from the nineteen sixties as well as an original photo when the campus was first constructed. It was entitled for a total of 172 units serving the clergy, teachers, and widows. But since then, to adapt to the needs of the residents, the unit count today stands at 146.

Okay. Let's see. The

transition is a little tricky sometimes. So this is what Carmel Valley Manor looks like today. We can really see how the campus has expanded over the years. And Yeah. As Jay was mentioning, they still remain very committed to providing excellent levels of care for independent living, assisted living, as well as skilled nursing.

To respond to the resident and the community need for memory care, there will also be a dedicated space and program within this master plan, and it's been cited in consideration to the overall fabric and layout of the campus. At this point in time, I'd also like to point out the Loop Road. It's something that we'll talk a little bit more about later, and it's actually a key in how it connects the entire campus. For those of you who may or may not have visited the campus, I also wanted to take the time to introduce and walk you through what Carmel Valley Manor looks like with respect to the Loop Road. On the interior, I'll highlight the historic core campus, and this area is where all the common amenities are located.

And, specifically, where my cursor is right now, is where the fitness center is, which is something that we'll talk about later, as well as the meeting house. Both of these additions will be upgraded and expanded upon as part of the master plan. This is also the Hillcrest assisted living. Adjacent to it is the health center skilled nursing. And over here where my cursor is circling is the single family dwelling homes off of Los Arbolas, and the remainder and majority that surrounds the rest of the Loop Road are the independent living units.

In orange here are where we've highlighted in the master plan proposal where the independent living living units will be located to meet the market demands and to rebalance the count towards the original 172 unit entitlements. One of the Manor's goals is to provide similar unit configurations across the campus. Adjacent to the IL units in orange on the Southeast portion of the campus are also in yellow guest units, which will now be consolidated in one area. It's also adjacent to a new parking area as well as storm water treatment. And in blue is the relocated dog run and resident garden.

In purple is the location of the memory care 12 bed building. And in blue is the fitness center and the meeting house additions that we'll walk through a little bit later. In order to achieve these goals, the following will be demolished. At number one is an existing wood shop. Items two and four are, different locations for guest cottages.

Number three is the duplex, and in in yellow are five single family dwelling homes. This is what the final master plan proposal looks like, today, and it's in order of our presentation topics are number seven, our fitness center renovation and addition. Number eight, the meeting house addition. And then we'll also talk through numbers one, two, and nine, which are the independent living units, which are dispersed across locations one, Hillside, number two, the Upper, and then nine, Las Barbados. So to dive a little bit more into the wellness and fitness, for the fitness center renovation and the meeting house, we had to have conversations with the community and the residents to understand what their needs and wants were for the wellness programs.

And after after the analysis, it was determined that the community, needed and wanted a total of 25,000 square feet of wellness program, which is really a testament to the mission statement of Carmel Valley Manor of providing holistic health and well-being to residents. And after this analysis, it was determined that these wellness programs should be distributed throughout the community and specifically around the Loop Road. So if we were to take a look at the fitness center and how it's cited, this is a diagram of the campus analyzing the existing circulation paths in yellow. So right here where my cursor is, we see the logic of how the buildings are oriented for the independent living units. There is an access for circulation, and two buildings come together to create a smaller courtyard.

And this serves as a larger unit of a pair of buildings. These pairs of buildings come together in a pinwheel formation. Oh, okay. Sorry for the lag. They come together in a formation of four to create an even larger courtyard.

So with respect to where the existing one story fitness center currently exists where my cursor is, we see that there's an intersection of the paths, and there's an almost pinwheel formation that's created with this fitness center existing building and the meeting house where my cursor is. To complete this analysis of the diagram, the fitness center addition to accommodate more wellness programs is highlighted in red, And it's in this l format to really respect the existing building footprints and to avoid overlaps. This is what the existing conditions look like in a three d rendering. In white is the gabled roof of the existing one story fitness center building, and we can see how the pairs of the buildings really come together as a larger unit. And it's done so even in the architectural language since each of the buildings are a shed roof, and together, they create a larger gable form.

The existing fitness center is surrounded by one story independent living units as well as two stories. This is the massing that we had presented and discussed with the HRRP subcommittee back in June with John and Salvador, and this is, what the existing fitness center one story looks like with the two floor addition adjacent to it. And so the existing fitness center will receive some interior renovation. And as part of the discussion and in response to the comments, instead of simply renovating the interior of the existing building, we explored popping up a portion of the roofline so that it can start to speak together as a holistic, pair of buildings. This is something that we can see a little bit more in the flat two d elevations.

On the left is what we have presented to the HRRV subcommittee, and on the right is our response to their comments. So here on the bottom elevation on the right hand side, the portion of the roof that is lifted up actually coincides with the portion of the building that would receive the interior renovation. So this is something that is very nice architecturally as well. In the two side views, we can better see how the roofline with the pop up can start to speak with the two floor addition to work together to create that larger gate. K.

Next, we'll go into the second focus of our presentation, which is the meeting house edition. This is a historic that's original to the SOM campus, and it's integral to the community in terms of gathering and function programs. This is where a lot of exercise classes happen, lying dancing, and even theatrical performances. And there's three access points to the meeting house, and the addition is located at the backside of the building. It's tucked away within the upward slope to minimize the presence of the secondary form as much as possible.

This is the original massing that we have presented to the HRRB subcommittee, and we can see here that the height of the addition is held at and below the existing roofline that we can see in this photo here. After receiving the subcommittee's comments, our massing was revised to pop up the back portion of the addition. And by doing so, we really leave the connection piece at a lower level, and it really distinguishes and separates what's the old and the new and also creates a hyphen. And this is something that is it reinforced us well in the proposed. So existing is on the left, proposed on the right.

And the hyphen is what I'm going to highlight running east and west. It connects with the meeting house as well as the backstage and green room addition portion and also connects the addition to the exterior circulation around the meeting house. What currently exists at the addition is actually a solid niche wall that's being utilized as storage. And to respond to an HRRB subcommittee comment that was brought up last year, there is a glazed soffit, but it doesn't tie to any interior ceiling or interior exterior light conditions. The proposal will also expand upon the performance area that we have highlighted in yellow on the proposed plan.

This will also provide an opportunity to introduce an accessible ramp to access this performance area, which currently doesn't exist. The area is only accessible through steps at this current time. The proposal will also make accessible existing toilets and introduce a pantry area to warm food for future dining options. In two d, I've highlighted the connection space in. It's that thin portion that's held over the existing roofline, which distinguishes, connects, and separates the old on the left side and the pop up of the addition on red.

The addition is also in the pop up is held to align to the existing roofline. And then the final portion that we will be focusing on in our presentation today, we will have to circle back to the Loop Road. So the Loop Road is not only a community amenity, but it connects the entire campus. Residents will often walk along the road for exercise. And as I mentioned before, the independent living units currently existing, they actually have to cross over the Loop Road and enter into the core campus where all of the wellness, the fitness, and also the dining amenities are.

As a result, meaning maintaining this immediate connection to the independent living units we propose to the Loop Road was extremely important for our campus schools, and this is how we have located all of the independent living units at the Hillside location at number one, the Upper at number two, and then the Los Angeles at number three. The existing independent living units are also mostly in a duplex configuration with gabled roofs, And our proposal has either duplex or triplex configurations to really echo the existing master plan and sensibility that the SOM master plan had. To work with the site locations with some significant slopes, the units would also have to step along with the grade. And this is something that we can illustrate in this two d elevation. We can see a triplex independent living unit configuration where the units individually step down with the grade.

But because we maintain a very clear, distinguishment between each unit entryway and, like, garage access, they are held together with the same cable roofline, and this provides a continuity and consistency for each of these building configurations. And so this really concludes our overview of the master plan goals, our proposal, and our focus on the fitness addition, the meeting addition, as well as independent living units. And so I'll pass the baton to Seth, our historic experts, and then we'll continue from here. Thank you.

Great job. Bye. Thank you.

Hi. Seth Bergstein, principal of PASS Consultants. Great to see everybody. Been a little while. I'm gonna speak to the specific areas, as as efficiently as I can, but I wanna go back and just quickly talk about the design process.

And, I was tasked in on 06/03/2024, when to give historic advice on how we place these buildings for the master plan. And it was at that time when I submitted my first letter and and five recommendations. Ashley did a great job introducing what we're calling the core campus, which is essentially all of the Skidmore, OEs and Merrell design that they're contained within the Loop Road, the various circulation patterns, the pinwheel design of the buildings, and, of course, the public buildings. So my my thinking and and thinking a lot about the site was was to prioritize all buildings within the SOM period of significance within the core campus to be retained as much as possible. That was that was my first recommendation.

Alterations to core campus buildings should be as as minimal as possible and and, of course, meet individual SOI standards for rehabilitation for each building. And if possible, place new housing units or what we're calling independent living units outside the core campus. And we wanted to maintain the rhythm of these either combined shed roofs or individual gable roof designs for the new design. So it would fit in and would it would seamlessly well, it would it would we would still differentiate perhaps with finishes, but it would the it forms in massing, which Perkins Eastman's done a great job of, fit into the actual campus, particularly since there's almost no alterations within the core campus. So what I'll do first is if you look at number we'll start

you know what? Can you go to the demo plan?

On the demo?

That's That's probably the easiest way to do it.

Okay.

Let's just start at number one, lower right. That is a that is a a maintenance building that was constructed in nineteen eighties outside of the SOM period of significance. Number 2 is is reputed to be the guest quarter the the original gatekeeper's place. I have not been able to definitively, confirm that's true, but that building is incredibly altered. If it's from the Hollow Hills period, it doesn't possess historic integrity.

It's been lifted and units inserted underneath to create the guest quarters. So, it also has completely different windows, modified entrance, and enclosed rear port rear veranda. So that building has no historic integrity. So it was it was deemed that it could be removed for that reason. Number 3 is is the only SOM building design building being removed.

Even though it's outside of the Loop Road, it it it's a triplex. It's a fairly common triplex. There are three very similar, if not identical, units right across the street. And based on the programmatic requirements of wanting to get them to get the, memory care facility located within the nearby the other common buildings and the hospital buildings was to demolish that building. And it is from my point of view, as far as the standards are concerned, since we have that building, that building footprint and that building's design other parts of the campus that it wouldn't impact the historic integrity of the entire site given it's just one building.

The the the guest units up north, number four, were were constructed outside the s one period of significance in the eighties as were those parking structures, number five. The lots that we're referring to as Los Arberles Drive are are highly altered post Adobe buildings. I had prepared an initial analysis of the building many years ago just on the basis of historic integrity, thinking that is is particularly with my love for post Adobe buildings, wanna make sure that those buildings don't don't appear to be significant based on a construction type, and there's alterations that are not in post Adobe on every one of those buildings. So in 2015, I wrote a summary letter that stated exactly that. For for construction method or even builder or architect, because the buildings are so highly altered, they would not be significant.

And let's now go to the fitness center. Okay.

Yeah. Oh, you know what?

Do you wanna do the postcard?

Yeah. Do the postcard.

Sorry, guys. So just so that's basically the core campus. You're looking at two images of it. So so the postcard is is looking basically almost due north or a little northeast. You can see the meeting house prominently. You could see the original fitness center with the pool. That building was converted from the library. It was originally a library, and that building's been highly altered over time. And then if you look at the image below is a is an image shortly after completion, and that's looking more from the other direction, which is interesting. You can see both angles.

And I think it shows the core canvas really well. What's interesting is it also shows how limited the vegetation was the original plantings were and how lush and how beautiful they've become since. And now I'm back to the fitness center. We had John and Sal out for, for the pre the prelin meeting HRRB on the June 27. John and Salvia came up with a good suggestion to get the proposed fitness center based on its massing to to sort of reduce that feeling in massing was was to add the shed and further modify that fitness center building, which has already been modified previously.

All that's documented in my DPR forms. So we've responded to those comments, and quite frankly, were good design comments. It makes it makes that read almost like the the quad buildings that you see reading as combined shed shed roof forms that almost create a gable form. And then we had similar back and forth with the meeting house. And originally, we had we had we had placed a larger addition still below the roofline, but it was a little low for the for the proposed use of the building.

John and Sal came up with a great idea, which is very typical for the standards, is to install a small hyphen, which can kinda serve as the entry area for the for that new staging area that we're proposing. And the hyphen clearly separated. It'll be glazed probably, so it'll be pretty pretty transparent, And it'll it'll separate right according to standard number nine, the historic meeting house from the new addition. It's also on the least visible elevation. It's set within the hill.

It's it's pretty much hidden by vegetation, and that's a blank building wall. That's not a fenestrated building wall that that we're proposing to impact there. Any other, I think I'll leave it for questions now. I have I have all the documentation in front of me. Any questions on the phase two, the DPRs, or or our approach or or how the the various building removals impact the story? Be glad to answer. Any questions from the board right now?

I'm sorry for sit sitting here. I couldn't see. I have I have a question about My name is. I'm just a neighbor. Okay.

Can follow-up on coffee shop. Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

Is it okay to sit here?

Is it possible to get a copy of the one letter? I printed most everything, but the one thing I wasn't able to secure is a copy of the letter about the five residences.

Like, I

mean, it's not twice 3rd 2015. Yeah.

She said it's in there. I'm just scanning it, trying to find it, and I'm like

Ten minutes?

It's not in there. It kinda I think it came with our package, but they were huge. So I printed the

Yeah.

The storage sections I want.

I have if you want my copy, I have it. It's just if I have to answer questions to it, you may wanna pass it back to me.

Just wanted to read it. That's all. Thank you. Appreciate it. Sorry for the confusion.

Any questions you need by right now? Okay. Well, given that I'm giving it up to public comment. Anybody would like to speak on this item? So state your name, please. My name

is Sarah Weber, and I have several questions about the neighboring houses because my house is exactly adjacent to the the one of the houses that I see that it's not gonna be demolished, but it's already denounced to the manor, which should be

This one is there. The Sawyer house. Sawyer's house.

Can you just give us an x of where that is or point it up there?

Don't talk to them directly. Talk to the board. Please.

So the Sawyer House is next two hours, Weber House. And I assume that it's not gonna be demolished. Right?

But Correct. It's not not to be demolished.

Okay. Thank you. That's good. The other concern is that when the demolition happens, I'm concerned about the air pollution and the impacts to human health and safety because I read

Please talk to us.

Yeah. I read to the the whole 80 page evaluation in each case. And I saw the on page seventy and seventy one, I saw that about the material that could be volatile in the air. And I just want to to to to make sure that they will not not be volatile substances. Actually, they will do this. I'm sure Our health.

They would be fine if do a house math about Because

there's three older adults in my property K. Yes. That that have sensitivities. That that would be the main concern. Okay.

So thank you. I'm sorry. Thanks. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak?

It's open to the public. I don't want to Okay. No.

Okay. It's open to the public.

I actually had a public question. I promise I pass on to mister Bernstein if I could project about the possible need for a phase one survey on the houses on those are released. Just mentioned those.

I I it's it's open to discussion, I would

I would say. Can we bring that up after?

Oh, yeah. Okay. Think board has a question on that too, so let's bring that up after the.

Good afternoon, board, or good morning. I appreciate being able to be here today. First of all, I'd like to say I moved to here to the Monterey Peninsula in 1955.

Do you know the name?

My name is John Anzini. I apologize. I live on Los Arvales Road. It is Los Arvales Road. It is not Los Arvales Drive. Los Arvales Drive was created when the people from Google did the mapping. And the guy was dyslexic, and he changed Doctor into RD or the RD into Doctor. Excuse me. It's it is correct on my property tax bill, however, and I want you to know that, you know, I appreciate that, but all the mail has changed and everything like that. And it's kinda confusing to a lot of people.

Okay. So I'm I moved here in 1955. I purchased my residence initially in 1971, so I've lived in my house on Los Arboles for fifty four years, not including because I I didn't move in actually until April 1972. In 1997, I purchased an additional property on Los Arboles, which was approximately one and three quarters acres. It borders the I own all of this property right here that's in the that I've made in blue.

It's directly to the south of the housing that's on Los Arblades Drive. Okay. Just to the south. And I noticed that now there's gonna be a proposed triplex in this area right here, which will completely block my northern view of, from my property, where there's where there was gonna be just a duplex. I also have contacted the San Francisco firm, left messages, and asked them to return my call so that I could, so that I would like to work with them about the project that they're proposing so that I could so that I could communicate with them modifications or changes or remedies because I'm not opposed to the project.

I I am of the firm belief that the units the initial number of units that were proposed for the initial project should be completed and that the manner should they've always been good neighbors and that they should be able to fulfill the primary design that everything was established for back in the sixties. I don't have a problem with that at all. My my main problem is that well, first of all, how many of you went to the project and went and saw the site visit? Most of you were able to? No.

Was two of There's only

two that did the fall.

Okay. So it's a really nice rural little neighborhood. Like I said, I've lived there for fifty four years. It's always been really quiet. The the neighbors have been always good.

And the primary tenant of the Carmel Valley master plan is to maintain the rural character of Carmel Valley. To me, this project on my section of Los Arbolas Road violates that in that it commercializes single family residences and puts and doubles the occupancy on that in that area even though it will be cut off. I I I think that we're drastically changing a a really nice little area and making it into a commercialized area. Not that they don't own the property, not that they don't have the right to do this. I just think that we could modify the project somewhat, and, to accommodate the area in a better way, in a more, fashionable design that will make it blend into the neighborhood better.

With the existing, elevations, if you go to the project and you see the, roof structures, where the flags are placed, it means that the basic elevation of the floor or the, the surface of the earth is gonna have to be raised. All along my property line, which I showed you, it's already been raised up to four feet in some areas, and it's also going to raise additional areas, another, I I would say, 18 to 24 inches. And all that water that comes down from the hillside is actually going on to my property. And I know there's a drainage culvert that is proposed for on my property line, And, I've talked to the matter about it, and we're in good communications with regard to that. But there's a situation if you, look at the paper that I sent, there's a picture of where Los Arblades Road meets Carmel Valley Road.

In fact, because when they were putting in the bus stop, there's a drainage culvert that goes from Carmel Valley Road Carmel Valley Road and Los Arboles Road down to the fire station and then down to the river. When they were putting the bus stop in, it caused a flooding situation because they did the grading of the driveway down there at the bottom of the road incorrectly, and it's there's a picture of it. It's flooded. It hasn't been raining for two days now, and it's still kinda semi flooded. And I'd like to see that addressed.

Our road there hasn't been paved in fifty one years and or fifty four years, and the road was only seal coated by the Andersons who have actually built all the post adobes and things like that. So I would like to ask the board to seriously consider allowing some kind of communication so that we can get together with the neighborhood and and modify these structures so that they are more in keeping with the neighborhood. That's my primary concern, and I I hope that you seriously consider that. So I think that's about all I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I'd like to say something.

Yeah. Spent your name, please. My

name is Deborah Anzini. I'm John's wife. I lived on Moss Arboise Road for forty five years. I've raised my children, and now I have my five grandsons over all the time on the property. Where these the triplex and the duplex are going to be built, that's a long a long fence that we have because we have about two acres.

So that's, like, the the length of our property. And right now, it's very rural and very nice. But what they're proposing is a 22 foot tall building, not in keeping with rural character. If you see the designs of the actual buildings, they're somewhat stark, and that's what the campus looks like at Carmel Valley Manor, which I have no problem with. But I think that when they bring their development to Los Arbolas Road, that they should do something more in keeping with the rural character of the road, not make it look like a facility, a commercial facility, which is what I think these large 4,000 and sick you know, 2,000 and, I guess, 3,000 square foot buildings would look like.

When I'm in my yard, I I have a fence in just about 10, maybe 15 feet. I don't know. We didn't see dimensions on the fence for exactly how far. I'm gonna be seeing these this huge, long building. It's not going it's gonna change our property. It's not going to be a rural character anymore. It I think it's dramatically changing the end of Carmel Valley Road. That needs to be considered. I don't think it can just be a given because they own the these properties now. And there's talk of fencing off the property.

Actually, just on this where your property is, they wanna fence that off. It's a county road. They wanna assume a County Road. I think things like this need to be considered from a historical view too. Andy Starkweather's husband built all these adobes there, and we love those adobes. We actually love our road, and we love history of it. I knew Andy Starkweather. She was about 93 when she died. I think I was about 25 at that time. But I she would bake us pies, ask us things to help her. And so I feel like I have history on

this road. And that's why Sarah Weber, again, my other question is regards to this public road, which for for which we pay very high property taxes. I want to know exactly please tell me where is the fence going to be. Is it is it going to be adjacent to the to the Sawyer's house, like, right in front of our property or next to our property line. That's one question.

The other question is, yeah, what about this this public road? And is it gonna be private? Who's gonna purchase it? Is is that gonna lower property taxes just because of these? That would be an interesting thing to know.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else speak on any public comment? Do you have anybody else on the line?

I think he figured

out the tech issue.

So if Rick he did chat and send a message,

though he did wanna try to speak.

It was regarding this item. So

because I think Let me see if he There's Molly.

Not. I can read his comments.

Thank you. And this is Molly Erickson. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can hear you.

Oh, good. Shall I go ahead and speak? Or I'm happy to wait for mister Blazer if you can get him online.

He was in line first.

Go go ahead, Molly. I can go after you. Alright.

Good. Can can I hear mister Blazer?

We can hear you both. Yes.

Oh, good. Alright. Thank you. I appreciate your time. This is Molly Erickson. I am speaking on behalf of neighborhood property owners. And mister chair, members of the board, I appreciate your time on this issue and hearing from the neighbors who are there in person. The focus of today's meeting, of course, is historic resources. And my comments and my letter are on the off-site parcels that contain single family residential dwellings that you just heard from a couple of the neighbors about. And they're absolutely right.

This is an effort to transform a quiet, rural, single family residential historic neighborhood into a, an institutional area and will entirely transform that neighborhood. It does need either a zoning change or a formal use permit amendment, neither of which is in the project description or analyzed in the initial study that is still a draft and hasn't been circulated. I would I appreciate your time today. I'm going to focus on those six off-site parcels that contain those dwellings and multiple outbuildings. Carmel Valley Manor has identified those six parcels as part of the project site, but the sixth parcel is not included in any of the drawings that have been presented to you or in any of these analysis.

My comments today are not on the Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill original campus. So with regard to the six properties off-site, and I say six off-site properties, although it we've been told today that five of the six are proposed for demolition. Who knows what's gonna happen with the six eventually? But the problem is is as to those five properties that are acknowledged to be for demolition, the historic analysis to date is insufficient and some of what has been done is incorrect. My letter gets into some of the details.

I am puzzled though and I'd like to address today a few things. One is that the applicant's historic consultant specifically stated in that four of the five properties he reviewed were potentially historic under criteria b of the county's register. He specifically said that a phase one survey needed to be performed to determine the eligibility for those four parcels. Now I'd like to read from the letter and I hope you have it in front of you. It's the very last page of Exhibit e.

You have Exhibit e in your packet. And yes, it was a big packet and I don't know how you were able to get through all of this in the very short period of time that you had. But exhibit e, it's page 36 of 36. And that last page specifically concludes that as to four of the properties, which are confusingly referred to as units 34, 35, 36, and 38. But let's be real.

These are four residential dwellings and outbuildings that currently exist on Los Arbolas. These are post adobe houses. Those units, all four, may be eligible, and I'm quoting, they may be eligible for the Monterrey County Register under criteria a, colon, the houses may be connected with someone renowned and may have been designed by a significant local architect, parens. Association with Comstock, close parens. Complete research at the phase one level for these four individual properties would be needed to determine any associations with significant local persons designers, end quote.

And that's signed by Seth A. Bergstein. I think this is a very important statement. It's very helpful. It's honest. It's blunt. It's to the point. He's saying, hey. Architecturally, I don't think they're significant, but there may well be other reasons, and these properties are potentially historic and for a phase one survey is required for each of those four parcels. That phase one survey was never prepared, not for any of those four parcels.

This that that means, you know, that you don't have the evidence before you that you normally would have as HRRB to make a decision as to what to do going forward and to take an action on this property, and you need that information. I also wanna point out that which is unfortunate. There's looks like Carmel Valley Manor has done a lot of work. They just stopped artificially. They truncated the historic analysis after that twenty fifteen recommendation to have the phase one surveys prepared for those properties.

Now I the the app excuse me. The consultant has said that they are the properties were compromised. However, there are a few outbuildings that are original. And they yes. They've been whitewashed with the Carmel Valley matter cream colored paint, but at least one or more of the small outbuildings have not been changed.

And who knows? That may very well be the Langston Hughes cottage that Noel Sullivan built for Langston Hughes after he was essentially run out of Carmel in Langston Hughes. Noel Sullivan sold the cottage in Carmel and moved full time out to the Carmel Valley Ranch area, but the Hollow Hills Farm was larger than what Carmel Valley Ranch eventually excuse me, Carmel Valley Manor purchased and eventually developed. The Noel Sullivan property extended west as far as we can tell, the property extended westerly towards Los Arbolas and El Camino Estrada. And until you have a phase one survey with actual documentary research, you don't know any differently.

And so there is like I said, there is at least one or more small outbuildings that still exist on Los Arbilis. I am wrapping up. I'm I respect your time, and I'm happy to answer questions, but I did want to address this. So because the consultant did not do the phase one research, not even phase two research, but just phase one, and complete the DPR five twenty three forms necessary to determine the historic nature of the parcels, you don't have that information before you today, and that's essential to be informed. I'm also puzzled as to the fact that the initial study has not been circulated, and because it has not been distributed for public comment, you as a board have not received the benefit of commenters from folks who would have knowledge about the historic resources and the potential impacts or the or the adequacy of the historic analysis.

So not to mention materially inconsistent versions of the proposed site plans, which raise all sorts of questions not just about in addition to the history, but the access and the eventual uses. So I urge you today to continue this item, make comments, and, you know, appreciate the public comments from so many people, and to direct the applicant to prepare phase one surveys of those four properties proposed for demolition and that have those included in an initial study that is then circulated. And then it can come back to this board to understand better understand with more information and more accurate information what is it in fact you would be acting on. Because the importance of Langston Hughes in history is very significant as a poet, an author, an activist, advocate for racial equality. And Noel Sullivan, whose name does not appear in the initial study, was an amazing person whose Wikipedia entry, I hope you had a chance to read, and that just begins to touch on the surface of who he was.

He was one of the founders of the Carmelite monastery. He was extremely active in the Carmel Fach Festival. Again, I urge you to read the Wikipedia entry and so much of the information that's available online. And Langston Hughes dedicated a number of his books to Noel Sullivan, specifically saying, thanks for my stay at Hollow Hills Farm. This is where these poems were written. So we need to find where that cottage is and if it exists. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. So who's the other?

This is Rick Blazer. I'm a neighbor across the street from the manor, kinda where the directly across from where the proposed development is. You know, my my questions revolve more around execution versus having any major problems with the development, but that include, you know, the traffic and speed limits, you know, during construction, landscaping plan. Lighting was addressed, but, you know, it's it's probably not sufficient enough to really understand how it's being done. And then, also saw that working days included Saturdays.

So I'm not sure this is the right forum for that. I wanna respect whatever the process is, if anybody could direct me to what that is outside of this meeting.

Thank you. Thank you. So anybody else on public comments would like to speak on the phone? Anything else on the line?

There are no other hands up on Zoom and no new emails.

Okay. Given that, I'll close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the board.

I'd like to start by asking the site review subcommittee to describe their site visit. I'm afraid that there's an inference that they were able to see the whole project when it says they visited the site, and I'd like to get it clarified just what their visit consisted of.

Yeah. We we walked through most of the property. We did not see these units up here. So

the main issue before R four was not previewed by the site?

Well, the the yeah. The the additional we reviewed the campus. Yeah.

Did the campus present. Yes.

So I appreciate, all the information that was provided and the history of the matter. But I'm afraid that we do not have the required information to deal with the proposed demolition of those single family dwellings. I can't imagine that we would never have at least a phase one before we saw that. I I I realized it's somewhat complicated by the fact that this was a long time span. And the first

some of the people in the public, I don't think, can hear us. Okay. And if you can't hear us, let us know.

Okay. No.

Thank you.

Given the fact that it says first report twenty fifteen, so we're, you know, we're ten years ago.

And I was I was hired to look at integrity only. Yeah. And I was not hired to research the Hollow Hills Farm or or the history of Los Arbilage Tribe. It was it was, it was it was through different leadership, and there was no master plan plans at that time. The the four the the the Furthest Northwest one was only acquired recently.

Looking at those as architectural examples, I wanted to make sure they didn't have enough historic integrity, and all of those have been highly altered, all of all of the main houses. There are some outbuildings that are that are potentially Adobe that might be intact, but you've you know, we're evaluating the entire APN. We're not evaluating just one little building on the property. Generally, if the primary house is highly altered, you know, the just based on integrity through the Monterey County code, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be historic. But I I was not tasked to write complete phase ones. It just wasn't wasn't what I was assigned to do.

I'm somewhat concerned because I would think that manner would probably be misled thinking that they had covered their bases and that that letter gave them a green light to go ahead with their plan in that area.

Are you implying that the letter misled them?

No. It's just that they assumed that that was all they needed to do, that that was

I stated very clearly to the design team for eighteen months that we that phase ones were not written. I don't particularly like the implication that somehow that brief letter appease all of their concerns. I've been very vocal about the concerns, and here we are.

Yep. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. So any other comments? Because I think the concern well, it's separated here. Mhmm. We've got the campus, and then we've got these. Mhmm. So, I mean, let's talk about the campus. Is there any concerns about campus, specifically versus for?

I think that I I have no concerns about the those changes from the main campus, and I think that the site visit by this site review subcommittee it showed the benefit of that process that we use and resulted in some very positive changes. So I think the changes on the main campus are totally appropriate in in performance with the secretary of engineering standards.

So then the question is about pretty much those bipartials. Right? The Adobe's

I'm not quite there yet. Sorry.

Okay.

I just have a few questions. Okay.

Is it possible to show

us the 81 Oaks that you're removing? I mean, we have a map that shows us where those clusters of trees are going away. Are they in the main campus? Are they off in those five lots? Or

What what are they talking about?

Because that provides the the settings.

They're on both, I can tell you. They're on both five lots

and on

the main campus.

Oh, the in that area, that provides the the setting for most of those homes. And if you go at, like, the original picture, you said there's no trees out there. I'm guaranteeing that doesn't look like that anymore. And what we do like is to have those trees, and those trees there providing the buffer, especially from residential to more highly, high residential neighborhoods and which I'm thinking that's what the neighbors are looking at. They're in single family dwellings on larger lots where they have their own quiet, peaceful existence, and they're gonna have these big structures next door.

Question is, are they removing those trees that take away from that buffer? And that's why I'm asking.

I can elaborate that on a little bit. I can tell you almost all of those trees were planted in the early nineteen sixties, and they're so dense that the arborist is actually recommending a one to two replacement instead of the standard one to one for fire protection because there's and I'm sorry. But

I just wanted to know where those trees are coming out.

That's the question. Are all underlined papers, or they

all kind of all over?

They're spread out, but around really, to all to accommodate construction. I don't believe there are any that are We

don't have a tree removal plan.

We just I can

can plan that's, like, being Yeah. Because that that'll just show every oh, yeah. This is kinda what I was Is this what she really

needs to locate?

Yeah. Just kinda showing where the bulk of those trees are coming out. And if they're ordering residential neighborhoods that are or they truly just this one looks like it's down by the bit

of five lots, actually.

That's where most of

them are

are coming out on the yeah.

Down by the septic area. Couple in that area. And then sporadically through the one, two, three, four. That's the five houses. I only see four, but maybe one's down there.

Yeah. And I can tell you this has actually been modified to save the largest. There was a 41 inch 41 inch landmark right there that actually is the project's been built around. Keeping. Yeah. That is one of the original preconstruction trees.

Okay. In the 25% slope study, we do have are those limited to the fringes also?

Almost entirely on the hillside units is where the 25% slope development is.

You just have a 25% slope thingy bobber so we can I don't know what you call it, figure? Just so we know where those resources are.

Almost all of it is right there. There's a small

Oriented man where this is. Oh, that's the old septic field.

Okay. Alright.

And there's a small sliver of slope development, I think, at the memory care center too, but this is about 95% of the

right Okay. Alright. I appreciate that. That's just things that linger in my head. I'm so sorry about that. I'm also concerned with the conversion of what I consider America's dream of owning a home to more commercialized industrial living. I hate to call it industrial, but, you know, that's I look at this when I see corporate living. I like people to have their own home, their own yards. You know? Everybody prefers likes it.

Not everybody can afford it. I get it. We all struggle to have that. And so I see those kind of units being erased from a a very conventional residential neighborhood, and I didn't even check the zoning. But I too see that as a marketplace change.

The matter was approved for a 172 units on this campus. My question is, can they not obtain the 172 on their campus within real comfort zone and still maintaining five rest five homes for people to own on their own and to live independently in their own lifestyle. Maybe this is a better use at higher you get a higher use of, occupancy by expanding to your 24 acres and absorbing those five homes. And instead of five homes, now you're putting in 15, which, that's the way the world's going. We keep growing in population.

We have to get a higher density. I understand that. But we just wanna make sure that if, there's certain areas that are historically residential. And just as some of the neighbors are saying, we've been there for years and years. This is what we've had. This is what we've always had. That's historically what they're used to. Maybe they don't want a two story four unit complex next to them. I feel that. Additionally, historically, if those are historic homes and they are ranch style and we have a project immediately, you know, after this whose the big question is the modern ranch style.

Do we maintain that broader that ranch style, which was developed in the fifties and the sixties, and they were they're held there? And if these have a chance of being historic, they're beautiful properties. We should check into that and maintain them in that state if in fact what if that's what they are and allow the matter to grow up to their potential of a 172 units or, you know, modify it, but keep them on the main campus, the core campus. That's what was envisioned then. You know, SOM, they're they're phenomenal architects.

I'm sure they can pull that monkey out of their hat real easily. So that's kind of my thoughts as pertaining, but I we understand the letter. The letter got lost, and I was like, what letter?

And I've been looking for it,

and it's just buried in all these documents. So, there was a lot of paperwork to go through, and my copier just couldn't keep up with it. Let's just say it just broke down and said, I ran out of ink. And I'm like, ugh. I still have to have some documents. So, I appreciate all the effort that has been put into this, and thank you for providing the information I requested. I know it's standardly historic, but when you're looking at the oak trees in the settings, I believe the landscape does contribute to the historicity and the feel for those neighborhoods. And so that's kind of why I've asked those questions. I think I'm asking enough questions.

What is the density of number 9 right now? Which units? 10.

Five lots. 10 units. 10

units. Alright. 10. 10 units?

Yeah. Two triplexes and two duplexes.

Hey, Robert.

So by law, that's what they are allowed now. I mean, they could have their individual homes and buy California, AV, whatever it is, everybody could throw an ADU

on there. Mhmm.

So they're about the same density. It'll be the same density. The question is the architecture, the feel, and for the and the if these structures are truly historic, if these California ranches, post Adobe, whatever type of structure they are. If they, in fact, are historic, we should it's what we're here for. We're here to evaluate them and protect them if they're there.

But I appreciate your efforts. Thank you. We'll send them to indicate that they're they're not they lost their integrity, but it doesn't mean they they just wanna understand that. Right? Correct.

What is the board's position been recently on the California ranch style? Because my firm just well, I'm with Kent Seed. He wrote the historic context statement for Carmel by the city. We just just got it published. I'll try to invite you all to read because I always want input on these on these reports. But we talked about the California ranch style and how do we look at integrity since there's so many of them. I mean, there are actually not as many of them in Carmel City limits. I don't wanna divert the discussion there too much. But, generally, it's a pretty high bar for integrity on a California ranch because they're so common. This is where our that board and what we conclude that at at and so there's so many of them, and they they tend to be common builders plans.

So so with that in mind, even though I wrote this so many years ago, that was my approach to the letter. You you know, knowing our codes, and that is if if if a fairly common style and even though they are post Adobe, there's additions on side elevations, modified front entrances, additions that are that are that are stucco and not post Adobe. Pretty clear that there's all these buildings were added that were were significantly altered. But I'm just curious if it's come up with the board if if if what your opinion is. Is is it a higher bar, or we just evaluated technically? We evaluated, you know, seven aspects. And yeah. So, arguably, if these are highly changed ranch houses, it's design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Those are gonna be the five things. Right?

Yeah. So with alterations, design's pretty much gone. Okay. Materials are not post Adobe anymore, so that's been highly altered. Entrance to be relocated. Original circulation has been changed. So I'll be honest, Seth.

I'm more of a conservative preservationist, extremely so. And I see reports come through. Oh, yeah. We don't think it's because of the integrity. And I'm like, well, if you take that center off and you throw that deck away, we're right back to the original structure. And the whole idea of restoration and rehabilitation and allowing additions to be put on historic structures are that they can be removed in the future, and that building still stays and holds its historic features.

But they have to meet the standards, though.

I know. I understand that. But that's what I'm saying. And the standards are

Not on front elevation. Sorry. Remember, not on front or side elevations, not removing measures.

Saying that I'm a probably a more conservative preservationist than most people believe considering I'm a I'm a construction engineer. Most people think, gosh. It's just gonna let you sell the boat here. I'm not. I and I believe that. So that's why I think those reports would be important, especially in this case.

Oh, no. I'm not denying the need for the reports. I'm just asking the board's opinion on the CallRed style. I was not implying anything else. I just Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I

just Yeah. Probations number nine. Do you have those?

There's photographs in my report.

Don't know

if we could put up on screen.

The I mean, the

the county

Both the proposed.

The proposed.

I think it's. Because now you're proposing to match the the architecture of the.

Yeah. So it's on a 10 g and a 11 g from the Delta two set that was submitted to the county in December. So there's on oh, it's not showing. Sorry.

Alright.

So at number nine at the Los Arbilis area, we have a combination of the twoplex configurations as well as the triplex. This is what the duplex elevations look like. It is echoing the current SOM elevation in terms of the logic and approach of the duplex units. What's shown below is the correlating unit plan. And then for the triplex, it looks like this where they're put together and really held together with the similar cable reform.

And it's also consistent with Carmel Valley Manor's goal of providing consistent unit configurations across the campus, which is why it is arrayed in this configuration. It's not a nicely designed.

So they're single story? They are single story. So I think there's everything. I mean, sounds like this your argument is also with the massing of others' neighbors that that I'm hearing. And it's kinda, you know, like, designing the movement of massing or I mean, if that's the case, is there a way to articulate them a little more or make them chew one or something or instead of a block of three?

And it's just something to make them a little more residential scale. Mhmm. My son-in-law with the neighbors and things. So she was more of a a matching kind of situation. I I don't I don't know if that's a good sign or that's something you could think about as far as just trying to address some of the neighbors and not have, like, the the block of three where it becomes more of a larger

I think they're only blocks a two, so they probably are very similar to housing. According to this map, it looks like two units on each of the parcels. And you're showing us a three, but I think that's the three.

I see. So that might be from the Delta one. So what I showed in the presentation is the delta two, the printout of

I think they went from

Yes. This one, and they're making two.

This is what's given to us today. Correct?

I'm sorry. I did I pulled these off the previous

plan set.

Sorry. Okay. My my mistake.

Can zoom in, to the key plan, though, so

you can kind of see it.

So the shorter one is where the two good sets would be, and then the trip plans

are the long.

And those are all single stories? They're all single stories.

You have an extra open space that are you looking to do well, you don't know. Further development. But okay.

I what

I was looking at this. That's why I'm going out.

The open space would be a a hammerhead turnaround for the if the gate replaced. It's leaving the space zone for fire garbage truck turnaround. If if you're referring to the bottom open space in the bottom left,

at least. Yeah. So So

the Right. No. I'm sorry. Right. Gate. Right there. Exactly. Yeah.

And the

gate is right here. Is mister Anzini still

I'm here.

That would be a fire gate.

Right. So Correct. I know there's been a lot of discussion about the gate. I'll I'll just confess it. It was my idea, and the reason is there's so this is a terribly narrow and open winding road. And I my mind, by taking traffic off of Los Arvalis, they would benefit the people that live there. It mustn't manage some angle to get some property over to the

No. No.

Roadway. But that question has come up, and I just wanted to touch on that.

And if I may respond Questions. Steve Mason's been really good in communicating feedback he's got from the neighbors, so this was one topic. John, if you look on there and you'll see item g four, originally, there were five duplex units proposed, and then the neighbor, the Sawyer property, raised concern after the staking went up. You're blocking my view. Could you move things around a little bit? Which resulted in Perkins Eastman having to develop this configuration. But they were originally proposed as small masses, and we tried to be responsive to that one neighbor and and change the design. Now we've got just a different set of of ways of looking at this alternative arrangement.

So the sixth parcel, is that parcel?

Right. Correct. Yeah.

Currently, nothing proposed.

Right. We we got so far along, into where we're at. We didn't wanna upset the Apple card.

No. I get it.

Because the memory care is driving it. And Carmel Valley Manor purchased from Sawyer, I wanna say, in August. And rather than set us back six months by trying to fold that in, let's just let's leave it off.

And I I can't go into the details of the arrangement we have with the Sawyer we have with Sawyers, but they're they're in a long term contract to be made in that home.

Thank you for that clarity.

So what's the kind of feeling of the board with incontinence? Still overwhelmed. A lot? Yes. No.

I mean, I I do think, you know, landscape has lost by a very important part in how, you know, the perception becomes because those old trees, you know, they they they are significant, you know, on that side, and they do become an upper, you know, for the road and and the neighbors. So I think however it's developed, that landscaping would be very important. Understood. So I guess the question is do we want the, phase ones for those? Is that I would

think that we have no choice but to ask for the phase one on the five homes just because that would be a requirement from any individual walking in on any structure that they're gonna remove that potentially could be historic. Mhmm. I mean, we harp this every every meeting. So I would think that we would have to have a phase one on the five homes that are planning on being demolished. Seth has addressed the ones what we would consider on campus, and I think those are addressed in the phase two on on what he's provided to us.

Mhmm. Definitely, the the five separate are a completely different ballgame. The things on campus, I don't have any in fact, I wrote here minor altercations, altercations, core campus, and I wrote the word okay. Looks okay to me. So I don't have a problem with the core campus items that are been addressed here. These outlying properties are a little more problematic, and I appreciate, and I applaud you of getting rid of your septic system and hooking up to the community sewer. Amen. Thank you. We we built People

farts.

The sewer system to the to the

tune of $9,000,000 It's we have to borrow.

Ugh. I I it there is such a influx of nitrogen into that river system that this we all have to go that way. And now I hope all residents realize that their little bit added up is a major environmental health issue. You know? So we I applaud you for that.

Thank you. So, Seth, what do you think your timeline would be for, like, phase one somewhere?

We're not talking about the most recent post Adobe purchase. It's that's not part of this project. Right? So it's just the five that this letter this letter from twenty fifteen references. So there's more? Well, no. It's just that yeah. It's that what's the

address of the was it 27120? What's the address of the Soybean Property?

127120.

27120?

I'm running 10 projects every every week, so I I don't really know what the timeline is. It's it's five sets of DPRs. Two months? Maybe a little longer. I I don't know. I mean, I'll be glad to do it, and I and I agree. It's important. I'm not gonna go back into the history of it. I've I've been very clear about it with everybody.

No. I I don't know.

But I also would would ask for you wouldn't mind sharing any information on the builder because I've already done genealogy on it. I can't find much. Clint? Clint Anderson? Yeah. If you're willing to share that with me and if everybody here is okay with that,

if we're gonna do

the phase ones and bunch

of information didn't know Clint, but I knew his wife, Andy. Her name was an Andrea, I believe. Andrea Anderson.

Maybe we can discuss that later, but I Yes, sir.

Yeah. Thank you.

I yeah. But it's it's I could certainly prioritize it, but I'd have to I'd have to, you know, get through some other phase two projects from all the cities I work in. You know, they layer in because, obviously, when I submit, it could be a year before it even comes to review. So, you know, I'll I can do them. Yeah. But I don't wanna just give you a a a at the moment.

Need to go back with my schedule. Sure.

There's two alternatives coming to mind. I understand the the thinking about the phase one. Would it be possible to consider adding recommending the condition of approval for the planning commission to require the phase one as part of their action and for a historic American building survey? Because it doesn't sound like it's the integrity. The piece that's missing is, was it associated with the local prominent individual or, you know, renowned architect, citizen, etcetera, etcetera?

And as you heard Jay, Summers speak earlier, the cons the the driving factor for this is the memory care addition to the community. In as an alternative, if we just strip this piece out you know, in terms of SQL, we wanna provide full disclosure of what they'd like to do. If that's gonna hold us up for three months, six months, or something like that, we just yank the losar bolus piece out, and they can come and do an amendment at some point in the future. We provided the drawings and so on. So I just don't wanna slow down the memory care.

It's very important to to the community. I was gonna that's essentially the same thing. We all seem to be okay on the campus portion. If we can maybe approve that. And then, as the general was saying, on these other properties to get the baseline.

How does that affect you and your initial study and all that stuff?

You know, the initial study, Matt, it's a good thing it has not been circulated yet if we make this change. So, I don't think it would be an issue. It's just, you know, separate out the sections of the stat. Not a problem. I think it could be easily accommodated. And as a matter of fact, I've I've actually in one of our discussions some time ago, I just put that out as a random thought because I predicted correctly this was going to be the center of most of the controversy. And I just threw it out as an idea if it could possibly be bifurcated when we get back to this later. So it's not the first time it's come up.

You wanna continue this for one month to come back and review the revised project with just the elements of in the core campus to proceed and then address the other comments as time comes?

Well, you you make that take that out of the project for now then. So the idea Mhmm.

Mister chair, may I speak briefly to this? This is Molly Erickson. May I speak from a from a legal standpoint? Because this is a whole new set. CEQA requires as as somebody stated earlier, CEQA requires an analysis of the whole of the action. This is exactly why CEQA says you can't bifurcate. It wasn't the county or the neighbors who proposed this much larger project involving the five additional parcels or six parcels. It was the applicant. So the applicant's choice was to put it all in together. You can't bifurcate it now because you know it's all part of one project. Sikh was very clear on that. Thank you.

Yeah. I'm sorry. Maybe I you would When I say bifurcate, maybe I don't mean, like, something immediately fucked, maybe but just no longer part of the project. Maybe bifurcating my work, maybe remove is the correct term I should have used. My apologies.

Do you I mean, I guess, I don't know if we even make a motion and we just postpone this until the the owners and applicant can decide on how they want to move forward knowing that the board is supportive of the core project but concerned with the outlined properties.

Certainly. For entirely

I'm sorry.

We just deny you. So I

Or will It still has to be highlighted in the project, though. Right?

Correct. Yes. But I I don't wanna direct them on how they wanna proceed. I'm gonna let them decide. But I don't wanna turn just take a vote and turn them down Yeah. Today. Because I think I think their project is definitely beneficial. It's beneficial for them. It's beneficial for the neighborhood and for everybody. And so I don't wanna put it to a board decision and and vote it down. I would prefer to postpone it to a date uncertain until the ownership and his their team can get together and decide if they wanted to pursue a a smaller project or proceed with this and with additional information.

But I guess the question is, we still know it's one project. Right?

I It I'm I'm gonna I'm asking, do they wanna postpone it and come back? If they don't, then we can make

a vote. But we said we continue it

and then come up and Continue? Okay.

I mean, that would be my condition to care. Actually now is that Okay. Until we would figure it out about the whole project. I would like, we've been advised. Okay. Either way, it still has to be considered a project because we know that project. K. Eventually, we'll be.

And then they decide how they wanna come back. Yes. Okay.

I make a motion. Oh, you don't understand. Or just before you go to

a vote, you know, our inclination would be really to find some ways of advances to move it on to get the initial study out to get to planning commission. If if the board wanted to vote it down, so be it. I I would be not in the fine ability with data uncertain only because those things can tend to drag out. And we had originally hoped to have the initial study out in September. That took three months.

Now, you know, it's just a month here, a month there. Next thing you know, you're nine months, a year behind where you thought you were gonna be, and the the community is anxious to see some some way to advance it. So even if you said, hey. We wanna deny it for specific reasons relative to low Sarbolis, at least that would get us through your process.

Well, I'm not saying that's gonna get us through that process because when those phase ones come back, we would

like to review them.

No. I I understand that aspect of it.

Yeah. Because I don't I don't think, you know? I mean, we're we're not in a position where we wanna design design it, are we? I don't that's our position. I just want to. No. It's just a clarification on the the phase ones. Any recommendations? So whatever it takes to get there, but I'm not quite sure what that is right now. And I to continue it for a month, and let's figure it out. Alright.

Does that make sense? The best approach. I make a motion to continue this project for one month till our next hearing, to allow the applicant to decide how they want to proceed and or obtain the five

I don't think I can complete

these questions within a month.

Let it know. I'm not asking you to change.

Just Just continue it for thirty days to allow the applicant to address revisions or

Okay. Three days. For next step. Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. So we've continued it for month and for further direction. February 1. Thank you. And, hopefully, there's there's a positive way to keep this going for you. K. Well, thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

Thank you. I Thank know. Thank you, sir. Yes. I know. I'm fine.

I know.

You would. Yes. I you know, that's that's supposedly come up for review, and I

still they still have that conception. I don't know whether the owners or not.

Yeah. Everything slows down. Seems Yeah. Sand. Remember that

that three unit in the middle where my hand is.

What's the matter? Double Okay. Sentence. Elections are not here.

I didn't hear you. Elections. Elections. Oh, Sal's not here.

So I guess I'm gonna know Judy's not here either. Sorry. I'm not Judy. Kelly. Kelly. Oh, she can't.

Oh, she can't accept. Okay. No.

No. I say we continue

that till February 5 also.

Mhmm. Oh, no. And the other thing is you got my email on that one house. Right? Yes. Yes. So the the situation with that is that there's something about that that bothers me that This? Five of the key? Yeah.

Something that kinda grubs on me too. Not sure I

like it. I mean and I, you know, I I don't there's even still the integrity issue. But, you know, because I I you know, friends are are very familiar with the process and, you know, and me. Mhmm. And, you know, I've toured the house when it was for sale. Oh, okay. You know? And that that one part that sticks out, that whole glass thing looks Mhmm.

You know, very distorted. And It's the same. The same. Pictures. It's the same.

And it's a beautiful element. Right? And you look at the Cyclam, and it still shows that that basically it's a diamond. Right? Yep. And and, you know, so I get notices. You know, people call me up and going, hey. You know, why is this noticed? You know? I said, I don't know. So they sent me the notice I'm hearing already happened. Right? Yeah. But it was flagged. And and, you know, you look at the report, and then they had a peer review, and we had no idea that it's even happening.

You know? And it seems like something of that magnitude or significance, we should at least hear about it or have some comment on it, you know, even though they determined that it was not historic. And even in the report when it said it's not historic, I don't think that's the answer. It was like it was historic, but it lost its integrity. Right? It's not that it's not historic.

Correct.

So all that kinda seemed disturbing to me. And when I went online to the agenda package after I got the notice, historic report's not in that agenda pack. So and then Craig sent it to me. So it it's there's just a lot that just doesn't seem right, and I don't know how we I don't know if it's just me or if the board has that same feeling. But, you know, when you look at the pictures and look at the significance that it was

The pictures depict a period home. Oh, but they added a bay window. And that's where I get into the Seth. It's like, okay. Those that glass is gonna be taken out. You could put it you took those bay windows off that house. Go right back to original setting. You look at some of the interior pictures

Same with the sun.

You take the pictures of the sunroom. You take that off. That house goes right back to the original. And I'm like, that's what I am just like Seth's arguing. You know, if you change a door and you change a window, then it loses all integrity. And I'm like, I'm not buying that because you look at that house Yeah.

The the whole point is with most of our decision, but that it's you can turn it back to what it was.

Right? Reversible. Yep. Reversible. And, you know, one of

the things didn't was that they filled on the cardboard. Remember the cardboard was still under the diamond roof? Yep. And still Right. So change the diamond form at all. Right. And and and so that I don't know, the whole thing just bothered me in the fact that we weren't even privy to even that application. And I don't know we hand how we handle that, how you handle that. You know, that it seems like, you know, the fact that somebody's asked me about the house and being chair or being, you know, a finance board member that we don't have a Correct.

You know? This kind of this kind of leads to I mean, it was the same kind of argument they had when they took down the the house, Metaphor. Mhmm. Metaphor got an a a historian that said it's not historic. Right. Then we get a historian that says it's historic. And then this one, we have two, but all you have to do is shop appropriately. I hate to say that. No.

I that was my first my first thought. Mhmm. Once you find the one that gives you the answers.

Gives you the answer you want. Right. And and it just doesn't really feel correct.

I know. And that was my first answer. And then, you know, the person that knows me and brought it up to my attention, you know, says, well, you know, I can kinda see what it is. And and but still, we know we've had too many that have been shopped around like, you know Yeah.

Doesn't that also go to these five homes they wanna tear down? That it's not just integrity. There's, what, five or six different issues to for his history. And Yeah. Would not tell you right away if you need a phase one. Yeah.

Right. But even with the phase one, the question is if it's a phase one coming back and saying it's lost all of its integrity, I'm a firm believer integrity is quite subjective. Because I'm I have a guy going, oh, that's a piece. Tear it down. I'm like, I can find five reasons to keep it. You have seven character defining things, and five of them are still existing. If you take the window out, change it back to an original wind window or back to that kind of modification. If it's reversible, I don't understand why they say it's lost all integrity. It hasn't. It just lost a feature that can be returned upon removal of the nonhistoric.

So that's where what says, like, ah. And I'm like, okay. Here we go. It is it is a subject, a very subjective call, and we usually let the historians do it. But many times, I'll push my historics my historians to go, I know. But look at the building. We can keep it. We can make it work. And unless that is driven by the architect or the designer or the owner, sometimes they get pushed to us. Slots is Integrity SAP. It's easy to do and run away.

I, of course, know Ruben

Mendoza who was the it was his architectural it was his firm that did the survey for the house you're talking about. And He did the peer review. He's an he's an archaeologist.

One of the peer review? The peer review. Right. Ruben?

Ruben Mendoza is an archaeologist. Yeah.

And he's doing the peer review. Yeah.

He's not doing the report. He did the peer review. He did the peer review. Who did the report? Historic Resource Associates.

Is that that's him, isn't it? No.

Unless they work together, then we have another conflict.

Is there a name associated with this?

There is. I just have to find it.

Because they they do yeah. No. There's a

name on there. I asked Megan about it. Dana. But that firm does do archaeology too, apparently, when you

open up. Who? These guys? Yeah. Archaeology.

Well, they do, I think, archaeological reports too.

Oh, was made familiar with them as

She was not interested in what'd she say? All she said was she knew that sort of Swan House were maybe it's a Staples. I don't know if it was the ones in Marina or a couple of things, but then he said that he supported us being historic when other people didn't. So Mhmm. Which led him to have a little more credibility, I think. But it doesn't mean that Who? Ruben or this Dana? This guy right here. Dana. Yeah. Okay. And it doesn't mean that it's still not influenced because I'm looking at Project MPG with May, and it was a historic well, it was called the gatehouse. And but, yeah, it was, like, two thirds of the pack was added on, but it's still historic. Right? It's not it didn't say lost its integrity.

So You just did they did. Yeah. So I I you know, that whole issue of integrity. Right? Because it still you look at the site plan, and it it still has the diamond shape. Right? And if you

go in, it still has the feel. And if it has yeah. To me,

that It definitely the Yep. So I don't know.

I'm curious when the Manor, purchased those properties. Was it based on Seth's report from 2015 that they felt comfortable going ahead to buy all those properties? I would like to know. Now that they have purchased them with the the intent to include them in their plan.

I don't I have no knowledge. I could go through the assessor's records and peel it back, but, it's all I know is I looked at it. I'm like, there's no way to put more units on there. Ain't gonna happen. And then I saw them moving their septic and taking that out, and I was like, amen.

We wanna be careful if we close

the public hearing on an item.

Okay. Okay. So we've we've talked this other issue.

Yeah. Because we're just talking about the one. Let me switch back. So yeah. Yeah. Meeting meetings adjourned.

Board comments and request referrals? None? Okay.

None? Okay. Is it Department of State?

No. None? Any stitch anything for next month that you know?

We have two other items that are going. It's go they're going to be design approvals. They're being handled by Lutz Gonzalez who is the the permanent center manager.

Okay. Because you mentioned Caltrans at once. We're not getting that.

Oh. They're still revising their plans. Okay. And they wanted

yeah. They're they're doing another bridge

down there.

So we're

gonna have two design approvals, probably Sprackles or I don't you don't know. Uh-huh. Yeah. And then we have this one coming back.

Okay.

Let's see. A reconstruction of an existing garage and storage room and the interior modifications to historic Casa De La Estrella. Okay.

Because there's that one on point that we lost to for the same process reason. You know? But this one, if there's something So

we have everything or during the meeting?

Yeah. Meetings during. Yeah. Okay.

Oh, no need. I just wanted her to push the button, the proverbial button. Yeah. I gotta get a high speed color copier because mine is not keeping up. I just got a new one that's

just not

worth it like last amount for me.