Historical Advisory Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, I'm sorry.

So I'm going to call to order the Thursday, February 5, May 26, meeting of the Monterey County Historic Resources. Can have a roll call, please?

John Skorkis. Here. Kelly Morgantini. Here. Michael Billett. Here. Judy McLean. Present. Sheila Prater. Absent. Sal Munoz. Belinda Talubin? Not present.

Should I move on to the Zoom protocol? Yes, please.

Alrighty. Only staff and board members' video should be on. Members of the public should have their video turned off unless they are presenting. This helps with the bandwidth and helps reduce 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 platform, there is a mute button at the bottom of the screen that looks like a microphone. To mute yourself, if you called in, press 6. To participate during public comment on the Zoom platform, you can raise your hand by opening reactions at the bottom of your screen and clicking the raised hand icon. If you've called in, you can raise and lower your hand by pressing star nine.

Another way you can participate is by sending an email to the HRVhearingcomments@countymoderate.govemail. This email address can also be found on the agenda for today's meeting. Staff are monitoring that email, so if you have a question, comment, or documents, staff will do our best to respond in real time.

K. Thank you. So I'm gonna open the floor to public comment on non agenda items that are under the purview of the board. Anybody need to speak at this time? Anybody on? It doesn't look like there's anyone online. Okay. So I'll close the floor to public comment. Is there any, agenda additions? Yes.

For the record, we received and distributed additional correspondence for agenda item number one, which is E L N 240141 Carmel Valley map. And there's additional copies on the back table of

the room if the public would

Do you have that in our packet? Okay. So we'll move on to scheduled matters. First one is PLN 2 Over 0141 Carmel Valley Manor. Public hearing to consider recommendations in the Monterey County Planning Commission for combined development permit.

Dual alterations of Carmel Valley Manor, including the demolition of two residential units. Resident guest units to move followed by the construction of 19 new independent living residential units and eight visitor guest units. Additional new construction would include 12 bed, assisted living memory care facility, and additions to the existing fitness center and meeting house. The project also proposes the removal of approximately 57 protected oak trees and 12 nonslip, exceeding 25%. Project location is 8545 Carmel Valley Road in Carmel with. Certainly.

Were all the board members here present at last month's meeting? No.

I don't know if they'll No.

But I'm I would listen to

it later on. You probably recall that we had a lengthy conversation that actually almost all focused on the Los Arvalis extension, the five houses to be demolished and reconstructed. And that has, as we briefly discussed, been dropped from the project description. I'd like to I have some a few public comments I can quickly respond to, but if I could, I'd like to defer to the applicant, to present a new project. As described, the really, the only the the primary difference is there will be no construction on Los Arbelius, and five additional, duplex units will be added to the main existing property of Carmel Valley Mariner.

So if I may, I would defer to the applicant to present, and I can respond to public comments before or afterward.

Okay. Public comments? No. It's Sure. Okay. I'm sorry. No.

I I thought I'd just step in. Joel Panzer on behalf of Carmel Valley Manor. Jay Zimmer, the president and CEO, is here today. He's he's one of their board members. So in the last month, we took to heart the comments that were received from both the public and the committee members on removing the Los Arbolas proposal out of the project.

And you'll see that when, Ashley Chung with Perkins Eastman presents, in a moment. The those units, the the 10 units, the independent living units are now on the historic campus footprint. They're outside of the perimeter road. Miss Chung will talk about sort of the the architectural integrity with the existing, building designs that are there. So I think we've tried to be very responsive to the committee's request.

And I would say that throughout the process, we've had the HRRB subcommittee. We've had the Carmel Valley land use advisory committee. When we've received feedback, we've been responsive and and made changes. So that leads me up to just a very brief comment. The public comment service, an email that the project planner received just before five 05:00 yesterday, asking about project description and project applications.

I I would just say that I've been doing land use planning for about forty years. You always start off with a project application, and it gets refined throughout the process. What's being asked is to to fill out a new application, which has implications to my way of thinking. And it's just it's a practice that is not done. If to take it to an extreme, the changes we made for the HRRB subcommittee under the the opinions or the the comments expressed here would have required us to fill out a new application, a new application here.

The planning commission of the MH it's just not done. What happens are is projects do get refined. The project application, the project descriptions are memorialized in the staff report project description get uploaded to Acela. So I don't I don't think that issue has has merit from my perspective. And that's all I can think of. We'll be available for any responses,

but let

me turn it over to miss Chung and then Seth Bergstein with past consultants, our historian, will follow-up and offer comments. And, again, while we're speaking today, instead of revisiting the the project, as miss Morgantini mentioned, she's reviewed the tape and is aware of the prior discussion, We're just gonna focus on what the HRB asked us to study and what we presented to mister Mason to hold into the project record. So with that, I'll

turn So let me ask you something, Joel. So the the five units that you had, those homes, you're taking what was there and and made it on the campus now on the property?

Let me back up. So the the the original part of that is when we did the project development review process with the county, you know, we could have put ADUs over there and was, you know, let's just not do that. Let's try to get a uniform look. Based on the public comments last time, Los Arbol's completely out, completely not part of this project. But to get the unit numbers are, what miss Chunghwa told indicate to you is there'll be 10 independent living units outside or to the West side of the Loop Road.

Part of the existing guest unit footprint will be redeveloped as a four or a a duplex four units, and then there's a triplex six units, just below that. So that's that's how we're responding. We're just getting those units completely off of Los Arbolus and moving them back over to campus. And it still falls below, I think, where it's a 169 units. The 1962 per 1960 permit allowed for a 172 or a hundred seventy four?

One seventy two. One seventy five.

A 172 units. So we're still coming four units below that that approved camp back in the day. So with that, I'll turn it over to miss Chung.

Thank you, Chung.

Thank you, Chung. So that

is a great overview. Go here. So as an overview of what we'll talk about today, we'll just briefly recap. So we have three items that we discussed with the HRRP last time. So the first two was towards the historic core of the campus, which were additions to the fitness center and the meeting house.

And the third topic that Joel mentioned we'll focus the rest of our time on the majority of his time on is for the independent living area, specifically at the Upper IL area and how it addresses those comments that we received last time for the Los Arbolas area. So as a recap, this is, the response from the subcommittee comments for the fitness center edition, so the pop up to the roof, so that the two shed roofs can speak together as one unit. And for the meeting house addition, the pop up on the right side, also a response to the subcommittee comment, which is to create that hyphen between the old and the new, for the two masses. So to talk about the independent living units and our approach, we wanted to go back to our overall project goals, but specifically for the ones in orange, which are the independent living locations. And this is what we had previously, presented and had discussed with the board.

But since those comments and feedback have been received, we wanted to still focus on providing larger and also uniform housing on the campus, but striking the five house slots from the project so that we are, respecting that area, but instead finding those five independent living units addition count elsewhere on the rest of the main campus. So to look at how we were citing all of the independent living units, we did talk last time about how important the element of the Loop Road is to the campus, how it connects the campus for the the residents, but also how it connects the independent living units around the Loop Road. It's located there so that the residents go from their homes across the Loop Road into the historic core where all of the amenities are. So to find a location for where those independent living units would go, there were really only two opportunities, that seems to have open space, from a master plan perspective given that we had already located, let's see. On the bottom, the southeast portion for the hillside units, we already had proposed

let's see.

Five upper independent living units on the northwest portion of the campus, and so that's something that we kept in mind. And the other location is the open beautiful entry line, which is not open for discussion, because it's really historic core, and it's adjacent to the meeting house. And it's really part of this beautiful procession as you enter into the campus. And so this led us to really conclude that we needed to densify the upper independent living area so that instead of having the footprint of five independent living units on the Ground Floor, we build a second Floor to accommodate and reach that 169 total unit count that Joel had mentioned previously. So next, I'll walk you through how kind of what before and after, if you may, for how the siding was done for this particular area.

This is what we had for Delta 2 and what we had discussed last time where the five lots had the proposed demolition off of Los Arbolas Road, the five single family dwelling homes. And since then, having received the comments, they're no longer part of our master plan proposal, and this is the demolition plan. The demolition plan had made way for the previous master plan proposal, but this is no longer what we're proposing. This is the master plan proposal that we are having with the new site plan located at Number 2 with, the three triplex on the bottom, two floors, so a total of six units. And on the north side, a duplex, footprint, but four total units, two floors.

This is what it looks like in a conceptual three d version. This is what we had before, and this is what we would like to propose now with the two story addition. So when we speak of two story addition, we do have that building typology already on the campus. And so we took a look backwards to see what is already on present on-site. We have the existing floor plan and the elevations and a photo of what this massing looks like.

We started to note the circulation core and how it's really organized on the building plan, but also how the shed roofs do come together to create those courtyards that we had previously discussed last time. When we started to apply it to the site on the Northwest part of the campus, we did notice that there were three existing access ways on this area and two of which are to Los Arbolas Road, parcels that Carmel Valley Manor owns. And we did want to respect that, but also work with the grading. So in green, we can see that the grade slopes from high to low, right to left. So with respect to locating this upper IL units, We already had two footprints, two building configurations present, but we wanted to respect the roadway connections off of Los Orvelis Road.

So clouded are the locations that we had, identified for where the massing would go, but also starting to recognize that they need to be two separate masses. So how can we look at the existing building plan and respect the original organization as well as how the reforms can come together, but separately. With respect to the sites, what I have dashed in the two rectangles are the footprints of the origin the guest houses that will now be demolished. And so that's a a footprint that we can work with as part of this building massing, but also recognizing the cloud on the left side has a grade going from high to low, right to left. With Woodson, our civil engineers on the project, they're also online for this, meeting for discussion.

We did take a look at various upper independent living configurations. We first started with, keeping in mind the goal, right, that we want larger and uniform housing across the campus. So what you see on the top is actually the, the hillside unit plan, but we put it on the site here. And then we found that the site was quite constrained given the loop road that is going off of the south side of the sites. And so we pursued other, configurations in which the unit plan is actually a little bit wider but narrower so that we can fit it within this area.

And so we moved forward with the configuration on the bottom, and this is some conceptual elevations that we developed. So for f one, the building on the left side, you can also note to work with the grading that's stepping up, going from left to right. The 1st Floor does have to go with the grade, but we maintain the same datum level for the 2nd Floor. And for f two on the right side, the building can really be on the same plane off of the Ground Floor given that we're kind of working with the similar grading of the existing guest units. In three dimension, this is what it starts to look like.

And what I'm highlighting here are the shed roofs. So the roofs do pitch up towards the property lines, to the back and the adjacent side of the site.

Let's see.

Oh, no. Sorry. Technical technicalities.

Let's see.

Okay. That's okay. So so the roof pitches up towards the property line. And so speaking of the property line, we now wanna talk about, something that we wanted to bring to the board for consideration, which is a setback variance request. So this is that wider and narrower unit plan and how we locate it on the site with respect to the 20 foot setback that exists as it is right now.

What I've highlighted here are something that we observed with this configuration is that the building and the site plan is really abutting the loop road to the south, and that's not, something that is preferable from a site planning perspective, but also from an experiential standpoint. And so we were exploring how else we could fit this, wider and narrower unit configuration on this site. So we shifted it north. And so for the board's consideration, we would like to request a 12 foot variance off of this side all the way to the property line. And this would put the units a little bit further to the west if you're looking at it from, like, the geographically speaking.

In Los Arbolas, the properties to the north, which are owned by Carmel Valley Manor Road, would be to the north of this area. This is our requested area is noted in blue, but we also took a step back also to see if, how this fit in with the rest of the campus and what may have been done for. And we did note that there were three areas in green where, under the 1987 permit, we did have buildings, that were located with lesser setbacks but without variances. So this is some this is a new item, given all of the site constraints and then responding to, your feedback that we would like the board to consider. And so this is where the final master plan proposal lands right now, after all of our studies from last month.

And so we would like to kind of take a pause here, and then, thank you for your time and consideration.

K. Thank you. Thanks,

Hi, everybody. Seth Bergstein, principal of PASC consultants. Ashley just did a great job of presenting what the pro that's the process we went through based on our meeting of a month ago. So we are we're not doing any work right now proposed on the low sulfur leased properties. And by moving the, the independent living units up into the Northwest, we're keeping it outside the core campus.

No impacts to the core campus, particularly the lawn as you come up as you come up from the Carmel Valley Manor entrance. As far as what's being removed, we have circuit 2,000 buildings being removed. It's two guesthouses and a four, I believe it's four total, four carports constructed outside the period of certificates for Carmel Valley Manor, which is, of course, nineteen sixty two, sixty three.

And then

oh, the only other the only other thing I that I noted was, you know, these buildings do differentiate a little bit from the existing buildings, which I think is good. We're still utilizing shed roofs. We're doing a different pitch, but we're differentiating, and we're also placing it outside the core campus. So in that area, it it it literally looks like an additional layer now applied to the applied to the site with historic core maintained. That's that's really the summary of all all the historic issues right now. I think the biggest priority for us was was how much we wanted to respond to public feedback about those are beliefs.

So how about the scale of those buildings, Seth, compared to the historic buildings? Is there

I think they're mass similar to the two story you showed earlier. You know, they're the the one to the south is is longer probably than the than the malt the two stories that you see in the in the core campus, but we're still using the design typologies that SOM used. Yep. So, arguably, you don't wanna make them the same anyway. So material standard number number five is, you know, materials, cladding, form and massing.

You do you wanna you wanna maintain these these this aspect, and then you move to standard nine, and standard nine says, well, how do we differentiate? And You there's no doubt. I mean, to us, to our trained eye, we could see differentiation a mile away, but you wanna make it a little more explicit. So we varied the roof pitch, and the massing. The detailing is a little different, but material palette's the same.

Okay. That's Any questions on the board? Yes. And

and I just wanted to make one further clarification in terms of what Ashley Chung had indicated. The the use permit, there's a couple conditions that are pretty specific. It talks about all start structures being subject to design control and approved by the planning commission, which is the hearing ultimate hearing body for this application. Each use has to be approved by the planning commission, which is part of what we're doing. But, there's another condition of approval that says that the location of all structures be approved by the planning commission staff prior to construction.

So, I guess the question comes in, you know, given sort of the overall master planning concept that was approved, the three examples that, miss Chung had cited, you know, is it a variance, or is it just part of complying with that condition of approval under the original use permit? And as she explained, there's the pinch point over the if you had to recite those units, there's only really, in my mind, three locations to their ones that that's viable, which is the current location. And she described the pinch point of the road, then you've got the property line. You would not take out that horticultural landscape, area that approaches it's part of the rival experience. Experient experiential?

How did she friends? Whatever she said it was good because it really it it it sets a tone as you arrive on campus. And then the final place you go is is where we've got the adjacent parking, but that also serves as stormwater detention because of its location. So that really was kind of a nonstarter. So, that's all I have to add. And and we if there's any public comments, we'd like the opportunity to, engage with the board after you hear from the public. Thank you.

I have a question. I was curious. None of our purview at all. But when you say variance, how much of a variance? How close to the property line? Two feet, 20 feet, or Eight.

What's it? Eight? Eight and a half? Eight.

And what's the required? 20.

It's a 20 foot setback. The one building below these units at long green shape was approved 1987 under a building permit. I think that's got a 12 foot six inch setback. And then the other two units over there, I think they they just about touch on the the property line. So But just

to clarify, we're we're reducing from 20 to 12. We're not reducing to eight. I just wanted to clarify that. So it's an

eight foot reduction. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. May I ask questions from the points right now?

It's well, it's just in in the future. I know Yeah. There was a lot of discussion, I know, last time about our bonus. But is there gonna be future plans for the Los Arbolus area, or have yeah. Were the previous discussions and comments, cutting off any future development or, you know, redesign or anything?

Shay, do you wanna?

No. We we have we have no, particular plans for that area other than to continue to maintain and and upgrade, those units as as they change hands.

As I and I'm sorry. You're mister Zimmer? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

So, you know, the issue we had with those units was historic reports on those units. So if you proceed with something Understood. Okay. Yeah. Understood. Mhmm. Yes. Probably let me let me open it to public comments. K? So right now, I'll open the board, and then I'll floor up to public comment so anybody on public can speak.

Yeah. Good afternoon. John Anzini. Nice to see you all today. Thank you very much.

And, of all, I wanna commend Jay for the decisions that they've made. I think that they will make a big difference for our local area, and I think it'll be more advantageous for people who actually wanna transition from a a general living condition to utilizing the existing Adobe houses that are there. I think it's a a very wise decision. And my question to to Jay and to to Joel are the group and also, actually, the green is there are units that are right there. Are they are those gonna be two story?

They're gonna stay one story, or is it just because I I couldn't

read the thing. Those are existing.

Those are sites that are under permits right now.

Those are existing.

Those are existing. That's just showing the set that is showing the variances

we've gotten on setbacks over the years.

So so

in the green there, that's an existing construction. Construction.

Okay. So that's not gonna change. No. Okay. That was just Okay. Great. Because I have a house. My house is right on that property line on the back. And I think I only have, like, a one foot setback from my property. It's because it's

All in the stuff.

Built in 1927.

Anyway, Sharon's sushi

It's already out of the bag, though.

I know. I'm sorry.

It is. Didn't read the incorrectly.

But thank you very much, and I wanted to thank you for your participation and taking care of this and helping all of us come to an amicable decision as to what we're gonna do to benefit the public in on Los Arbiles Road and also the manner that they've done a great job. And we appreciate the work that you do. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair, any public comment? Anybody else like to speak at this time on a public comment?

There's no one else in the room. There is hand up for Molly Erickson.

Okay. Molly?

Thank you, mister chair, members of the board. Molly Erickson, on behalf of interested property owners. First, thank you very much for your consideration and action at the last meeting. You took a lot of time and focus and attention, and I think you came up with the right answer, which is this applicant needs to comply with the phase one requirement just like any other applicant would. This is now the second hearing, and there's a significant change to the project.

And a highly unusual thing here is that there is not a single mention of the January hearing before the HRRB or of any of the facts subsequent to that hearing. It's not mentioned in the staff report or the resolution that's before you to be adopted or the initial study. Now, you do not have a complete description of the revised project from the applicant in one place. You've got a handful of pages that have the wrong dates on them and thus confuse the issue further, but you don't have a written description signed from the applicant telling you what the revised project would be. In short, since everything to do with applications and real property needs to be in writing, you don't have an effective revision to the application.

So I urge you not to be misled by the applicant's comments. Of course, projects frequently change over time. The problem is the county has a worrisome history of mixing up records that are not properly dated or using the incorrect records, including documents that decision makers have never adopted. And it's because of the lack of adequate dating and statements regarding whether documents were actually the revised version or the draft version or the proposed version or the adopted version. Carmel Valley Ranch, another large property in Carmel Valley, has an county has a very checkered and unfortunate history by with using the incorrect records in that for projects there.

In fact, in a case I was involved in, the county actually presented an incorrect version of a master plan to the Superior Court as the actual adopted document. So I urge you that by far the best approach procedurally here would be to continue the item to correct and revise the staff report and the resolution, to refer to the January hearing before the HRRB and the action and direction you made, and to describe the subsequent actions by the applicant and to allow time for a revised application with a signature and proper dates attached to the plans to be submitted. At the very least, if you do not have the inclination to have another hearing on this, I urge you that you should direct at least two things be added to the resolution that's before you. First, to add a whereas. The whereas should say something along the lines of, whereas on 01/08/2026, the HRRB held a public hearing and took public comments from numerous interested parties, considered the application information presented, and directed that phase one reports were required for the single family residential properties on Los Arbilis.

Subsequent to the January 8 public hearing, the applicant indicated that it would withdraw all proposed changes on the Los Arbolas properties and withdraw the proposed personal mergers. The HRRB action today is based on that representation of the modified project. That whereas would provide the missing facts and history that are nowhere in the resolution before you today, and it would clarify it for future reference. And critically, the resolution should add an action, add a third finding if you do adopt approval. Add a third finding.

Currently you have two findings. It should add a third that specifically says this action is as to the modified project that is limited to the original core campus parcel only and that has abandoned any effort to merge or make changes to the Los Arbolas parcels, end quote. And I'd be happy to email those to Steve and Armida. This is critical to show what your resolution is based on, what your action would be based on, and that it in fact, the project has changed and that you even held a public hearing in January. You worked hard on at January.

You heard a lot of public comment. You had excellent discussion, and you made a very clear and and strong and expert direction as a result. That is what needs to be in your resolution today if you're going to adopt it. Whereas, stating the specific histories from the January 8 public hearing and a finding stating that if you do approve the or recommend the the commissioner planning commission approve the project, that this action, the HRRB action is as to the limited project, the modified project limited to the original core campus parcel only, and that has abandoned any effort to merge or make changes to the less on list parcels. So I'm happy to email those over right now, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

I think your action needs to be as clear as possible for the subsequent decision makers who rely on your expertise and your advisory recommendation. Thank you very much for your time, and I'm happy to respond to any questions that you or perhaps the applicant may have.

Okay. Thank you, doc. Just let me see about public comment here. Is there any other public comment? It

doesn't look like there's any hands up

on Zoom as I would issue to us. Okay.

I was gonna well, Molly reiterated a lot what was under her letter, but I wanted to point out that project description is actually in at least three places in addition to Acela, the report that was emailed to the HRB members on January 30, and also on the, staff report attached to the res attached to the hearing information on the county hearing web page. Also, the prior hearing is a matter of public record. Also, there was some concern about the initial study being a draft version. I would point out the section of CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act that leads to us including these in your reports, one five zero seven four a, stating any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision making body shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation, emphasis on the word proposed. Finally, as pointed out, the the plans, even the updated last one, still carry a January 2025 hearing date.

And you probably hadn't noticed that a revised application form hadn't been included because we typically don't include those because they have little to any information about historic resources. They're a standard form with a one paragraph description. So those are typically not included. But one other public comment was received from a I believe it's Judy Weisztommel. Also, miss Ranzini left me a voice mail, but pretty much reiterated it. And Judy Weisztommel, who I believe also lives hope I'm pronouncing that right, lives

on most

of our release, just said, fantastic news. Thank you for letting me know in reference to the revised project description.

Would you spell her last name, Judith Feistunnel? F e I s t h a m e l. Thanks. Just

just very quickly, it's a Carmel Valley matter, listening to Ms. Erickson. We have no objection to her the recommended language to the resolution. Of course,

we'd like to review it,

you know, But but generally speaking, based on what I've heard, we have no objection. Okay.

Thank you. So, before we have any comment, I think it was heard from Molly and the applicant. Do have any thoughts?

I just well, I think another whereas doesn't hurt. It's just we're not changing anything. And from what I remember looking at what was proposed the first time and what's proposed the changes now is what we had in our packet, but it doesn't hurt to clarify to say that there's been there was a meeting before and that there were some changes that were that were included. It does show, you know, the that the applicant was released with the HRB on comments and in consideration. So I think you know, whether it would be aware as number four or five, but I'd put it around that area someplace.

And Steve is actually correct. All the all the environmental documents are draft until they're adopted. We luckily don't have that luxury of adopting any kind of environmental document, but we are recommending to the board if we adopt this resolution that it

would be adopted. It should be, like, whereas number two. Number one basically says we had the January meeting. Now February had a meeting. Before it gets into the new description onto the second, whereas we could say they have dropped that section, and then that would be the new identification of project.

How about the action item she stated?

The action oh, as number, as a finding?

She recommended a finding number three. The logs of those on the project. Make that clear that that has been not a part of the application.

Well, could you use that as one of the whereases just to say?

It'd be the whereas, but it could be a finding that Yeah. That this project now is limited to the core. Yep.

But I think if you wanna take a look at her language, I mean, I think they've agreed to that and just kinda look at the wording. But I I think that that would be clear. You know, the clarity you can make it. I I agree with that. She's especially when they just can't None of this should have that.

Just work with my study. Mhmm. Would be just nice to tie it into a complete package. And I think you responded very well to the situation we had, you know, for you including ourselves, you know, how that worked in the historic and the time delays and all that that that you took it out of the project and accommodate the units on-site. I think that responded well well, at least in your timeline, because I know, you know, you either have pulled up the project for the historic review, And this, I think, was a pretty adequate solution that Right.

And the supporting documents that you have attached to our findings have those five houses showing and the report from Seth on them. So they do address items on there that are currently not in the the new scope of work. So I just think those additions are for clarity would be Very well. Just for clarity.

I mean, you could take a look at those, and that would be good. But I think, you know, your response to what we talked about last time was I didn't stop, but I, you know, took the time to figure it out and make it work for you. So I think that's good. So any other comments?

I just agree. Since we've all gone through all of this, it's best to explain it all anywhere.

Yeah. Just clear. I think it's. It says, like, new applications or anything that's clarity, you know, just clarify. And we got here.

I see your comment, Joel. You have responded. Any comments we made?

I did. I just one clarification to amplify what Mr. Mason had indicated. My experience working on this project and others, I've got a long history, doing mine in Houston County, Osella and staff tries to be as thorough as possible. The way this is memorialized in terms of plan sets, you know, we had our original plan set. We were asked to do some changes. That was uploaded to Acela, so you can clearly see the date that that was uploaded. And Perkins Eastman is very good about this is set delta three. That'll be uploaded, so it'll be really clear in the record.

But, I mean, sometimes it gets confusing because when I look at documents and there's all these different revisions Mhmm. You know, and you said, well, you can look look at this one and see the difference or not. I mean, that's crazy. You know, you just need one, say. And then if you wanna go to the history, you can go back. But I think just one that documents, you know, what's the final project here, and what's been. I think I think that answers a lot right now.

And and I'm just sort of suggesting in terms of trying to memorialize it from our perspective. What I would disagree is is filing an application every time a change is made. I think you talked about the sequel piece of it. That's just got a different implication from my perspective. If I filled out for each time we were asked to revise something or revise something to respond to comments and filled out a application, somebody could then say, oh, you submitted a new application. It's gotta go to a thirty day review. It's gotta be rerouted.

Yeah.

And as most of you know, you've been around, it's an evolutionary thing as we're asked to to go and come back to hearing boards. Yeah. Things just, you know, kinda not morph, but they get massaged over time or fine tuned over time. So with the the changes, as mister Zimmer has indicated, I think that memorializes her concerns for the hearing record. And, again, as he's indicated, we're okay with that. So that's all I wanted to add. Thank you for your time.

And those were all in relation or addressing the concerns we had. If you'd come back with a totally different project, that'd be that'd be something different. I I think we might be saying this isn't the same project, but what you did was to address the concerns from the last discussion.

Mhmm. So and thank you. Mhmm. So is everybody good with the the setback on the units? And

We closed it. You closed it to

the public now? Or I'm talking about yeah. Yeah. Okay.

I mean, I agree with Seth. There has to be a different some kind of difference between the new and the existing. I don't have any issues with any of that. There are I mean, stuck you're with constraints, so the variance I mean, that's really not our purview. I don't think it it would be an issue. No. I was just curious. Because the other buildings are gated. I don't have any issues with that. The the only thing is when you see the buildings, the existing ones, you see that the big gabled in wall standing, and all the courtyards are on the inside.

And the new buildings, you're creating that exterior walkway to the exterior of the building and no longer mimicking the I'm gonna call it the feel of those buildings. But I don't know any way you can move it any place else. By looking at your floor plan, it's it's really you don't really have a choice. So, but couple issues on the actual, resolution, besides adding the second whereas under the second whereas, we have 81 protected oak trees being removed. Staff report reads 57.

I don't know which the right number is. Most of them are in an area I thought we were clear cutting the other lots, but it seems to be down on the lower section where the trees, most of them are being removed. Yeah. In the one area. It's just we should really get the right number put on there.

57.

It is 57. And then on page four under number nine, we indicate the new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials. However, in the compliance, it says individual building removals and additions will be evaluated by location. New structures will have the same roof pitch and general design characteristics. I think you would say, take that same roof pitch out of there.

Otherwise, it's not necessarily true because your roof pitches are completely different, but they're similar in character, just to clarify that. And with the draft initial study I mean, the initial study is no longer the sections of the initial study as discussed with the five lots are no longer an issue because you're removing that. But the I I know the initial study hasn't been revised accordingly. I don't think it would change anything, though.

The initial historic study? Or

No. The environmental study. The initial study that they prepared. And so that was and I do believe that we do need the second whereas and the third finding specifically for the clarity because a lot of the reports that are attached as part of the reference to this are, they address other issues. They address the five houses. They address other so let's just clarify that as a clear purely clarification so that there's no misunderstandings. Those are my comments.

Okay. You know, a setback, she knows only when you get to it, but is it within five feet or you start getting into the fire codes?

You're in the country. No. You're 30 feet in the country. But I'm not gonna argue it. The fire department is gonna make sure that you do what you need to do. And anybody, like, one foot from the property loon, they're looking at deluge sprinkler heads. I wanna get into that. We'll leave that for the fire department for

That's what you said. Yep.

Building code wise, I believe you're right. While these are how many units? Four? There are twos. Five feet might be a little too small too. Okay. Five you might need fire rated walls.

But That's on them.

They're stucco. It'll be okay. You could make it happen.

Okay. Any other questions, concerns, comments? Nope. Motion? Do have a motion?

Yeah. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted today with the sec with the second whereas described earlier plus the third finding as to development onto the original core campus with the modification to the the whatever the correct number of oak trees there are under the second whereas and under page four, under item nine, change that so it's similar root pitches and similar character. And I believe we have I'll accept it as that. I'll second that.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed?

Aye. Okay. Motion. I

do see American one. Okay. Okay. Someone like, oh, we're done. No. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to the second item.

It's BA250339436PropertiesLLC. Public hearing to consider recommending that the chief of planning approve a design approval to allow the exterior and interior modifications to restore a concept down in Australia. A single family residence constructed in the nineteen twenties, including removal of an existing window. Replaced the floor to window, construction of the walkway, and other exterior site improvements. Materials and colors to match existing residents, like, oh, cream color, concrete tiles, cursor, lave and porcelain tile, and cream dark brown, and window dark brown.

Project's located at 332217 Mile Drive, Pebble Beach. One correction on the description, it's not moving an existing window. It's a door. Okay. Here's the project, please.

Good afternoon, chair John Corcus and the board. Elizabeth Springs, the project planner to GA 250399. I'm sorry. 339. Property four five six Properties LLC.

This property is located at 332217 Miles Drive in Pebble Beach under Del Monte Forest, land use plan. The zoning is low density residential with 1.5 acres per unit, and the design control district's. The design approval is to allow the exterior interior modifications to the historic Casa De Estrella constructed in the ninth. Improvements includes window replacements, covered walkway, and other exterior siding. These are the existing and proposed elevations.

The

existing proposed south elevations and sorry. And existing proposed mouth elevations. A historic resource evaluation, local assessment, and secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties was prepared by Evans and the on 12/11/2024. The principal architectural historian Stacy Dis Charlevo completed an actual architectural survey of the nineteen twenties house and nineteen thirties and associate and associated landscape with within the property. This the discussion document why the structure is historic and the results of the survey as shown on this slide.

That recommends that the Monterey County Historic Resource Review Board adopt a resolution recommending that the chief of planning, one, find the project category exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section one five three three one and approve the design approval to allow the exterior and interior modifications to the historic Casa De Estella, a single family residence constructed in the nineteen twenties, including removal of an existing window to be replaced with a larger window, construction of a new covered walkway, and other exterior site improvements. Materials and colors to match existing residents. Stuffel is cream color, concrete tiles, brussels, raven, porcelain tile, coffee cream, and dark color dark brown. Window is the dark brown. Distances, beauty presentation.

Thank you. So would the applicant like to speak or representative here online?

Sure. Happy to do that. My name is Eric Lundquist. I'm a land use planner and permit consultation expert. Done a lot of work in Monterey County similar to Joel Panzer who was just representing the last project.

I have with me today Stacy DeChaozzo from Evans and DeChaozzo and Nicole Wyton. They can speak more intelligently about the historic resource evaluation and their impact assessment. I would just mention the the purpose of this project was really to to create a covered walkway that would lead from the garage to the main house. Right now, with the ocean climate, the wind, the rain, one gets quite soaked walking from the garage into the residence, and so it's really the intention to protect one as they travel from from those spaces. The other is to to create a more fine dining experience within the dining room.

Excuse me. And so that's the the purpose for the window. There are some other improvements, as Liz mentioned, in the courtyard. All of those improvements have been reviewed by by Stacy, and we have found consistent with Department of Interior Standards. I I actually enjoyed just sort of a personal aspect of it reading through her report.

And although I I love Davis and Davis and their architectural designs, which are pretty predominant in Los Angeles area area. I found it quite intriguing that Greta Gable and Charlie Chaplin live next door, and there's a story that goes along with that, and I I hope you read that. I I also got a chuckle from it. But greatly appreciate the board's consideration, and thank you, staff, for a well done report. And we're here for any questions as you may see fit. Thank you.

Okay. Comments from the board? I have many comments. Some generate from the drawings, and some generate from the distillate report, and I could start now. Sure. I have you.

I'll let you go because I we've we've all worked so together. I'll just say what what John says. Let me start with

a few items. Sure. Let me and, you know, I see conflicts between the drawings and the historic report on some of it. And if you go to page one of the drawings, one of the first things it says is replace existing windows and doors with wood. That's page one on the drawings.

You don't do that historic that doesn't should not be there. That's a general comment that has nothing to do with what's existing. And then if you go down, the floor plans, North Arrow is going the wrong direction. So when you look at the historic report, if you were to look at it more south, the the arrow is the wrong way. The existing floor plan and the dining room, You know, two of the historic components main components are the the Juliet balconies, which are very historic and very significant.

They're not even shown on the floor plan. And those are the ones that you're just eliminating or proposing to eliminate, and they're not showing on the floor floor plan. One of them is not even showing on the system elevation. And then on the proposed floor plan, You know, one thing that's kinda confusing is when we put a floor plan and you square it, put square rectangles around all the notes can't read it. It's hard to distinguish what the plan is and, you know, where the notes are.

On the plan, in many places, it says to change out all the wood doors and windows. You don't do that historically Mhmm. Unless you do an analysis of each door or window and determine that. You know, the first is to repair, replace, or repair. Second is replace if they can't be repaired. That needs to be documented. Their storefront knows it's slurp property. You can't just put check on notes on every place of stores because that door. There has to be a reason. And, typically, you save everything when it's a store.

And so that's an issue for me. You know, the large window, you know, what what you're looking at on the elevations and the large window. Two of the most I want I think well, let me go back here. I'm gonna store I'm gonna have a historic report. Page 27, it says south elevation, faces Hole 2 Of The Pebble Beach Golf Course, and consists of the major character defining features as a primary public facade.

And that's that's the elevation that you're making all the modifications to. So it's a primary public facade, which is the important facade in this house. And and you're you're making, you know, a lot of changes to that facade, and there's a lot of historic features on that facade. And two of the major ones and most consistent ones are those Juliet balconies with the windows. And, you know, when you look at that large window you're putting in there, that's totally not acceptable for historic you're you're removing two Julia balcony features, and you're putting in a mass window, which has no relatively no capacity.

No no you know, it's not tied into the house in any scale form historic. It it's not it doesn't fit. It's it's not even character, and I could read you the parts of the Mhmm. Secretary and senator standards that say that. You know, that bothers me. And then even with the little marks on top, that's that's that's totally conjecture. So that window to me is totally out of place, not appropriate. And then on that elevation, the one where you don't even see the the Juliet balcony. So I guess you're eliminating that too. I know you're talking about, like, showing in the door.

That doesn't work for me. And then also the three arches, three, four arches on that that walkway, I think that's totally conjecture, and it's misrepresentation. It has no relatively to anything on the project. It's you know what it reminds me of when you go down a residential neighborhood and you get a a draftsman that doesn't know what to do, so he puts in three arches to fill in a place. That that, to me, is not let me get the language here.

Is it yeah. Well, it's just residential conjecture. And those are my initial opinions right now. I'll let the board follow-up. So I think there's just a lot of things that aren't appropriate, and and I think the historic evaluation is often when you could take that large window in there and remove the historic Juliet balconies and windows and doors and then say that is complementary to the project, there there's something wrong with the report or evaluation.

I mean, that just does not make sense. Mhmm. And if you look at the pictures of the photos, that corner, talking to Julie about me, it's probably one of the most important corners of the house when you look at the pictures. One other quest You're talking about raising the the floor, like, three inches where that to the left of the dining room where that that roof is and that rail. So how are you gonna deal with that rail when you're raising the floor three three inches?

Don't I'll let the rest of the boys take over from here. I might have some other stuff go along. But

What John said. It's all good. Well, the thing I think, really, really, you did cover almost everything. The biggest thing that the the jarring difference is the removal of the the one balcony the one window with the balcony or the the Juliet door and not being able to find the second one on the plans anywhere. Right.

And I even though it might be a multi pane window with the the new window where the Juliet balcony was, I'm not sure it's reflected in any kind of design from this from this era. And the same thing or the arches and the the window were the two things that struck me. And it said something above where the arches are, something about a parapet. I wasn't sure if that meant there was going to be if that was going to be a roof or something where people were gonna be using that outside roof or that outside area above the arches. That wasn't clear.

And I know we don't really look on we're not we're not as concerned about the kinds of renovations that happen interior to a development, but the exact comment that John made too about the references to all of the doors and all of the windows being replaced with something like it really didn't address the concerns. And we and we do have reports. I mean, we we use, right, EIR consultants and historic consultants and archaeological consultants, and they're all good. They're all on a list. But even when we have those reports, what we are doing is that those are something that we use to define our our opinion. So they're they're

used to

the any kind of a report, even one of the even in historical phase one or two or anything, is something that we use as a tool with all of our information and responsibility and background to make an ultimate determination. That's the only things I would add. But, again, like, you said what John said. I have the same same concerns.

And I can read you the, you know, the parts of the standards that reflect everything you're saying as well.

Three and nine, I know, come up to me for good and Write down. Anyway, that's me.

Yes. I

know right where this house is, and the big window, there's a reason for that because there's an incredible view.

Yeah.

Right. Right. When I saw this whole thing, what bothered me was when this was built, why the designer didn't put something in there. They could see clearly see that there's an incredible view. Instead, they put in the Juliet balcony. Yeah. Right? And one on the side as well. Yeah. So to change that now seems to go against what the original architect Anyone

would be like like I

said, you could see there's this beautiful view. Why didn't they put that in there?

Well, they have a deck. They have a big patio off that dining room. I mean, it's the nature of the house. And, yeah, it's a wonderful view, but you also lose your privacy. So be it that it was potentially yeah. I don't know. It's it's the character of the house. So the removal of and you'll find those little Juliet balconies all over Carmel and Monterey. They're a they're a one of the biggest character defining looks on some of the older homes Mhmm. On the Spanish.

No. And it's not just the ugly, but it's the whole feature.

The feature of it. Yeah. The if you look at the picture, they just show a little window. But if you actually see the picture, they've got they've got the sculpted, the recessed windows. I mean, these are they're they've set it up nicely with the thick walls so that you you you get that massive return.

Building a house like that now, I mean, we do it, but contractors hate us. The owners don't like to pay the price because the way to design and build those those recessed windows and doors, they're not cheap to begin with. But it's the look. It's the character. And the big window, I mean, structurally, they're gonna have to go and reinforce that whole wall. But as an engineer, I'm like, yeah. We got strong panels going in. But to me, it's just out of character, period.

This isn't

a modern home. So I agree with John on that factor. The arches, I'm not as bothered with. But if you look at the the pictures in that, it it doesn't have that same in this, you can't see the recessed nature of it. Because in the pictures on page 69 of the report, these are really setback aways from the front of the house that we're concerned with for the Juliet balcony disappears.

And I'm I get it. They don't wanna come down and go up and down all these stairs trying to get into their house, and they want it to be covered. Mhmm. But in that picture view of it, I don't know why the the arches they do have an arch over the front entry door from the rear side.

But But that was

an addition, though. So I don't know that didn't wanna add much. But to replicate it, I it just doesn't feel right to me for the look because it's more of a I don't wanna use the word boxy, but it's is. It's geometric and squared off. But I agree with you. Some of the major character defining features are disappearing from that house. And from that standpoint, I'm not sure. I mean, I want everybody to buy their home. They spend a fortune on it and be able to do what they want with it. But But I'd

be I'd be curious because I don't It's a primary. A couple of and contractors out there. Mhmm. And so is Megan, and we've talked to them. We've talked to them about that situation. That that that can that window can be put in there historically. So I'd be curious who that was that sold them to them if they told them they could do that. And I know the historian says they can. So that's a question for the historian too because I just totally disagree with his opinion on that window. And to say that that is complimentary to the house, it is absurd. That is not complementary to this architecture.

It's a all I can say is it's a major change to the primary view of the structure.

Eliminating historic features. Eliminating historic features. Okay. Any comments from the public? Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak on the project at this time?

Doesn't look like there's any hands up, and there's no additional emails.

Okay. So I'll post the board to a public comment. Okay. Do want it? Yeah. We can go back to read the the applicant historian. Shown either.

Yep. Thank you for that discussion board. I greatly appreciate it. Before I let the historian, have the floor, I would just point out that there is a pretty substantial development occurring in the vacant lot that is between this particular property and the golf course. And so the the these aspects that you've been talking about won't be visible any longer as a result of that development that's occurring from those those public spaces.

There's also some, through the evaluation, indication of alteration to this building over time, specifically to that area where the window that you've been discussing occurs, that was an addition. And so that's the the reason why it wasn't originally installed as a larger window is because that space wasn't that big before. And so that that has also accrued. And as I mentioned, unfortunately, the designer couldn't be here today, and, I apologize for perhaps the discrepancies in the plan preparation. I will, make sure to pass this along to her about the North Arrow and some of the other, maybe what I would characterize as as typos.

I'm sure she would apologize, for that as well. Sorry that that created any confusion for your review. So with that said, if we could turn it over to to Stacy or McCrill, I'm I'm sure they

have a response to some

of your discussions and questions.

Before that, let me ask you. That's a that unit you're building down, isn't that on the same property?

No. It's a different property. It's a flag lot.

Okay. We can hear from my story now. Sure. Thanks.

Hi there. This is Stacy DeShaizo. I'm the principal architectural historian at Evans and DeShaizo. I appreciate you guys' time and all the comments, regarding the property and the development. I also have, architectural historian Nicole Whiting on the phone or on our Zoom as well. And I, for some reason, can't put on my video. So let me try again. It just says the host has stopped my video. So I I would show my face, but I don't know. It won't let me do it. Me try one more time.

Probably wouldn't just

try to get it.

But she should be

Oh, I got it. There we are. That's better.

Yeah. We can see you now.

Good. Okay. Good. Good. Good. So thank you. Thank you so much. I we do as Eric I'll just comment on a few things to kick us off. But as Eric said, the and I apologize if the information in the report was not clear regarding the changes that already been made to the building, and we do have historic photos. There was changes within that section, and we have historic photos from the architecture and engineer an engineer book, I think.

Nicole, is that from '19 what year and I don't know if you can hear me or unmute, Nicole, but what year was that engineering architecture and engineering book we had that showed the rear facade or the front the sort of front facade in reverse?

Yes. The the architecture engineer from 1921 had photos of almost all of the elevations, some of them just from angles, and this was shortly after it was completed. So well, this was without any changes that occurred later, so none of the additions.

Yeah. So we had a a casement window there. Right? Nicole, is that correct? Where we it's hard to tell sometimes on these flat drawings, and I don't think we're able to show a screen. Is that correct?

You be to.

Okay. Maybe that would be best.

If it says no.

Okay. And, Nicole, I'm I've got pulled up just so we're on the same page. I've got pulled up page ninety eight and ninety nine. Is that correct? For that I think that one facade really shows the house well, that lower photo. Is that the one you're thinking?

Yes. That one.

Okay. Let me share a screen. And sometimes so this is the original alternative primary facade. Obviously, I also think the the facing street facade, even though it sets low, is obviously an amazing design and is also a primary facade. So really, you have two primary facades in in my view, for sure, for this one.

And at first, it's interesting when you look at this one, and you it almost doesn't seem like the same building. I mean, you can see the elements and things like that, but you can you can right away see the changes that have occurred. And I I don't like the changes that are there now. I don't think that they fit. You know, if it looked like this, that'd be great.

But there there have been alterations. And I think for Nicole, we worked on this for a long time with the client and went back and forth and obviously regarding the windows, and it was a really big deal. We have found many comparative analysis. I think Nicole called the National Park Service, which in DC, we we had consultation with folks in regards to larger windows. There is precedent for that, and there are windows that fit.

Now maybe, it may not suit this building as well. Maybe it needs to be reduced or such, but it is something that we found historically, not necessarily in buildings designed by, you know, the architect for for this project, the original architect. But, but, you know, we when we do a comparative analysis and when we remove, say, a smaller window or something that is character defining, what we're tasked with with the National Park Service always in the standards review is to look at the overall project. We do turn, you know, windows into doors, doors into windows. We don't do it to all of them.

We may do it to one. But I I do understand that that is that big window is a big ask. And we did this was not easy to get through, because, yeah, obviously, it's such an amazing design. But, you know, as you can see and and I apologize if this was not clearly you know, if we didn't clearly put this in the and make it clear about the changes in the integrity section regarding the changes to the rear facade. But so we talked a lot about, you know, the roof lines, and the roof line has changed.

And I do think there was a comment by by someone on the commission that talked about it being flat, and that's exactly, you know, what I thought. It's almost reads like a Pueblo Adobe. So, you know, it it's obviously quite lovely, and everybody was on the team was trying to be extremely careful with everything. And I think the sort of those series of arches, whether you, you know, you like them or not, they there was mimicking of arches on the front facade, on one of or the street facing, so it was sort of a nod at that, but that we felt that worked well. So I I know there are a few elements that that in our consultation and in our work that I mean, this is a rehabilitation and not a preservation.

It's it's in part a restoration, so allowing some changes and then retaining some. But often, you know, in rehabilitation, you may lose let's say you lose a window. Right? You have 40 historic windows, and you might lose a window for turning it into a door. So there those are those are opportunities in rehabilitation.

But but I hope this helps a little, and I know we're just sort of scratching the surface here. And you may have had specific questions, and we could definitely, you know, make updates to the, historic resource evaluation. Often, we do comparative analysis so you can see how it works historically in a in a home, that was constructed with a larger window with divided lights and such in the same architectural style. It's always hard with these, especially with double primary facades because they're both beautiful. I mean, the front seems plain, but to me, it's really prominent and important.

So I hope that helps a little bit. And then if you have any specific questions or anything we can help out with, you know, happy to answer any questions.

I'd like to respond. When you look at the elevation right now where the Juliet window is

Mhmm.

They did add a couple feet or whatever to the left, but they didn't change the historic Juliet window or balcony in that window. They did not change that, and they did not change one to the right. So basically, the maintenance is taking. It's that it left all the historic features. Correct. Have both both of those horses, historic Juliet balconies and doors. You don't wanna put a massive single window in there that's massive, and you're trying to say that that's complementary. How do you how do you get that that's complementary to do that? And when you remove features, if you have 20 Juliet balconies and maybe two aren't as important, so you could remove those. But these are two significant ones.

That corner is probably one of the most significant corners of the house.

Yeah. And, again, you know, we crafting. Yeah. It's it's hard because we have two primary facades. Right? And this one is this one is you know, if we're doing preservation, say you lose one like you're saying, which I completely understand, is say you have two Juliet balconies, but you lose one, but you retain one. Is that okay? Right? Does that meet the rehabilitation standards? It it's based on what what you put there. Right?

But you're looking at the corner. Look at the corner of that house. Mhmm. The corner is the most significant or one of the most significant pieces. It's got the two Juliet, and the one on the right has that arched doorway and windows below, and that's still in place. And you're talking about modifying that whole corner.

And maybe, just to make sure that we're on the same page with the current plan, is there a way we can we can pull up that elevation that's, was submitted?

Sure. The the foundation's up. Let me go to outer box. Yeah.

And, Nicole, if you're if if you're there, this is the this is the same one that we have in the report. Is that correct?

Yes. I believe so. Okay.

It's a 4.1. That's the same one we were looking at.

Okay. Alright. It's good.

But but you see where we're what John's saying, I said some of us saying the same thing. Mhmm. Even if No. And even if we weren't saying, I think the position, at least for me, is that that one Juliet balcony is one of the character defining features of the of the whole construction. Even if it weren't, there's a such a one of the points I've got are concerns is such a substantial change from that look to whatever that's a 20 foot. I'm not sure how big that window is. That's a substantial change even if it weren't something that was a character defining feature that we think is being impacted.

And, also, I think, Nicole, you came up with some ideas regarding sometimes what we'll do is not necessarily mimic, but we can when there is such an important window or feature like this, we can do more like a series of similar. You know, obviously, that would have to be drawn out to see how that looks. But just to add more light, if a client wants, say, additional windows here, we would maybe set one next to it or, say, one to the left of that balcony window or one to the right so you get more light in there. You know, there are I think there are other opportunities here for sure. The the the you know, some of the things about this the alterations that took place here are bothersome to me in design, and that's okay because they're there now.

But, you know, I think they're and, you know, working with the client and, you know, Eric and with Nicole, I mean, I think we have opportunity here. How do you feel about, you know, providing additional win window space there, window openings there, not mimicking, but but getting some more light in there on that wall? I mean, is that something that is a a no go for for you all, or is that something that that you're open to?

I believe we thought you were asking Nicole.

Oh, sorry. I'm so sorry. Wait

for her to say something.

Yeah. Nicole. No. Go ahead, please.

Oh, so well, I'm I'm I'm not sure that we I I can't say that we don't care, but it's the the the interior is something we generally don't look at. It's just the impact. And I understand what you're saying. Is it more light because these houses were Mhmm. Are are are dark?

And, you know, I don't know that you're planning to put some kind of a is there, like like, a skylight or anything in that? That would be something we'd be talking about as well. Mhmm. But, like I said, it's I guess if there was any kind of one letter or one phrase kind of impact, I would say that's between what is here and what's being proposed is jarring. So it's, like, kind of jarring to the senses as far as understanding the the historicity of the site and and and the design.

I don't know about the mimicking. Would that be you know, you would that'd be something to consider, I guess. Would you be taking out that door or not? Because you're keeping it there and putting in another one. That helps more light. And this looks like it's an actual working door and not just a window. I'm not really sure. I couldn't tell about that. And then kinda going on with that continuation, I know we're focusing right now on the on the Juliet window versus the big or the door versus the big window. There's some comments on the other sets of the plans that talk about removing and changing.

And to me, it wasn't clear, the windows and doors. I know some on the inside. Like, a a three point zero, there's one in the living room. It says replace existing door with the same door. We don't as the interior, we don't care.

That's right.

But I'm seeing yeah. Oh, that's what I'm seeing there. Thank you. They pointed out. There was a note on that same a a a three point zero up in the top left hand corner. There's just a free floating note. It says note, replace all existing doors and windows to wood.

All of

them? Yeah. I don't know. And that's not that's not the exterior. So the the retaining

and all of

See, that's what we that's what we don't know. That's what I guess that's kinda what's gotten us all kinda concerned is it's not clear because it looks like it would apply to the outside as well. So maybe there's just some some more tweaking and defining in what the plans are actually supposed to be reflected.

Yeah. And I also I don't know. I'm sure you all noticed, but, you know, there's a lot of lovely detail on this besides, obviously, the hand painted tiles. I mean, those are lovely. A lot of lovely details.

So the sort of difficulty with this building is there's so much good. There are so many little elements and character defining features. It's hard, you know, but I do understand about the large windows. So setting that aside, it's, you know, it it's almost like, you know, when you touch anything, it's it's like, oh, you know, it's that's really fabulous or that's fantastic or we love that. And when you're doing rehabilitation, some things some things you retain and some things you don't.

And, obviously, you know, we wanna retain the integrity so it conveys significance. And that's, you know, the goal is, meeting the standards so it retains significance and is still eligible for the California register and the local register and all of that. So but, you know, I and Eric, has worked with me for a long time and knows, you know, we're we we have we don't come to quick solution we don't come to solutions quickly, and we often have lots of ideas and things that meet the standards. And we don't like I was saying, we don't go at this alone. And often when we're not sure, you know, as professionals, just like everyone should do, is we ask we consult our peers.

Right? And we often, consult with the National Park Service. So we just go to our guys because we do a lot of 20% tax credits and national register nominations and things like that. We have a really good working relationship with them. So sometimes we'll say, well, what do you mean by this? It's too vague. Or, you know, the standards reviews can be very vague and and and interpreted differently. So often, we'll just go to our source, which is our team over at the National Park Service in DC, and get their advice on on opportunities. So

I wanna make a clarification. The doors are all exterior that they're talking about replaced.

Yeah. And that, I we weren't aware of. So that's just something and it could be an error.

Yeah. It is. There it's an error. It's like a leftover layer.

So but then it's still noted and it's noted on the elevation. It's noted on the sheet number one, all doors and and windows to replace the wood. So whose responsibility if you're the historian's, whose responsibility is to track that? If these plans get approved, that's what's gonna happen.

Well, we don't we don't vet the plans for all the details of what they're putting on them, or nor do we have to see

if there's putting notes

in there about replacement. The plant yeah. We definitely look at the plans, and we evaluate for what we don't obviously look at interior and things. But sometimes we don't see Yeah. And sometimes we don't see what's finally submitted. Or often, like Eric knows, we'll work with the architect or drafter, and we'll highlight things that should be taken out or that are accidentally in there. But we we don't look at it right before it gets, obviously, turned in or submitted. Documentation.

Right. And if have we're looking at these plans right now. This is what's submitted. If we approve these plans it goes before planning, it gets approved and goes in the field, and all of this has all doors and windows to be replaced. I mean, what does that do?

So, like, there's a couple different ways to do that. There's you know, one would suggest coming back with modified plans. The other approach would be to integrate into the approval, the direction to to modify the plans, which is in the authority of the historic resources review board to do that. If it has some nervousness about doing that, then it would be their their earlier suggestion, which would be to make a recommendation to modify the plans to have that assurity and then bring them back for consideration at a subsequent meeting.

Yeah. I have a I have a recommendation. Yeah. Because if you because we're not gonna we we don't wanna get into developing or or critiquing what somebody else's plan is because we're not gonna live in it. Right? Somebody else is. And if we don't have in front of us what those windows and door replacements are gonna look like, we can't say anything. But, you know, there's a there's a subcommittee process where we can have you, maybe mister Lundquist and and the the architect or Nicole or anybody meet with two people off of our HRB, which is would be Sal Munoz Minio. Sal Munoz. I'm sorry.

Sal Munoz and John and go over this project. We kinda do that beforehand with vetting a lot when you have somebody come in. I know the the counter team knows that, and they say, look. Talk with this subcommittee first before you propose something. I would propose to do that because I'm not comfortable at all. I don't think any of us are attempting to tell you what to do or to tweak your plan. Can look at them when they come back. But I think meeting with the subcommittee would would give you some more time to really address the concerns that that you're hearing and some of the tweaks that need to

be

made. And if you're gonna propose comp you know, completely replacing the doors and windows, then you just you know, you bring that proposal to us, and we'll look at it then.

Shouldn't you do evaluate them now? Right? Yeah. Yeah. So, I

mean, that's what I would recommend as we continue this, and I'm not sure if you have time till till what is it? March. But to come back and and to to meet with our subcommittee on what you've got and where we wanna go to.

Yeah. I think for

Is that go ahead,

Eric. Sorry.

No. I was just gonna ask a little more about the subcommittee. I I I guess I wasn't aware of that. What what does that look like? Is this just an ad hoc committee of the the board that's is there a regularly standing meeting or, you know, maybe just to to explain a little bit more about what that might look like. And I know, John, you had I've learned recently that you had some prior engagement on that, it sounded like, in your discussion, and maybe expand upon that a little bit for us so we just have some complete knowledge surrounding the next steps.

Well, you know, I mean, it's just we've been called out. The subcommittee didn't even make make the other historian local historian. We've been called out a couple times with one contractor and one realtor. We thought that would be appropriate and what the historic features were in that house informally. And and there's actually a second first PPR that was done by one of the historians initially. Not a not a a phase two, just initial. And we just had discussions about what we thought was important and where we thought they could make changes. And I

think just like backing up on what the subcommittee is, I think about three years ago, maybe, we did a we adopted a policy. And the whole idea is that the people put like you guys have, you sink a lot of time and money into a plan. And if you're not familiar with what the requirements are for HRRB to, you know, to to to comply with the regulations that we have, they'll come in and things will either be wrong or not right or at not adequate or going in the wrong direction. And we will we felt really bad as HRB saying go back and review it. Go back and change it and have to come back a couple of times.

And we've got a great set of experts here on the board. We've they're all great. We've got specifically the two architects who are the arc the historic architects, which is John and then Sal Munoz. And so we said we wanna put together a subcommittee. So when somebody sees a project that maybe is almost ready for HRB but not to recommend that they go meet first on an in more informal basis because it's only two, so there's no Brown Act. There's nothing like that. But you go in and you take a look at the plans and say, here's where we think it would work. Here's where we think it wouldn't work. And we've done that even when people have brought applications to us. Like, now, like, we're probably gonna recommend to say, look.

Go back and talk with the subcommittee so that you can make these changes and make you know, at least address it. And it's not like, if you don't make these changes, we're not gonna approve it, but we'll say this is the way we think that it's gonna be more acceptable by the full board if you go back and and do that. And sometimes if they've been approved and sometimes people have brought back whatever we recommended, and we still haven't approved it. So it's not a done deal one way or the other, but it then it doesn't have to make us have to duke out all of this stuff in front of a meeting like this, you know, and and maybe not come up come up with something that's not gonna be acceptable to either party. Although that's have a good

sense anyway. Yeah.

I I appreciate that explanation. That's helpful. And I I don't feel like we're we're duking it out. I think there's always a difference of opinion in certain things, and that that's fine. It's a are always an evolution, and so greatly, yeah, greatly appreciate the conversation. And we're more than happy to participate. And, you know, obviously, we're we want to advocate for our client. They have their own needs and desires. And with that said, though, we wanna create a balance, I think both Stacy and I are also very interested in making sure that the character defining elements of this property, this this building in the context of Hoggle Beach are all preserved. So we have that interest in that too.

So we're we're happy to to meet with the subcommittee as it it feels necessary. I think we probably would want to further that conversation offline just to make sure it works for everyone's schedules and be sensitive to the time that you're already volunteering. So happy to to communicate that through through staff, through either Liz Gonzalez or Liz Ruiz on on next steps.

Okay.

Yeah. And just to add to Eric and and to thank you guys for that because I chaired a committee for a long time, and we weren't able to do come up with a subcommittee. And, also, somehow sometimes when you're doing these 20% applications, right, you send them to or you get them to the you know, all the way to Juliana Polanco, and and, you know, there there can be issues with the architectural historian on staff at the state that's reviewing it. But we have managed to sneak in there and get some of these preliminary reviews. Right?

So we take we are you guys gonna approve this? Like, this is what we need, and it might be like a 16 story building in Downtown Oakland, and we wanna know if we can do these things before we get too built out. These types of sort of smaller meetings just to do some brainstorming or chitchatting of what what you all are thinking, are extremely helpful. So, we love those, and we like to consult and and, work together as a team for sure. So much appreciated.

Sounds good. But, know, it's it's just a matter of being creative. Mhmm. You know? Because Mhmm. The large window is not it, but it's like, what could possibly be it? Thinking creatively that, you know, will not mimic what's there, in reality, complement what's there, but but makes sense out of it all. You know? And I think that's what we're looking for. Mhmm.

Just. The only other thing is, she keeps referring to all these additions and modifications that were made to the structure. It would be helpful, and I think it's one of our requirements To know

what they are.

To know what they are. So if there was an addition put onto the dining room that's two or three feet wide, that little canopy roof that they put over the covered patio outside the dining room, if those are additions that do not add to the significance of the structure, they should be noted accordingly on the plan saying these were additions. They are not historic. They are not part of the and so modifying them would not be such a drastic modification. But when you look at the structure, and there was such a minor addition to the to the dining room, that when you look at the pictures, I'm like, no. No. Oh, yeah. Maybe it is a little wider, but it's I mean, it's

But it

You leave it

for us to decide. It's as opposed to putting it on the plan and saying, this was an addition here, addition here. These are not historic features, and therefore modification to them would not be considered. But the it's a lot of it is the character. And I know two two d drawings don't bring out character of buildings, but architects usually can make make a building.

The paperwork shows the character of the structure. I mean, there's many houses I look at, and I'm going, I can tell you who what architecture room just based on their drawings. And so these drawings just don't carry the show that. Mm-mm. Because I'm looking at the pictures, and you see the drawings, and it's just they don't they don't look Yeah.

They don't reflect

They don't they don't reflect it accordingly. Mhmm. And shading can do that and or identifying it or removing it or lightening it up so it looks further back. Something like but Mhmm. That might help. Because when I was going through it, I was like, what the heck? What's lee you know, what it is,

what it

is that they don't quite look the same, but I couldn't really put my finger on it. So, that would be helpful in the drawings.

Okay. So the the And boxes around the notes do not help at all trying to That was tough. Yeah. To figure out what the structure is and what the note is, and it's just too many boxes.

And strangely, box Too many boxes. Is sometimes it's a formatting error in AutoCAD. Because I've had it show up, and people go, why are they in boxes?

I'm like, what happened? Oh, darn it. Yeah. Can I share something with you that I have? And just to understand what you'd like to include.

And, Nicole, if you're there, I'm gonna, if you'd mind if I share screen real quick. And I'll this is one that's a little more complicated, but this is often what we have to do because we obviously this is a project in Berkeley, and this is a complicated one. But this is explaining all the different editions and all the different dates, and we usually colorize them and provide this kind of we can box things out. We can put dates on them. So you can see the obviously, this is a a little bit of a crazy one.

But, also, I do know that Nicole did a shadow. I think, if you're there, you did a with some purple on it where it showed the the additions. Is that correct?

It is. I I just found it. It was in a when we were going back and forth with the designer, we had showed her where all of the where the the additions were, and

I can I can actually

bring that up?

This is what I

Including something like that in the in the drawing so that we know what's addition and what's not addition is helpful.

Yeah. So this is if you guys can see the the screen, all of the things in the purple were additions.

And did you have one that was showed the facade, right, or an aerial? There you go. That was really helpful, I think, to the designer, which was great. Nicole's really amazing at doing these and capturing these this way. We incorporate this often, and, and our apologies for not including it here, but we often incorporate this type of, it's just so helpful, this visual.

And, obviously, this was just for

our

chat with the, with the designer and not meant for presentation, but, you get the idea.

Well, that's one of our conditions as as as submittal into the historic review board is to have a drawing like this as part of the drawings that shows us which are new, which are old, which which are consistent or not. And that's something like this in the drawings would help us get past a lot of the modification issues.

Mhmm.

Yeah. Happy to do that, and our apologies for not making that happen. It's as you all know, it's it's we do work work in many, many cities, in many different counties, and sometimes it can be, you know, learning the nuances. So, and, you know, But understanding, you know, that you're available and you have this subcommittee is really fantastic.

Can I I move first to continue this item to March and request that the applicant and the historic well, anybody that the that the applicant deems necessary or useful to meet with our our subcommittee between now and then? Okay. Okay.

I'd like to point out that the cutoff date for the March 5, meeting would be, February 23. Yeah. So, I mean, I can I can help coordinate the the timeline?

I was just gonna what I was gonna say is whether or not you know? And maybe expanding that if they need to depending on what the results are to to anticipate that perhaps the applicants may request it to be continued Mhmm. For further historical review and analysis. Or Oh, can

we say, like, a date to be determined or something? So Yeah. If we get it in by then, it'll be the next meeting. If not Mhmm. Something like that. So Yeah. If it doesn't get you know, it says just saying next meeting, just say to be continued. And if can we get it in by that period, then we could do that. So it's

We'd rather not renotice it. So I appreciate and and appreciate the opportunity to even chime in here. But if if it could be continued to the next one, we can't make it. I can't overcommit our designer, but we'll try our best to make that. And if we need another meeting, perhaps it just gets continued again. Yeah.

Yeah. Same to it. I just continue to have an update. Right? As long as if I get the information, then that's good. Right?

Yeah. Then just keep rolling. Yeah.

I like Does that work? Yeah. Thank you so much. In March. Yeah.

Which is lucky. The date, that's the only once a year, I know what the date is in March. It's gonna be the fifth.

Is someone gonna second the motion?

Second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed. Yeah. Okay.

Great. Thank you all. Appreciate

the invitation.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Guess that's you. Jordan will figure out we need to know how to get you guys together, and I know you're brand new. So we'll figure out how you connect John and Sal with those people and all

of that. Sure. Maybe what I do is I'd send Liz Gonzales. I'll send you an email today with my contact information. You could just pass that along to to those that you deem appropriate.

K. Great. Thank you so much.

K. Thank you, guys, for your time. Thanks.

Okay.

We should have stopped. Not too much. This is done. Not a while. Yeah.

Cheryl, that's fine. You're find your agenda? Know.

There's a lot of paperwork. My agenda. I love my No. I couldn't print them all. I just printed the one. Okay. I

we feed on, like, screen and then the one's

like the matters, but we don't have elections on here.

Oh, yeah. We keep putting in that, though. What what month is that?

Oh, I'm sorry.

So we didn't get elections on the agenda

at that point. Yeah. Sal and I were supposed to be on the nominating committee.

Whatever. Is there maybe we would just keep it at this end?

Okay. We we'll do it

next month. So before he comments.

Well, I was gonna say before Liz leaves, I sent Liz an email about asking for some clarification. You know, the and the rest of yeah. I just gonna tell everybody I sent you an email about over the counter reports, all that kind of stuff. So Yeah. So she's gonna get back because we had a question. Since Jordan's the new Phil, we weren't sure the what we're planning on doing is having another presentation, historical resources to the staff. We did for the over the counter, and when we want everybody else to be in the second one. And one of the questions came up is, well, how do we know when when there are reports that come to us? And are there ever applications that come to the counter that have historical implications, like maybe the one we had you know, there there's some they're like in North County. There's a house that's over 50 years old, but is it historic or not?

And if if somebody did if somebody determines x, y, or z, do do those plans always come to HRB if there's some kind of historic element to them, or do they have to have some kind of trigger? So that's what we're, again, we're asking. So we're gonna work with that and and come back and hopefully have some answers.

You know, the the question to you is, you know, there's that one I emailed you about that, you know, every we thought it was someone with the diamond roof. Remember? And and we thought it was Yeah. We thought it still maintained integrity, and, you know, they basically went off to the historian and a

lot of stuff.

Said there

was no. Right. No.

The one on the West Side Of Scenic.

Yep. Yeah. Five Yankee. Yeah. Yankee. Yeah. And we still fought it, maintained integrity, and then you know? But we didn't even get a chance to comment on it. So it's like So, yeah, we'll not get I'll prevent that.

We'll know what the policy is and see what we

have to do. Yeah. Yeah. So I have a question. I don't know if it's appropriate to ask

here, but I did notice this was a this, you

know, this project was one that was reviewed by a tech who's no longer here, so we just kinda picked it up and brought it. But what I did notice was the historian is not on our county list. This one is

a Mhmm.

Okay. That's what I was gonna ask. Oh, another good another good point to make is make sure that the lists are maintained. Yes. Put that down.

Yeah. So so would it be appropriate to ask them to provide their credentials to put them on the list? I I don't think it would be good customer service to say, well, you know, we can't take this because you're not on our list. Yeah.

You can ask for the CV.

Yeah. Yeah. The comment was made that those consultants that are on the list kind of know what you guys are looking for. Right.

Yeah. That's a good and that's a good point. Think and that was actually one of the things we talked about is looking at with those lists, how you get the list, how are you maintained on them. What what what do you have to do to get dropped off? You know, we've we've done that a couple times too. So that was part of the point. Yeah. Yeah. Well because we always assume everybody's on them. Well, you know,

the the director used to have his or her own secretary that would maintain that. Yeah. So you know? Yeah. That's something But,

you like the 55 Yankee Beach one. You know, I have a friend that lives down the street there, she knows my involvement with historic, and you do that. You know? And and she took some pictures and and emailed me and said, John, there's flagging up at this house. You know? And then so she sent them to me, and she sent me a notice, but the notice had already meeting already happened. You know, that was the one that we all thought, you know, was historic. It's Yeah. Just by the architects and the builder. You know? Yeah. And that went to the hearing, and we didn't ever you know? And you

guys never had the chance to do that.

Chance to review it. We just

wanna keep refining it so that we

Everybody knows. We can figure that one out. So you know? Because we spend a lot of time on small projects sometimes, and this one was pretty significant by the architect and the location. You know? Yeah.

And that's a reminder. I know at the front counter, if there's a structure that's over 50 years old, we ask for an historic report. If it's historic, then it does come to you. Yeah. The only the only thing that that does not come to you is a reroof with similar materials in sprinkles. Yeah.

Alright. Let's see. That one. That's That's in that case, the historian wrote it wasn't historic. Right? So that's why it didn't come before. So that's Yeah. You know, the thing is a lot of times, historians have their motivations by the client. Right? Yeah. They do. You know, we wanna do this, and so you find their story, and that's gonna be Or they put this this special wording. That. It's always right where that we would agree with it like today. You know? I mean, she's saying that when those complimentary, it's like, You know? We just have

to have because you guys have so many the staff has so many projects and applications and things. We wanna make something you can't just easy. I just like, here's a plan or here's a bullet list. Go from one to six. And if you get to five, you go here. If you don't, then you go this direction. Yeah. Because it's and you have a lot of people brand new. And

so Yeah. Yeah. You know, this historic report, you know, 50 pages of those context. Right? And you have you have a couple of It's

a four. Archaeologists do that. Archaeologists do that all the

All the time. Yeah.

So I'm curious if the Pebble Beach company hasn't even reviewed it yet. Oh. Because they they do have their contact statement. They do. So I'm sure I mean yeah. And you know? So

They get irritated if you don't. Really irritated if

you don't. Yes. Usually, it goes before that.

Liz, were you saying the Before you go check.

Yes. Wasn't on our list

for consultants? Yeah. She's on our list.

Oh, she is? Yeah. Then I have an old list. I I looked online. Ago. No. But I looked And nothing online is up to date. Yeah. Well, that's good

to know.

Yeah. It's combined with her partner, the other person who runs the firm. Yeah. Evans and Deshazo Incorporated.

Yeah. That's what I looked for was Evans and Deshazo. Evans is on that. Really?

There we go. Well, good. I feel a little better. Oh. You usually have to go in front of a

Right away.

Go while you

can. You're distracted.

They did it. They're taking things off that they don't like. If they don't like it, yeah, getting through them, our professional review, they're like, they don't like it. They just say no.

Yeah. It's

not like, well, can

we pay you more? Let me send the owner down with a check. No. No. They're very, very dis they make a decision.

They stick with it. But I don't know. There's just a total disconnect between the drawings then and then even what you're saying about. You know?

It was very hard to read and go through because when you said the boxes, I get that. That just I'm like, is that a table?

Mhmm.

There's print. And you blow it up, and you're like, oh, this is gonna take me forever

to look at it. Julia talked me through. Didn't show them.

And they weren't shown. That's why

I'm like, where are they? I know.

Well, that's that's and that's why it's good that they're gonna talk to you. Sales was new, so they know the process now. We'll be able to go on forward. And it was gonna be one of the other updates I made. It's just that we're working on another historic presentation thing and getting clearer information from what the counter staff do and, you know, how they're responsible for and not and all that.

But it's kinda like, I mean, where's the disconnect? Mean, this is what happens if we looked at the plans and nobody saw the note or, you know, noticed that, and it would've gone right through. Right?

Yeah. But that's why we're here. That's why that's why we're here. That's Like you said, it

was the was the meeting.

Yeah. Yeah. So we are see if

there's any other matters. Anybody have any other matters? No. I guess. Mhmm.

We have some kind of we have some SQL updates I mean, update workshops that that hope they have some element of historic stuff to them.

And if

you're a member of Association of Environmental Professionals, you'll get some information. If not, they're still they use Okay. I've got

a couple. Okay. So I went back up to the off road Cool thing. Library. Mhmm. And there was some of the new situations they had. Uh-huh. And so we did that. We're doing a good job, and we're wrap it up exterior pretty soon. So they asked him to do a presentation to us so they can Oh, good. Would show us what they did. Who is there?

So I'm gonna close out the meeting.

Yeah. We're yeah.