Historical Advisory Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, they really wants to bring the Yeah. Those elements And so far for the past

Mhmm. People we didn't have that. So, Michael, are you ready? Yep. Okay. Yeah. But it's good. That's wonderful. I'm going to call to order the Thursday, 01/09/2025 meeting in the Monterey County Historic Resources Bureau. Can I have roll call, please?

Present. Sheila Grader is absent. Linda Tolugan? Here. Kelly Morgantini is absent. William and Follin? Present. Michael Billard? Present. And Jay Forkas?

Present.

So we have five present and two absent. Okay. Thank you.

So we have a couple of meetings. Have great.

So members of the public should have their video turned off unless they're presented. This helps with bandwidth and should reduce distractions. That will help monitor and turn off videos as needed. We do ask that you keep yourself muted unless we're presenting. To mute yourself on the Zoom, there's a button at the bottom of the screen that looks like a microphone.

And if you've called in, you can do this by pressing star six. To participate during the public comment on Zoom platform, you can raise your hand by opening reactions tab at the bottom of the screen and clicking on the raise hand icon. And if you've called in by phone, you can also do this by pressing star nine. The way to participate is by sending an email to hrrvhearingcomments@kellyatmoderna.gov. This email is also on the agenda for today's meeting, and we'll be monitoring that in real time. If you have a question, comment, talk, but we'll try our best to respond.

Okay. Thanks, Phil. So before we start, happy New Year. Think. So I'm gonna open the floor to public comment on non agenda items that are under the pretty best historic resources for people, if anybody would like to come in at this time.

No comments. Okay. I'll close the folder of public comments. Is there any agenda additions, deletions, corrections? No. Those are. Okay. Thank you. So we'll move on to scheduled matters. The first matter is PON240293.

Yale Scott Trust. It's a public hearing to consider recommending a chief of planning and approve a design approval to allow the remodel of the previously altered 2,545 square foot historic single family residence, including converting the attached garage back to garage, 524 square foot 2nd Floor addition, the new 48 square foot 2nd Floor balcony, and conversion of an existing detached studio garage to a 508 square foot accessory dwelling unit, and a new entry redwood trellis. Colors and materials for the attached garage consist of cedar board siding, cedar board and bat siding, and community fishing. Wood clad windows and new glass writing. Colors and materials for accessory dwelling unit to be horizontal wood siding and gables, roof fireplace and chimney, wood clad windows, and the cedar roof to match the system.

Project location is 3360 5th Avenue in Carmelo. New presentation. Yes.

Good morning, HRV. My name is Erica, and I am the project partner for PLN two forty three. The proposed project is located at 52 65th Avenue in Carmel. It is located in the Carmel area land use plan. The zoning is medium density residential, two units per acre, and a design control district in the.

The proposed project is a design approval to allow the remodel of previously altered twenty five forty five square foot of storage single family residence, including converting the attached garage back into a garage, a five twenty four square foot 2nd Floor addition with a new 48 square foot 2nd Floor balcony and the conversion of an existing detached studio garage into a 580 square foot accessory dwelling unit with the new entry record. These are pictures of the home currently. The proposed projects will match existing. The addition to the single family residence will match existing homes, and the ADU will match colors and materials that the garage and art studio. A little history on the site.

We did have a phase one historic assessment prepared by Ken L. Shevey, who's a qualified historian for Monroe County. In 1951, the house was built as a one story post Adobe residence for, by LR McGuissy for nationally noted American watercolors Donald T. In 1953, the detached art studio garage was built and later altered in 1955. In 1955, the original attached garage was remodeled as living space.

In 1997, a full height angled fave with operable multi pane metal windows was added at the south side junction of the living room, wing, and dining room. In 2003, earthquake repairs were done, including removal and wall infill of an existing chimney on the rear, permitted for Monarch County permit four 574. The historian concluded that the proposed work will execute consistent with the secretary standards for rehabilitation. Our recommendation is that the HRRB adopts a resolution recommending the chief of planning finds a project exempt pursuant to section fifteen thirty three one and approves the design approval to allow the remodel of the previously altered twenty five forty five square foot historic single family residence, including converting the attached garage back into a garage, a 524 square foot 2nd Floor addition with a new 48 square foot 2nd Floor balcony, the conversion of an existing detached studio garage, a 580 square foot accessory building unit with the new entry reference shelves. This concludes the presentation, and we do have the owner, historian, and applicant here via.

Do you have a floor plans? Yes. Mhmm. I mean, that that'll probably come up. But Did I have some questions?

So this is actually speaking. I

think 14 on 18.2.

So it's just the system floor plan and the next page of the

I know the elevation is confusing because there's three versions of the elevation. That's the. So for plan purposes. Floor plan. Questions to them. You go from the originals. No. Any question when the planner goes public? With the applicant? Representative, like this, owner, the applicant, architect, would like to speak this time?

I can't hear you.

With the applicant or owner or anybody like to speak at this time?

Sure. I'll say something. So I'm Scott Gale, and Donald Teague was my grandfather.

And Good.

I inherited this house six years ago, and I love the house. It's a post Adobe, a a historic house, and it has some some quirks to it. And so my wife and I mostly, we wanna bring it into 2025, respecting the the the historic architecture and in in many ways, taking it back to what it was in 1951 when it was built. So the main thing is there was a two car garage in front that was converted to living space. We wanna take that back to being a two car garage.

So it'll, you know, pretty much look exactly like it the house looked when it was built. There will be a chimney that will be taken out as part of that, but that was added in 1955 or so. With the the studio space out back so he was a renowned illustrator and fine artist back in the day. He illustrated for Saturday evening post Colliers. And so he had a separate art studio out back, and they kinda when they got rid of the two car garage, they shoehorned a un really unusable one car garage as part of this studio structure out back.

So I wanna take now that we're gonna, you know, presumably get approval to put a two car garage back out front, convert the one car garage that currently exists to living space such that it can be used potentially as an ADU to, you know, address housing constraint issues if if we choose to lease it out that way. And I think other than that, you know, I wanna go to great lengths to preserve what exists. The main reason we wanna add a new bed bath and office space above the future two car garage is to create a modern living environment that's quiet, that is got really good temperature control. With the post Adobe's, it's hard to control temperature in winter in particular, even with insulating below and above. And plus, the the windows are single pane historic windows in the house.

I don't wanna take any of the existing windows out to meet their part of the, you know, the the history of the house. But it is a problem, you know, in the winter in particular, achieving adequate temperature control in in a in a bedroom at night. And so to add the the bedroom above, you know, what would become the two car garage addresses that problem. We have a blank slate we could put in double or triple pane windows and insulate up the wazoo and, you know, create a much more livable space year round. And so but my intent is I when this is all said and done, I I want it to, as reasonably as possible, be exactly same.

That's when it was built. And so that fifty years from now, when I'm gone and, you know, and my intent is for this house to never leave the family, by the way, so to never be sold. It all works. There's no discontinuities between what remains historic and what's been added. And and I'll I'll leave it at that.

Okay, Becky. Thanks for explaining that. One of the issues I had, these drawings are very confusing because to me, there's no information on the drawings. You know, nothing says you're saving windows. Nothing tells us what material is staying. What's you know, what was altered. Every elevation says altered, altered, altered. But there's nothing on the drawings that say what was altered, what's important, what's not important, what's gonna stay, what's not gonna stay. And and, like, the gentleman said that you're gonna keep the metal windows. Nothing says that.

So there's nothing to explain what's going on. I don't know if anybody else found that completely, but that was I'm looking at the coins and and especially with three sets of elevations and really no explanation. You know, the other thing we like is their staff. So when you look at north elevation, existing north elevation, the post is below that. So we're not looking all over the place trying to figure out what's going But there's no notes on the drawings.

There's no nothing about, you know, what was historic, what was changed. It's still historic, any of that information. So there's no way to really even understand what's going on. And then the other question is, in the DPR, it says character defining feature is second store or single story. And then you're adding on a big second story to it. And it's visible. It's it's actually I know it says it's added to the back, but it's not added to the back. It's on top of the front. And part of that new addition is actually extending farther on the front elevation than the front elevation is itself on the left side. So that's totally contrary to the Secretary of Interior Standards.

And and and I I don't, you know, I don't understand how that's allowed. You know, that's yes.

Can you can you show me in a drawing where we're extending?

Yeah. I know. Go to the floor plan. Yeah. Let me see. It's that one right there. Go back one. If you look at the your second story addition and you look at the dimensions on the left side and then you look at the dashed line to your right of that wing standing out, that the the addition is actually further than the existing elevation.

That's on the that that's not visible from the street. That's on

Hold on. Hold on. The front, if you look at the dotted line, that's the existing footprint below. Yes. We've held that front back so that there's a the front does not go push out to the existing elevation. That's the existing front.

Right. The addition's back. Feet.

Yeah. But look to the right. The dash line. The the the second story addition is further out than the the dash line on the right side.

Right side.

And and any addition is supposed to be behind it. It's not supposed to be above. You know, once again, we're dealing with the DPR. It says that a character defining feature is second or a single story resonance.

Sorry. I don't know where you are. Can you say the right side?

The the lane to the left. Grid line. What is that? One two grid line two.

Oh, you're saying okay. You're saying this sticks out further than that.

Yes. Yeah. Oh. And and that's the primary elevation. That's your front elevation. In addition, it should be to the rear. And I know the plantates the rear, but it's not to the rear. It's actually even forward at the front elevation, which is not a component of such interior standards. You know,

especially any part of the front elevation?

Especially when the well, the the addition should be to the rear, not on top. It says it's to the rear, but it's not to the rear. It's on top. And that's totally contrary, especially when the character defining feature is a single story residence. So that that's contrary to the secretary of your If it if it helps, there is a Mhmm. A covered porch here. That way, it's still where that is. It's supposed to be behind the building and not on top of the

Does the porch I I hate to split I mean, does the porch not count as the front of the building?

It's supposed to be behind the building, not the front of the building. It's supposed to be behind the building.

You mean totally behind the whole building?

The mirror. Yeah. It's supposed

to be behind the mirror of

the building or the side that's not visible. And I'll I'll take it to the border. You know? As

far as the drawings, what what I I included was three sets of elevations, just hopefully for clarity's sake Right. Was that there are the existing as the building exists now.

Right.

There are the original elevations that built the building, and then there are the proposed elevations. Right.

I get that, but this is still I mean, in my opinion, it's contrary to everything but the subdivision interior standards of where, one, where an addition should be, and, two, the fact that the character defining feature is a single square. And and that's what you go by as character defining features. Well, okay. So let me go ahead. Let me open up the public comment.

This building has been changed over time. It is an example of the method of construction, and the construction's been altered to meet changing activities and times both by the original artist and now by these folks. The key here is that if you look at it, it says for its architecture, which is method of construction, but it also says association. And the principal issue here is the association of a world class watercolorist with innumerable prizes and membership and leadership of a number of agencies over time in adjacent to a town dedicated historically to art. And the association is the driving force here, and that's why I didn't see any issue with that.

I mean, it's clearly differentiated from the old.

Well, it's nice, but I still think it's in the wrong place. I mean, because in your DPR, it says the architecture significance. It says it's both under both standards, the architecture and and for the person. So I I I totally see that in contrast to the same current standards. But let me stop here, let me open it up to public comment on this project if anybody from the public would like to speak at this time.

Okay. So now we'll close the floor to public comment and bring it back to the board

So that

back to the board. From the street, what do you see? Do you have a photo from the street? Street view?

Can't see anything.

Currently, you can only see the garage. Yes. Go to can we go back to the photo? Because there's a whole bunch of bushes. What are they? Pit a squirm and trees in front of the house.

Yeah. Well, bushes can be pruned. I mean

Yeah. If you from the leftover and photograph, because all you have is trees.

Is that what you see from the street?

What you see.

So that would definitely be primary view.

Mhmm. And that is like an story to that. Yeah. Mhmm.

And that's where the garage is built. That chimney was built after the fact '55. In other words, they on the original drawing, they entered the garage from the side. It just didn't work, so they converted it to living space and then added that chimney.

See, that's where the second story is gonna be right there. And it's gonna be right up front.

And I I'll just clarify. The original plans were to have the enter the garage this way. It clearly didn't work. So when that you know, when they took occupancy in 1951, there was the garage. You entered this way. This is a driveway. And and then four

or five years later, this

was converted to living space.

They also added on the back of the building. I think it's six feet to the length of the garage was an addition after the fact. And then and then they added a bay window thing off the dining room. I mean, if you want, we can pull the plans up, and I can point to them specifically. But, again, we've approached it as, okay. The architecture is nice, but it's mostly the artist that's the historic component here.

Well, you could say that, but in the DPR, it still says the architecture is significant too for you. The character defining feature is a single story roof. So that's that's my dilemma, that's I mean, that's you know, it's not even attempted to be in the back. It's right up front.

Well, are you proposing, like, we just give up the backyard for an addition? Is that that's what you're saying?

Well, then you don't do the addition. I mean, that's the standards. You know? That's that's the criteria. And and the criteria is what you have to work with, and and you can't we can well, as as far as what I understand, the secretary of interior standards, we just can't make it up and say, oh, we don't wanna use the backyard. I mean, that that's not we don't look at it that way. We've got standards to look at. It's perfect. What

are the standards when the association it's the artist that's the the owner that's the important thing.

Well, you you've got the I mean, it it goes for both. I mean, you can't eliminate one for the other. Other. They understand that there are. It's confusing.

It is confusing.

It's really And

the comments from Yeah. The bad time.

For a better evaluation, historical evaluation for the secretary of standards. It will be nice to have all the drawings for clarity, like a master plan showing with the graphically showing the growth alterations of the building and what is proposed and with a legend so we can clearly, you know, be observed and evaluated. The same thing is for all the elevations, the floor plan showing what areas were outer and put a legend. It clearly be seen on all of us. Yeah.

Because it it it's like we need to have notes that describe exactly what you are the reason why those graphics, like elevations or floor plans have been done.

No. I understand. Yeah.

No. I got that.

So you're proposing to, like, demolish the the chimney there?

Yeah.

Yeah. That's where we're gonna take away from Excuse me.

But it's 55.

Excuse me. We can't have inner conversations. Open. Yeah. If you'd like to address the board, you could do that and ask that question, but not person to person. I just wanted to make the comment that

demolishing the chimney in the front

Can you state your name, please? My name

is Eloise Shim, and I I'm on

the historic resources board for Selena. Yeah.

So I just wanted to make the comment that demolishing the chimney on the front would really alter the design the the historic design components.

I think we're closed to the public, but I've been I know. I'd make a comment. Number one, that chimney is not historic anyway, so I'm not even I'm not even giving that chimney any Yeah. Any credo, basically. As much as it pains me, this is truly a primary elevation primary look.

Truly, the elevations of the post Adobe, the Adobe look, the big heavy roof, the exposed eaves disappears in the renderings that we see for the proposed project. So some of those features that that are included in the VPR, and I'm not even sure when the VPR was dated. My copy

is really hard to read. Additional function. Yeah. But

looking at those pictures and and the the information in the DPR, I don't see that character being enhanced with the proposed look. Some of the things that confuse me are I'm not worried about the chimney because the chimney wasn't there. But to see a two story coming as your primary view Mhmm. When you had a truly I don't wanna call it cottage style, but the Adobe Look singles form heavy shingled roof. And now we're going to a two story in the primary view with a different wood siding, which batten board is looks good with Adobe.

It it it fits. It's the appropriate technique. It makes a differentiation, but I don't see that character on that edition, and it's being in your primary. And I know that everybody is like, I know there's not floor space to put it on your site, but to stack them over the bedrooms on the back of the house where no one could see it might have been a better location for the two story edition. And I know you really wanna interact with me, but I'm giving my comments as a board member to the staff, the public, and the rest of the board members so that we can discuss it amongst ourselves. Only he's gonna he can't look at me to to allow you. It's up to him.

Right now, we're at the board.

So No. At some point, I'd like to address the comments.

Usually open it back to the applicant after we're done discussing. On the addition on the east elevation, I see a rise in elevation on the primary roof, not the addition to the not the addition roof addition, but the primary residence addition height. And I I don't really know why why it looks elevated, or maybe it's just not a really good picture of it, elevation of it, but this is what I go by. I have to look at the elevation. So on the east elevation, you'll see the rise difference where you don't necessarily see it on the existing.

So those are some things that I'm not sure why we have an elevation roof rise here.

Yep.

The only way I can do it is take east elevation to east elevation.

And these are So we

definitely have a roof rise.

The front of the house.

Not quite sure what that is. It's hard to see, but when you finally put the west elevation, the west elevations together, this is lower. This has popped up. I don't know why that is. So that would give me an indication that besides just the addition, remodel of that, we're popping up roofs for some reason instead of playing in a min, which would keep it more consistent with their lower I don't know how to say it.

The roofs are heavy and lower sitting on adobe, and the houses look rounded. The taller they get, the less grounded they look, and it takes away from that character. And that's what I see in these drawings. And the windows have changed on elevation too. Somewhat as troubling for me. See, because the This one? I think those are No. I'll flip it over. See, I think This is the garage.

Yeah. No. You

This one. Nope. Okay. Yeah. You see the problem.

These ones. Yeah. Those, I think those windows on that.

So I think that might be

Where's that? That's

this one. Because that's the that's the That would be this one, and that would be this. North elevation. North elevation. Can't see these.

See those

So those bush go together. Over the bush. Yeah. So I don't think that window changes. There is a couple I've thought that can change, though, but this would modify. It's it's it's hard to read when you don't stack them. And then, of course, I print them double size. I can't put them over each other. So but I think that looks the same.

Yeah. That's that's actually the. This

that's the house. This is the house Okay. Built original. This is the house now. These are the new ones. So some of some of the like, I agree with I agree with you, John, that there are comments on here that, like, retaining the original windows, new windows to match rich you know, the new windows to match the original, any relocated windows if you're taking one out and putting it back into the structure to maintain the steel windows, Those that kind of noting and if we're changing the roof or if we're gonna match, keep the existing, it's it's not clear. But It's even the context of

the garage doors. Right? I mean, in the historic.

Really? Those are

yeah. I don't So

those are my reservations, basically, my concerns with reviewing the plan specifically.

I mean, look at that picture, and you see a two story addition on there with different siding. I mean, that that totally changes the whole Yeah. Look at the whole image. Like I said, you know, additions are supposed to be in the back. Here, we go into the side. Sorry. That a nonsignificant view.

So that was my comment. If anybody else wanted to these are a little bigger if you wanted.

Any other comments from this? Oh. It's ready to. Yeah, I think so. Okay.

May I Yes. So I'd like to address your your comments about putting the addition in the back. So this is actually the third iteration with Ray, the architect. Initially, we looked if if we could pull up a diagram of just Of a floor plan. Floor plan of the house.

First so initially, we thought about putting an additional here, and we had elevations done, everything. And I vetoed this after we were done because, you know, you know, we're talking about exteriors. To me, they're they're the symmetry of this living room is fabulous on the inside. And there's two on either side of this historic fireplace, there's a full on full sheet watercolor of teaks here and here. And to have a passageway through here, it just destroyed the feel on the inside.

So I had spent $20 with Ray, and I fixated. Then we looked at the back of the house and going up.

I have to interrupt. They had a permit built there of an addition that size five years ago. No historic anything. Just go ahead and do the addition. House wasn't considered historic back there, or at least they got a building permit to put an addition there.

So yeah. And I had I had inherited these plans from my mother, Linda, that she got a permit, never pulled the trigger on it, to go out in this direction. So I thought, you know, let's just carry on with that. And we got all the way to, like, basically submitting to y'all. Yeah.

And I'm sitting there in the living room, and I'm like, I don't wanna do this. It's gonna kill the whole vibe of the living room to go out from there. Then we looked at the back, and we had a whole I don't know that we got to the point of full formal elevations. And I we have a problem with this house. There's a water intrusion problem where water is getting in somehow towards the front of the house, and the slope is towards the back of the house, and water pools there in the winter.

And I have a sump pump in the back of the house in the crawl space entrance right now. It sucks this water out as it stimulates this. I've had people under there telling me there's dried mud down there, and there's a nice thick foundation for this building. My gut tells me, don't go up in the back of the house because I'm gonna double the weight on this foundation, that I have a water intrusion problem. We think we can put a French drain out front and catch that water and divert it to, you know, the lowest part of the property.

But there's no guarantee in this renovation if we do that. There may there's a spring that just on a lot opposite me on the other side of the hill. Well, water appears to when it's raining and the ground gets saturated, water appears to just come magically out in the middle of this unspilt lot. There's no, like, stream. It just goes up. And I may have, like, a little seasonal spring thing going on underneath my house that I don't even know. So my intuition tells me, don't go up and back and double the weight on this foundation. I may crack the foundation. I do I know? No.

I don't have a crystal ball. But so Ray got pretty far along with the back of the house, and I'm like, Ray, my intuition, my gut is telling me, let's not do this in the back of the house. Then we looked around, and we're like, the garage is on a slab. That slab is thick. We can put the weight on the slab.

The whole rest of the house has a crawl space. And so that's how we arrived at wanting to go above where the original two car garage was because there's a huge thick slab there, and I'm confident we can put the additional weight on without adverse consequence. And so that you know, I wanted to take time to address the issue that's been brought up because we did we spent over a year, like, around and around figuring out where to add this space that we can have quiet and keep control tastefully and sensibly.

I mean, we we still have standards to go by. I mean, yeah, I have I certainly understand your situation. Don't get me wrong. I mean, I know what you're up against. But

Can we do a couple questions?

Yeah.

And I I don't mean I don't wanna sound I I I don't know. I can't describe it. I don't take it the wrong way. Why wouldn't we come in and say that the historic component's the artist and we have no don't care about the building? How does that work? Does that mean we ignore the building?

It's already in the PPR. It's already documented. It's already documented. What? That it's the building's historic. The architecture is historic.

Oh, we did that? Or

For the method of construction. Mhmm. Can't stop.

Method of construction. Okay. Alright.

That's fine.

So my second question is, when you say the back of the house rather than taking away is backyard and a pathway to the studio, would it qualify to have the addition in the back portion of the house over those bedrooms, assuming we could solve the structural potential problem?

And

the roof, Belinda had a question about the roof going up and down. The roof over the living room is smaller, and the porch was added after the fact too. And then the roofs over the garage and the library are are much higher. It just spans more. So that's the difference in the roofs. We we are not touching that roof section. Once you leave the garage, at least in this proposal, all the roofs stay exactly where they are.

East elevation. East elevates. East elevation. That's popping up. It's not my drawings. I'm just referencing the drawings.

You said it's popping up from existing to proposed?

East elevation. It's east elevation. There's a that roof is elevated, Not the addition right there.

Okay.

I don't know why.

I don't either. No.

But I'm just referencing I'm just looking at the drawings, and it doesn't

At the library? Identify that.

No. That's the the dining type of May I address that? Oh. So

Which sheets are those three? My sheets are those three?

Sheet a 3.3 and then a sheet 3.1.

We'll start with 3.1.

So the the ceiling so the where the the bay window, we could so this this currently is the dining area. And then as you come down the other side, that's where the kitchen is. And the ceiling in the dining room is about seven feet up. Like, it's a headbanger. And if so it's not to current code.

And if it were I get like, if it were any lower, I would feel like I'm gonna be crushed. And as you transition in the house from the the living room down a few steps into the dining room, there is we call it the headbanger. Like, somebody tall, they have to crane down to get underneath an element to get down into the dining room area. So the by adding that slight elevation of the roof in the area that we're talking about from the east elevation, we're basically creating additional space to solve this. So you're remodeling your dining room and kitchen area?

Mhmm.

Yes. Include that in your design because it changes your interior elevations, which changes. So it should be kind of addressed as a remodel.

K.

Yeah. Because your your hump that roof's lifting. And when we look at it, we just I

Okay. I

don't wanna have to do the design to figure out why it's lifting, but I assumed it was because you're incorporating an area outside of your current kitchen and but you're just lifting. So just call it a remodel of the kitchen and dining area because that remodel is not purely interior. It's affecting the design of the building. So I think if we just address it in that fashion, it should be fine.

And we go to.

It'll address it. That's all.

See, that's what Linda was talking about of that main window. The ceiling's kicked up. Whole roof is kicked out. Oh, yeah. Two big roofers kicked out. So

Yeah. And then

And you see it on the

the the elevation below it. You'll see off to the right of the addition. That's that's that same

ridge that

you'll see.

So this I mean, this section here is we're bringing this up a bit. None of that would be visible from the street, I'll point out.

No. I get that. It's just it just shows the inconsistency of what we're looking at, why we're confused on why things are changing because I don't I don't see it in the description, and I don't see it I don't see it in a floor plan.

See it.

That's all.

Yeah. I get it.

I was just indicating why if we're looking at just an addition of an addition over the over a one section, we should only see a revision on that front elevation, that left elevation, and the rear. We shouldn't see it throughout all the other aspects of the house. That's all. And that's what we were comparing. That's all.

We can color code that. Just

clarify. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead.

Yeah. Couple of things. Number one, photograph if you see it coming into the garage is a little deceiving because as you come fifteenth from the main highway, you can't see the building at all. It's screened behind ten, twelve, 14 feet of vegetation. When you come up the other way, you can't see it until you're on top of it because you've got the same vegetation in terms of trees.

The standards say for rehabilitation that you maintain the character defining features of the fee the building, the character of the building, but you can change to meet contemporary standards, the adjustment in that way. In this sense, it's predicated on the problems with the building, its environment, and the other. This is sort of the one solution. And, I've been out in front of that thing a handful of times scratching my head about it. But, again, the public right of way thing, that, that's the first time I've seen that image. And, you know, you can't you've gotta be standing at a certain point in there, to see it.

Yeah. But tomorrow, they could choose to prune those.

They could choose to, but I doubt if

they will. So you can't hide it. I mean, you can say I can't see it, but, you know, I mean, they're they're obviously overgrown, and they decide to prune it, and then all of a sudden, it's there. But it's still two stories, Ken. I mean, it's, like, it's right in front, two stories. It's not even behind. I mean, the question they ask is, can they could do it behind the that one in the back above the bedrooms?

Yeah. Great. I I I personally don't like saying, I'll move it to the back. Right. But I've done enough significant structures in in view sheds where we have to somehow keep from taking away from the character of the building. And I always say if it's from whatever street the public sees it from, that will be I consider that the primary elevation. Some people, no. No. You know, the Capitol Building can be seen from three sides. You know?

And I'm like, great. Oh, you got three primaries. Whatever. But in this instance, the only place the public would ever see this is gonna be from the driveway because that's the only open spot, it looks like, with vegetation. And so but I'm not even really concerned too much with if you took the chimney down and still carry that character there and any place else put a two story edition, I probably wouldn't be concerned with it.

It's just that that corner is truly gonna be the primary. I know there's bushes. That's wonderful. I mean, there's a picture in here somewhere I just dated October that granted, you don't see that front of the building down by the chimney, but you definitely see that roofline. And you put a two story, the only thing you're gonna see is that two story.

So I get it. I'm just making that as a statement of fact. I don't wanna get into saying move it to here, move it to there. That's really a design person's expertise. And I hate it when I go to meetings and everybody goes, why don't you just put it over there? And I'm like, there was 10 reasons why we didn't put it there. And I understand it's not a process of a, b, and c. There's

Yeah.

Each one has a multitude of constraints, controls, and everything else.

Can I ask a question? Is I'm sorry.

It's all to John. I don't know. That's that's up. I leave him to control the

Yeah. I'm looking for agreement here. I heard a conversation about the chimney. We still have the desire to remove that chimney because it came after the fact and convert it back into a garage.

I just wanna make that sure it's not a desire. I'm saying I don't put any of particular weight on that chimney.

Okay.

Some people have mentioned, oh, you see the chimney? You don't wanna take that out. I personally don't consider that chimney going to be an historic feature that I'm worried about if you took it out. If you decide it's like, I'm gonna resize that building, and I'm gonna put stucco over that Adobe, I'm gonna have a problem with that.

Sure. Sure.

Sure. It's just the way it is. Let's see.

That's what

I wanna clarify that.

See, but that's where the standards

I'm not recommending anything. I'm just I'm stating what I see in my head as a concern for this historic for maintaining the historicity of this building. The adobes are beautiful structures. Love this adobe. And a lot of people go, I'm just gonna tear it down, and I'm just like, just sell it to me because I'd rather just keep the adobes. I just it's a method of construction that's not used anymore. It's an an exceptionally California native look.

My office is in the first

And we should attempt to maintain them and Hello? Keep them if we can. And this resource is a beautiful structure. Granted, it's got some of its old features that modern day society we're gonna have issues with, so I don't have a problem with that. We just have to do it in a in a fashion that we're comfortable with maintaining the historicity of the site as best we possibly can and still allow you, the owner, to live in it comfortably. Otherwise, what good is

it? Well, Scott's willing to keep the windows, but we proposed new windows would be different. Is that wrong? Should they be

in the same windows in the new edition would it they can be new because it's a new edition, and it needs to be distinct and different. Alright. If you do have windows that are placed back into the Adobe area, it would be nice to pull an existing window that's

in We're able to do that.

And then just place it into places where you're replacing windows in the existing exterior facade of the building. K. I'm I've discussed, I think, it to a point, and I don't know if Dennis, any other board members wanna discuss anything.

I'll I'll just say to to Melinda's explanation of the chimney. You know, if if the chimney's added, like, in '74, you know, and it's not part of the original and it hasn't gained significance as that, then then, you know, all you have to do is say, you know, it was added, and we don't, you know, we're gonna move it and move it. So it's all based on the the defining features and significance of when it was built. I mean, if it's you and it was added and you don't want it, I mean, that's that's fine. You know? There's no issues at any no question as far as direction? I'd like

to make a motion.

Oh, wait a

minute. I'm just

Oh, more discussion?

I went to see this. So I stood right where we're looking at this here. And as you know, there's trees all around up and down the street, so you don't really see a lot of the homes there. And so for me, the key is really what you're gonna see is the two stories there. And so does the two stories fit with the standards, again, that we have to deal with all the time? And I don't know because it looks you know, it looks good to me, but does it really meet the standards? And that's what I'm

not sure. Yeah. No. It doesn't. Mhmm. Is there any

because this is the only part of the house you see.

We don't. Okay. Yes. So

I I take it from the conversation that the home is deemed historic.

Oh, from the PPR. Yes.

Okay.

Alright.

True. She list and I don't know.

Little bit. The basis is kind of substantial evidence, and the substantial evidence we have is the phase one historic report indicating that it's historically significant and why it's historically significant. And that's the DPR form that Chris Marcus is referencing. But my understanding is is that we we propose I think it's historic for two reasons, but we've proposed that it's historic. And my I'm trying to figure out as as a committee, are you concurring with that, that it is, at your level, deemed historic Yes. Today. Mhmm. Okay. Thank you.

So, I mean, I I'll make a motion.

I'm not sure if it's a motion, but I would recommend that if the owner applicant and his representatives are interested in making additions or revisions to the plan that indicate the windows, the the retention of the types of roof, the retention of the wood wood panel, you know, all of the features as required. I hate to ask to move it, but I really don't know if this board is going to approve an addition on that primary phase. Don't believe I can, but if if you wanted to take this back and find a alternative and and, of course, I know that owner has spent a ton of money on this already, but, indicate on the plans specifically how you're retaining the features so that when we see them, we understand that a little better. Asking if the owner ownership is interested in reapplying or revising that and coming back to us. Does that make sense?

Yeah. There through the chairs, there's There's a better way

say it.

Concerns that have been expressed by board members regarding the currently proposed design. The hearing on the item has been opened, so it could go to a motion to take action on the project. So that would be a prefer deny. Or because of the concerns expressed as the owner, would you prefer if the hearing was continued to be uncertain and then you could decide what you wanted to redesign based on the comments you've received and then come back to the board?

I think

you're asking me. Yes. Yes. In light of the conversation this morning, I have to request a continuance.

Okay.

And procedurally, also wanna make clear that while individual board members kind of express their concerns, ultimately, board's gonna decide as, like, a collective body. So I would

Of course.

Yeah. It wouldn't be like, ah, this one board member said this. We'll do that. It's fine. Yeah.

And that's why I was recommending to the board to come back, but I don't know how to really phrase that.

So we understand it's not definitive, but I understand what people Yeah. And

the other thing I would do is just make sure the drawings are clear.

Mm-mm.

You know? And and I would get rid of the first elevations, the originals, and just deal with the what's you know, just show us the two, you know, the Existing and Existing and and not the originals. And then just make sure what the windows you're keeping and just make it you know, and and do elevation elevation, you know, existing or existing because we don't like

So you okay. It's better to

compare compare it. Correct. Yes.

So Sure. Just a procedural question. I'm you know, so you you made a site visit. Do you ever like to come into a home that you're evaluating to see it from the inside also to help your decision making? Because if you do, I'd be happy to we come back the interiors are private.

Yep.

So we we're not really I mean, if you wanna lift your ceilings and do a full remodel on the inside, you don't touch your outside, we're still good. It's just the Yeah. The changing of the significant historic features on the exterior is more of our concern.

Right. Well, the reason I ask is because we brought up we were talking about the east elevation and the raising of that one part of the roof structure.

Mhmm. Yeah.

And I think if you see the home from the inside, you see the headbanger I described, this clerk is not to code today by any and we see the the the seven foot ceiling where the dining room is. You understand, you know, quickly why we're wanting to do that. And then, like I said, it's not visible from the street. So, anyways, I don't need an answer. But if if at some point down the road, if it would be helpful, I'm happy to waive any privacy issues and just show you this part of the house that's on

the back side. Right? Pardon?

That wouldn't and the the lifting of that roof is not something that we would turn down. I'm just saying it's just not addressed and why is it occurring. Okay. It it's not that that would be a significant impact to the structure because it's still maintaining its look and its character even if you lifted a foot. It's just that second story addition on the primary elevation is our, I think, is our greatest crux here. Yep.

There's so many, you know, pieces to this. So we've proposed to move the the kitchen wall out four feet. Is that gonna be a nonstarter for any

None of us have even no. I'm I saw it, and I figured maybe that's could be one of the reasons why the roof elevated a little bit, but I didn't understand why it shouldn't have popped it up that high Mhmm. Especially with the cut the way it is. But, no, that is not a it's, again, not on the primary. I don't think anybody even noticed it. Yeah. I mean, I I recognize it on the floor plan. I didn't know that it was filled in. But

Okay.

It yeah. That's not really an issue. Yeah.

I mean, should it be like you're an ancient, you know, as long as you're not still doing something crazy. Don't know. Yeah.

And, clearly, show the floor plan whatever you alter. Like, the entrance with by the kitchen. You know? No. You you added that area. You know? That's you show that.

Sure. Sure. Are we, I guess, at the point where we're gonna have a motion?

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. How do I I motion to continue this project to a say as a date uncertain to allow the applicant and the applicant's agents to make some revisions and come back with an another design, a go around. Yeah. More detailed plans?

I'll cycle the most. Okay.

Any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Aye. Okay. Projects continue.

Thank you all.

Mhmm. Thank you for your time. Sorry for the I'll send you

the hearing recording so you

have all the discussion. Oh, we can send you the hearing recording information if you wanna review it. Okay. Alright. Wonderful. Yeah. Thanks. Oh, thank you. I forget it.

Yeah. Yeah. It's yeah.

All want when it's all said and done, it'll be great.

Thank And

Go ahead. Thanks. See you.

Okay. So other matters. Right along. Draft certified local government program. Thank you. Bye. Hopefully, you point to that, or you just point to that. I

think the easiest in the past couple of years, what we've done is I've just pulled it up, and we've scrolled through it.

Okay. Thank you. Alright.

I guess I I will say this should be changed January 9. It's just Mhmm. Legislative context. Mhmm. In the reporting period, we added two properties to the register, and we applied that stored resources zoning overlay in one of them.

This is all general plan information. They're all plan updates. This is the Sequa process. Most of it's, I think, the same as last year. Yeah.

We did bring one project from a responsible agency to the board for input. It's the one to create for replacement. I think the only section one zero six document we've reviewed and all yours have been here has been the bridge for replacement projects. Sometimes people reach out to me as the secretary, and usually it's an area of potential effect, and there's no resources there.

That was tremendous. I

have a question about it shows that my term ends at December '26. I've got a notice from staff that I needed to ask for reappointment, so I'm now clear.

Yeah. We'll be

sending that to PC. So we'll, if you could just send us the information. Oh, we'll send it up to you. We'll email you. So

Right? In

my files Correct. I don't have a copy of my latest appointment, so I can't verify this. Okay. I have communicated with the supervisor, with the changeover in history five. Yeah. They'll probably but if you have some documentation that shows that I've been there's three in three year terms, aren't they?

I think they're ours. Mine are very

Mine vary depending upon the I don't know why

I feel Depending how they feel at the time.

I get a feeling that they wanna get rid of you.

That's fine with me.

I mean, I'll double check with Alyssa.

It's when you get the one year. Yeah. Yep.

How about the month to month? Then

you're in trouble. Supervisor. No. I did get a

notice also, and I've submitted it in, and I believe they're pushing it through. It's hard to say. Yeah. Know that Melissa was working that working with that with that.

Okay. Okay. Next I see in there is like It's just good being every US.

Senate confirmation.

I'll have to give that person a callback. It's the third

time I've called them. Oh, I

don't know.

I don't know, but it could be it could be important to get caught. I

believe we have the resumes and statements qualification from everyone.

Has everyone sent in I've got my training here. Should I send it in, or can I just give it to you? Should I send it in or email it in?

If you could email it, but I'll also take it. Okay. I'll email it. Sure.

I think we're missing all these. Right?

I think she's on there. There's one. She'll be on there.

Yeah. That's, what, September? Yeah. Till September 2024.

Yeah. We're missing. It looks

like we're missing Sheila's as well.

Enjoy California preservation balance and stuff. Little good. Yeah. That is.

We will send the last email to both of them. If we don't receive anything, I think we're just going to submit to the state.

Okay. I have a question. It says there's no vacancy, but do do the people who who their term is expired, do they just automatically get reinstated? No. They just continue until they get reappointed or there's a replacement. Mhmm. They get reappointed. If Well, they they they they well, typically, they'll ask to get reappointed. But until that happens, they they are on the board, still as a member.

They're they remain on the board until somebody fills that position, whether it's somebody else or whether, they're reappointed in the same position. So, like, if somebody's term expires, they continue until that position is filled.

Oh, until somebody applies to replace them, is that right?

Somebody could apply to replace them, or they could request that they be reappointed, in which case they would continue in that, position. We didn't do any

sort of thing on that.

This is the same information on those three properties that we added to our register and zoning overlay. We also added two properties to the Mills Act. That was there's Bagley House and Rachel Las Palmas. This list of the design approvals we reviewed. These are the five things I have as the most critical preservation planning issues, preservation of point, century resources, the lack of context statements for each planning area to assist in evaluation of resources, ensuring that all projects are referred to the HRB for review and recommendation, loss slash damage due to demolitions and with them and insensitive remodels and contentious preservation projects.

You know, I know there one of the meetings when Craig was here, You know, I asked him about the issue we have where, you know, we need matching funds if we wanna do a grant or something. And and he said if we find one that we wanna do that, would look to get matching funds for us. So that's an option for us now that if we find we probably should decide what we wanna do or something or what's important for us to do. And then if there's a grant that comes up that we wanna do it, Craig will look at matching funds for us to do something.

Yeah. If you wanna

that would be amazing.

Mhmm. Let me What do

you think would be priority? Contact statements in some of our areas? You know, we talked about Carmel Valley. Carmel Valley. Right. There seems to be every once in a while, I see something pop up. It's like, oh, then I'm like, dang, man. We gotta get those. But we don't have one in the Farxet Valley.

I I guess the staff, I think, would probably be content statements and survey, but, like, at the lower urban, I guess, urbanized areas of the county. So, Carmel Valley is a good example. Just because the county is so rural, lot of the spread out resources are

And I I know she had brought it from the county also.

There's, like, Astroville, Pajaro, and Moss Landing, like, community areas Mhmm. Where they could do potential surveys. I think the more rural areas of Monmouth County would be difficult. We do have the two agricultural contexts.

Just ran across some old, old farm buildings that the county had no knowledge in there. They're driving on the tax accessor records. And I looked at it, and I'm like, these weren't built yesterday, guys.

I mean,

as you could tell by the redwood and the siding. These have been here, and they're in fabulous shape. But, strangely, they're up in one of the hills, just tucked away and was on private property for years and years and it was an old barn. And I'm like, nope. We're keeping this one. Saw our guys. And they go, well, the county says we gotta take them down. I'm like, those stay. The rest of his crap can go, but that stays. So we're it's You know, we used interesting to find them hidden Yeah. In the middle of nowhere that you don't even know they're there. Very good shape. Yeah. Very good shape.

Because we used to get a project from Los Landing at the outlet. Yeah. That's right. Haven't. They've done a lot of work out there. Yeah.

So North County, Carmel Valley. Carmel Valley has much more aggressive development, I think, than North County. I could be wrong. I don't you know, you guys see the permits coming and go up more than I do, but it just seems like I always see things

every something permits

Every time I drive by, something changes.

Yeah. I think there are pretty severe limit restrictions in locations in North County. Most of the permitting and work I see up there is either, like, an individual single family home Yeah. Construction or some kind of resource related permit, like a restoration permit or grading.

So I would think Carmel Valley might be more priority. Probably have more resources, historic resources there that maybe it'd be nice to identify. Know. And stuff that I know that we're tucked in all over out there. Because I walk in, no way to touch it.

There might be some interest in that. It also might depend on what's available. Like, some of the grants are, like, it needs to have a maritime focus and others are Yeah. Yeah. Like, tribal cultural resources, things like that.

Yeah. The two projects to the register. Last year, we had a goal of working with staff on training projects And work with staff to on an effort to update the county ordinance.

You know, we were gonna try and work with realtors too. Right. Right. To get, you know Yeah. Like a public health. Yeah. Yeah. So I think somebody was saying that even the city of Carmel or somebody had an within escrow where they have to check the box about historic. So it was identified through escrow about, like, potentially being historic or but, I mean, as long as we start with the or something, you know, like

Wait. This is for new.

So I didn't I think you put that in wrong

I did. Yeah. Yeah. I'll have question. Yes. I have a question. Of those I said I think it said 15 were granted the Mills Act program. So

were any of were any of the applications for the Mills Act program, were they were any of them denied?

No. The 15 is the total number of properties in our Mills Act program. Yeah. And then two were added in the reporting period, and another two were added in December, which was after this reports reporting period. But none of the Mills Act applications have been denied.

Okay. So are but are all of those 15, are they all in the District 5 of the county? No. No. No.

You know, we actually have the Mills Act coming up if you wanna wait for that. That's on the agenda to talk about. Oh, okay. So

Yeah. I don't wanna get ahead of myself here. Okay.

In terms of last year's goal goals, we haven't put training curriculum together. The long range work plan has a historic preservation ordinance. It's a low priority task.

As determined by the supervisors?

Yes, sir. The long range work programs by the by the board of supervisors. So they actually marked it down? Literally, they actually. I don't know when that's going back to the the PC or the board. I think Craig is working on the long range work program for the next year.

Oh, it's just a shame because we've done a lot of work in the past.

You did a lot of work on that?

I myself have got a a file of you know, a lot of work was done. Yeah. You know, it's not that we're starting from ground zero.

For the next year, the four goals I listed are to provide additional staff training. They need to work with staff in order to update the ordinance, update our public information to make the lists and what is historic easier to navigate. And then I just added work realtors in the public to find information and sort of resources.

K.

And then f and g are regarding things that we might want assistance from the opposite historic preservation on. One was targeted training on loss or damage of resources through unpermitted demolition and demolition by neglect. Then we had some other listed training ideas. I may be forgetting it. What is CABO?

California Builders Building Officials. Album. It's basically where all the building officials get together and yuck it up. No. And share. Yeah. It's a organization that represents, building officials and thus building codes and the and the historic code

would be one of them.

It's really, yeah, related to the next item about the historic building code.

That was all I had in the draft.

Thank you. Looks good. Mhmm. One. Little what? I

think after you make a take a request for training, and if you don't get a response, let's just send it in what it is so we can meet the deadline. Uh-huh.

Will do. Okay.

Okay. Done with that. So item three is discussion of accounting. Part of that's here. I asked it to be here because I'm meeting with my supervisor that wants to get rid of the NOSAC.

What? I just abolish it? Just I didn't hear you.

Oh, I said I asked for this to be on the agenda because I have a meeting with my supervisor who's not happy with the NOSAC. Things that just supports the rich, and and and is questioning whether we should have it or not. Okay. So and I got that meeting coming on the twentieth. So the question you know, a couple things. You know? We've we've got that cap that was established a long time ago. Okay. And, you know, part of the situation that I've talked to Megan, she goes, well, all my clients that asked for the mills, have bought expensive properties because that's, you know, that's what they cost. Right?

A lot of the historic you know, costs a lot of money. So the question is, you know, I mean, just because they're spending a lot of money, should they be prejudiced against using Mills Act just because, you know, you're saying, well, you know, I spent 20,000,000 for this house, so you shouldn't have the Mills Act. But but they're the ones that can afford buying property to keep it historic. And so why shouldn't they be able to use those? Yeah. You know, it's one of those policy questions. Right? Mhmm. You're asking, is it only for the ones I do or so we can't afford it? But, I mean, everything around here, I mean, five oh, you know, you know, what you know?

I mean, what's the the question came up, is the cap too low to be that need to be considered a cap? Because I was looking. It was, like, of the five out of 17 were over the cap. Yeah. And Then we I was trying to find out how many, like, residences there are dwelling units there are in county, you know, So

the reason for the cap was that we're trying to put some guardrails on the loss of revenue to the county. Yes. That's the reason for the cap. What if there were no cap?

It'd be the same number of applicants, the same number of requests. I don't think it would change anything. Because those would either. The five that came in that they were over, and they justified why they were over. I'll be honest. I would love to get the Act on my house. I know it's not historic, but the property taxes are killing us. So and the maintenance on them. That's what's happened. Every every project that has come forward were in need of made In need of repairs.

I

mean, it wasn't like, oh, this is pristine. I just wanna save the tax money. I mean, they all justified justifiable budgets on how they were gonna spend the money. There

may have been applicants that looked at the cap exception process and then decided not to submit. Oh. But, yeah, everyone who has applied over the cap has been approved. Yeah.

But, I mean, you know, I talked to Megan. She, you know, she has, you know, clients that have expensive problems that are, you know, historic. And she goes she keeps sending one to apply for the. You know? And it's like, you know, are you gonna battle the cap by too much? Or and everybody I've talked to that's done in said the tax credit they get is never it's way below what they spent.

Right? Yeah.

I mean, it doesn't Yeah. I mean, it's an incentive in a way, but it never matches their expenses that they have to pay to to take care of the Yeah.

The store. So Yeah. I I the cap, I mean, I don't think I mean, if we adjusted the cap up, which we've heard a lot of public outrry for it, and I I understand that. But it hasn't stopped anybody from actually applying and getting it that we know of. Or maybe they're just saying they see it and they just run. I'm not sure. Maybe people have asked you and said, oh, yeah. There's a cap. Forget it. And they just left thinking that they can't justify it.

And if that's the case, then maybe

It's hard

for me to tell. Most of the people that do ask regarding the MILLS Act do end up applying.

Yeah. But if somebody has a $20,000,000 house

Yeah. I think it may be discouraging for people who have the 20 to the $45,000,000 house that may see it and not apply, but, that may be where it's it's not the type of the

plan is. It's I'm wondering what kind of chance they would have that.

Yeah. They might be discouraged because the caps are are lower or in yeah. I think

this is an ongoing discussion at the board of supervisors level. The other element of this cap is also all these public agencies have limited resources. Do the people that have $20,000,000 home need the relief in order to do the maintenance?

Not only that supervisors are elected at political positions. We don't. We're here for history. And

the thing

is what they're

up I mean, that's the incentive to maintain and keep the historic structures. I mean, that's the purpose of it. Mhmm. So if you don't give them an incentive to maintain and keep the historic structures, then they can go in and do whatever they want. I don't I don't Yeah. There there is that offset. I mean, as we get into the building code of this store, if if it's historic, it can be deemed historic. If it can be deemed it doesn't say it has to. It just says if it meets the criteria to be deemed historic, the historic building code also kicks in. And that says you'd preserve.

So I'm I mean and everybody says, well, that's an election. You get to elect to use that building code. And but you go to that historic review board, and they said, uh-uh. That's mandated law. So we get into a area of fog. You know? Oh, it's not historic. It hasn't been deemed historic. Doesn't matter. Building code says, if it qualifies to me, then you have to follow the historic code, which allows a lot of movement, but it's a mandate. It's a law. And so it's like, nah. I don't wanna use that because you know? And so everybody's you got to. So but that's the incentive.

You know? The Mills Act is that incentive to maintain and keep those structures because, otherwise, who's watching? Who's gonna know?

People try and bend around it.

Correct. Yeah. But, you know, five out of the 17 we have is properties. We're over the cap. Yeah. So when you think of you know, I was trying to see how many dwelling units are there. I didn't get I don't know what the real number is of all the but, I mean, if you figure how many homes and apartments and everything there is and how much tax they're getting, you know, we're talking about pennies. Yeah. I mean, you're talking about 70 houses. Right? And the whole county.

What is yeah. What was the full tax revenue from property taxes, and how much was reduced by the Males Act? I it would be an interesting number to know.

That's what I was curious. I mean, because, I mean, you're looking at, like, 17 out of the whole county. You know? Mhmm. Every home in the county, and that can't. You know? And five of those were over the cap.

So It can't be a huge percentage of loss.

I don't know how much they're losing, but

and you have some information.

I would think someone would have asked that at the board level, but at the supervisor board level, but I don't know.

What would I have?

One thing that I never thought was really tied down on the Mills Act is when they come in and show us their maintenance costs. And, well, it's gonna cost this much for the windows. Significant feature. It's gonna cost so much for the sides, so much for the roof, so much for this. But then they get into landscaping. Okay. That's culture. That, I agree with, to a to an extent. But then septic tank. Well, it's part of the plumbing. You never see it. It's not a historic feature. Yeah. Boy, you sure do. They gotta pay yeah.

But so then we gotta pave the road, then then we gotta put the property fence line up. So it's never really cut and dry where repair and maintenance costs. What constitutes those? This is quite a report. Yikes. Who prepares this? Someone's working it.

That was that was me. I'm impressed. We were did not support Young's project initially, but it was approved.

Okay.

And I think that was that where you were talking about how much you spent?

Yes. So I just

I'm never hearing it. I just can't remember.

It's sort of intangible how much in terms of public policy, the fact that we do have a program that incentivizes historic preservation. That's the big argument, I think.

So the total savings annual was estimated to be about $375,000 each year, and that was from last year. So because those projects were approved, the total the annual bills act property production is about $400,000.

Okay. And what is the what does Monterey County pull in last year for property taxes?

Great.

Alright. That's gotta be a big number.

I do not know.

Bigger than 400,000.

Yes. You wanna talk about it in another

time? He's

like, no.

I'd love to, but Awesome. Kelly's not here.

Yeah.

Hi, Craig. Good to

see you

Good to

see you too.

Yeah.

Sorry about that.

No problem. I have a question.

What what is the cap for the county? I know where Salinas is a 100,000. What is it for the counties?

3,000,000.

Do you mean the cap on savings or, because the way our program is structured is there's a cap on the property value to enter into a contract, but then there is a cap on the amount of tax savings received.

The the amount of tax savings received. For for Salinas, I think it's a 100,000.

I don't remember. We don't actually cap that value. We only cap, if a property if a residential property is valued above $3,000,000, we either wouldn't approve a Mills Act contract or they need to make some additional justifications for why they need an exception to that $3,000,000 cap.

Well, everything is worth everything in

Monterey County is more than $3,000,000. Right?

Not every month, but A lot of things are A

lot of things are.

We have our share.

That does force an evaluation and a commitment and a public statement on the part of the property owner. Yeah. I mean, it has to be justified.

Right.

That involves

Only a a portion of this goes to the County Of Monterey. A lot of it is divided up to school districts, redevelopment agencies Yeah. The cities. I think the the county receives a much smaller portion of it.

Yeah. That's why I was looking at the 400,000 is coming off of the revenue that the tax assessor would take. So my question is how much does a tax assessor get in that year? Is it a 1%? I mean, it's 400,000 point 01%, point 00001%. You know? Oh. May because you know that tax bill. You know, if they sat down, they got, what, nine registers down down up the tax people, and they're at least five of them are always open. 24, you know, every day of the week.

But it

There's people down there handing them big big checks.

There is a poll one of the things that came up at the last board hearing was do we only look at the fiscal impact to the county, or do we look at the fiscal impact to to everyone?

Yeah. It should be everyone. And that's why I was looking at it as a percentage of what

they call.

Yeah. Because if it's, like, 25%, okay. Maybe we should reconsider. But I'm I'm thinking it's a pretty small and yeah. So it's

like at 3,000 or 5,000? So I kept 3,000.

The It's 3,000,000. It's 3,000,000 for residential properties. I believe it's 5,000,000 for commercial properties. And most of the historic resources have been single family residences. Mhmm.

There. So most of the board's screaming about the cap, I guess, because that's gonna because like we say, I mean, 3,000,000. You know?

What is it gonna take for us to change it, to up it? Just an amendment to the ordinance? Mhmm.

That would require an amendment to the ordinance.

And that would get sent all the way through

the ordinance. For tax receipts for property tax

People who are questioning.

Yeah. Is it I think it 400,000

is 1%. Now there's your art essentially the historical properties of

the county.

Yeah. We have a very historic county. Not exactly wasting money.

It might raise questions on whether the cap is effective in doing what it's intended to do, whether it should be a cap or it should be, like, a cap on the amount of property tax savings received so there isn't all of these extra findings.

Yeah.

That would be an interesting switch. It could be a cap on the amount of

property tax. I believe you're

a cap on property taxes. As

part of this, we're in no agreement. I know the city of Monterey. I've done several of these spells acts with the city of Monterey, and they do require they go in every couple years and take a look at them. Make sure they're being maintained and that they're following their their agreement. Do we have any of that?

Yeah. That's all we're checking up. You see it's every year or something?

Or they are supposed to submit reports annually to me.

That happened regularly? I'm just asking.

Yeah. I

would forget.

Many of them are very diligent, and many of them I haven't heard from ever.

Oh, okay.

So now there's funny noises.

It's usually like yeah. It's the ones that submit it submit it every single year. The ones that

Right on.

Don't submit it have never submitted it, and we've never told them, hey. We need you to submit.

I've ridden my bike by some of the homes we've approved in Pebble Beach, and the ones we have all looked great. They've they've done everything. Oh, there you go. Considering

the value of properties, like I said, I bought properties couple 100,000 and now been valued in the millions. So just based on that alone, I would think the 3,000,000 cap might be considered low for our area. Maybe not for Nebraska. Or Mhmm. But definitely for this area, I think 3,000,000 gap would be considered low for residential.

Sorry. I'm won't be testing.

That's okay. I just wanted to make that statement because we're kinda getting stuck here.

3 and 52 of the total taxes left? Mhmm. Or is that just all real estate?

I just wanted to say

that I just read because I'm from San Jose, and I just read that the median for a house in San Jose is the highest in the nation. It's, like, oh, 2,000,000 or something. And so this area is much higher than San Jose.

So did we say that right? The receipts were a little over $1,000,000,000?

I want to make sure. The assessor, the next page provides a summary of taxes that will be for fiscal year 2023 to 2024. I believe that that is 2023 to 2024. Total taxable value was $89,000,000,000, and the total tax levy was 1,000,000,000.

Yeah. It's gonna

be well under 1%.

Mister Supervisor. Mister excuse me. I haven't got a lot of information. I'll come through several.

Yeah. I know.

I think it it seems to me that the 3,000,000 cap is probably low based on the the facts on the ground. However, the the thing to argue is that it does limit the loss of tax revenue to the county. And we do have a provision for exceptions, which is pretty rigorous. And so I think it is working. I think it's a balance.

It's a it's like so many of the things in public policy. There are many things that have to just sort of be compromised and reconciled. I think it's it is it as far as we have seen, it's it's working.

Okay.

And I can see why having that figure there, it gives the supervisor some level of comfort that we're not.

Absolutely. The numbers say it there.

400,000

is a pretty good investment in the history

of the county. I

hope that helps, John. Good luck in your meeting. You

gotta bring a return on investment. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.

Okay. Well, something's just in the back of our minds about how we're moving forward. So any other discussion on that right now? We're talk okay. No. So one thing just to bring up, Stella and I have been working with planning on two violations planning violations. One in Sprinkles, and one is the seagullish house Yeah. In Carmel that's on a point with Big Rock. You They've know, been working that she's been mentioning. K. And so they finally have the red tag on it. Which house is this? It's on right past the Frank Lloyd Warehouse. You're right. The Butterfly House. Yeah.

Yeah. It's

got Big Rock and I grew by their. And we do that without permits and stuff for years. Yeah.

They were under remodel in 2009. So

we had a walk through out there with Liz and their permit expediter or whatever. And then I've got another walk through with May out there next Tuesday. But in the meantime, it's been red tagged. So Took a while. And it's gonna, according to this, we're gonna have to go through a whole coastal development permit. So Alright.

Were they doing any changes to the exterior? A lot.

Their initial permit, I do not believe included any of those.

Yeah. Because I remember looking at that commit years ago, and it was purely I mean, they have some severe damage to that house.

That's the big one I'm

Big idea. The big steel columns are just rotted.

Yeah. Because they're in

terrible weather.

Yeah.

And they were going in and cutting out section of metal and fixing it.

They fixed a lot of it. Yeah. But yeah. So, anyway, that's Okay.

That's Just to give

you an update that that's what we've been spending some time doing. And then, also, we do have election of officers. So the question is, you know, like, Mel

That needs to get agendized

for the next meeting?

Yes. Okay.

Only nominated you, didn't we?

You sure?

I