Historical Advisory Commission - Regular Meeting

asked you to do if you want to have we're good to go.

Okay.

Okay. So I'm going to go to order the Thursday, June 4 2026 meeting of the Monterey County historic resources for your board. Please don't score keys.

Kelly Morgantini. Michael Bill is here. Judy McLuhan present Sheila Lee Prater. She is absent. Salvador Munoz.

Present.

And Belinda Toledo.

Present. We have a phone call.

Only staff and board member videos 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. That 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've called, press star six. 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 raise 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 HRRB Hearing Commons at countyofmoderate.gov email. This email address can also be found on the agenda for today's meeting. Staff are monitoring the email, so if you have a question, comment, or a document, staff will do our best to respond in real time.

Okay, thank you. So I'd like to open the floor to public comment and on the agenda. Agenda items that are under the purview of the board. Anybody who wants to speak? Seeing none, any agenda additions, corrections?

There was correspondence that was received and it was received for the agenda item number 126 CP00819 was distributed to the members and any of these parties.

Thank you. So we'll move on to approval of the minutes for April 21st, 2026.

Mr. Chair, I do have a correction. On page two of the minutes, the item of Carmel Grimmer in the motion It says to adopt CEQA guidelines section and approve design approval. I think the language within the resolution was similar to the one we have today. To recommend that the chief of planning find the project categorically exempt from CEQA. We're not approving CEQA.

Yes.

finding a category exempt from CEQA pursuant to guidelines 15331 and approve the design approvals. So the mention of the CEQA guidelines needs to be corrected to the appropriate language as in the resolution.

Anybody else have any comments?

If that change, I will move approval. I'll second.

You can make a special motion. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Is that through? We'll move on to our scheduled matters. It's another one. It's CP00819, Historic Red Barn. Public hearing, instead of recommending that the chief of planning approve an application for a construction committee for the replacement of damage siding located on the historic barn, where the location is 1000 Highway 101, Aromas.

Yes, sorry, I was signed in for the long meeting.

Okay, so are you presenting this project? Your name's the architect. Yes, I'm reviewing it myself. I have a conflict of interest.

Do you want me to present the project?

Yes, go.

Through the chair, does he have to verbally refuse himself from the board? Yes.

He did, but maybe it wasn't clear. So he did say that he was refusing himself because of a comment.

Okay.

And he's here, and I know that also the planner for another planner who is also involved with some of the information and background is here as well, just in general of Mary Israel, I know that she talked to me a little bit just to say she was going to be here. Things pop up that you can help.

Okay.

Good morning. Elizabeth Ruiz, supervising planner, presenting permit number 26CP00819. This is for the Big Red Barn. The owner is Salvador Jimenez. So the property is located at 1000 North Highway 101 in Arrovas. The zoning is RDR 5.1, as well as LC, Lowell, Burleigh Commercial. It's located within the North County Area Plan. The construction permit is to replace the damaged siding to the red barns. This here is the proposed repair plan. As you can see, they're repairing some of the areas along the left and right side of the property, as well as the front and rear of the actual building. The historic Ellingwood Hay Company Barn, commonly known as the Big Red Barn, is a 20,000 square foot barn constructed in 1945 with an exterior wall clad of Kaiser Aluminum Siding over a steel three-hinged arch support. The property is listed in the Monterey County's Local Office Official Register of Historic Resources. We have received the Phase II Historic Assessment prepared by Kenny L. Civi. The existing skylights were added in 1970, Sliding aluminum doors were added on the front and rear elevations with the smaller single sliding aluminum door centers on the north and south elevations added in 1974. The only other changes that have occurred over the time are the decorative applied signage on the building envelope. and the project meets applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for the rehabilitation proposed will not impact the historic integrity of the Big Red Barn. Staff recommends that the Monterey County Historic Resource Review Board adopt a resolution recommending that the Chief of Planning approve the construction permit for the replacement of the damaged site. So all materials and colors will match the existing structure.

Any questions?

Okay, would the applicant like to speak?

Good morning. My name is Sal Jimenez. I am the owner and president of the 101 Red Barn. I've owned the property for about five years. We're looking at the Red Barns overall status of the existing siting of it. Well, I'm here today to request to repair the existing siting, continuing with the like kind material. We researched the like kind material to be able to match it 98, 99% of it. Color match would be pretty much the same. siding for that. On long for the approval and the permit, I would like to be able to move forward and be able to commence this as soon as possible to be able to do that before the one of months to be able to avoid the winds of the because of the siding, the winds and so forth can, you know, hard to keep it together because of the years of that. I'm here to answer any questions, concerns, or anything this board might want to have.

All right, thank you. I have a, my question is, now it's called repair, but they're changing like 80. I mean, my guess is based on the drawings, like 80, 90% of the siting. If the existing siding or a lot of the siding is the historic fabric. I mean, yeah, it's like 90%, 80% of the historic fabric should be replaced. So I, you know, that's why it's reported more because I don't consider that a repair. That's my concern about the project. Nobody else's opinion on that.

I have a question I guess that was one of the comments I was going to make it is how much of the actual skin is going to be replaced and then it is the same material is that correct it's the same kind of did we call it was it tin aluminum sorry is it the same like same gauge of aluminum do you do we know how close material apart from the color and how much you're replacing is it as close to the existing material as it can be made. It's another question I've got. Because you're right, it's not repair, because repair, well, it's kind of subjective, but repair means the part that's not integral to the entire structure. And if you were to repair a small four-foot piece, you'd take it off, put it back on. Repairing this means you take this down almost to the, you know, 90% of the skin would come off before you put it back on. But there's repair and there's replacement.

Yeah, so we need to call something different. Repair, it's replacement. Yeah, okay. And if you look at all the red on there, that's got to be, you know, 85% of the sighting. I don't know what the count is, but, you know, of the sighting itself, not the root.

Do you actually have the numbers? Do you have the numbers of square footage you're replacing?

Yeah. Well, actually, we just put the general areas where we saw there were damage. We got an ID exactly how many or where. But it was actually just replaced as needed. Not necessarily all that area. But that's the general area where we saw some damage. I know.

So an evaluation of the existing structure and the damaged siding hasn't been done to know exactly where you're replacing it. No. We can come back and give you, you know. Well, I guess the next question is the wall girds. Those are not unsteaded walls, so they're wall girds. So you're going to have to If this piece is broken down two feet above a wall guard, that whole section to the next wall guard is going to have to come out. So that's why I was wondering if you did the evaluation to see, because I see it pop up here and there, and I'm like, those wall guards, I don't know if they're at four or six or eight feet on center, but I would think you would have seen... Stretch, you know, limited stretches like this four feet here. Oh, this has to be eight feet, this is six feet. So that hasn't been accomplished yet. They're pretty far apart.

And that's going to be difficult also when you take one piece and you don't see damage in the, you know, like you say, in the next areas.

But that's why we do the evaluation up front before you remove a significant piece. The feature, and I'm going to tell you the siding. The barn isn't the barn without the siding. I mean, a structural will argue that. I'd say you can tear the barn down and see the way it was framed in 1945. You don't see that anymore. So the building structural frame is quite significant in itself, but nobody's going to recognize that. They all see the siding. So I wasn't sure if a really detailed evaluation of where you're replacing and how you're replacing and the gauge of the metal, how the ribbing is going to match because you can't, I don't want you to get in there and tear that down and say, oh, we can't match your ribbing. So we're tearing it all off and then we're going to do it all. And this is not written in a way to preclude that. It's saying, oh, as the field determines. I think that needs to be termed up front.

They're matching the actual material in design and also the size of the metal. The gauge and the ribbing. You can get it matched exactly the same.

probably want to throw a detail on there on connection also, because you're going to be taking old and new and flushing it somehow.

Yes. I think we should, just for the record, make sure we were talking, Sal Munoz is talking as the architect. Another applicant. We know who you are. Oh, okay. For the recording. Yeah, yeah.

Oh, we didn't open it to the public.

It was out public, but I mean, we just didn't. Yeah.

Okay. Because if we go and like in detail what you were asking, even until then we had to have a permit to, you know,

No, you don't need a permit to go out and visually look at a panel and realize this panel is below the GERT or above the GERT and you know that that section needs to be removed. In fact, the building, if you just measure one bay, it's the same bay repeated multiple times. So if you did it once and then just looked at the material and said it's six feet off the ground or four feet off the ground, and drew the repair line, then you would know which panels would have to come out. And I don't think that's unrealistic because how is he going to know how much material he's got to buy?

But, you know, I think there needs to be distinguished between, you know, what's the criteria for replacement. Correct. Because it's an old structure and it's historic. Yeah, yeah. And that's, you know, and if you replace, you know, how the siding was brand new, then you kind of lose. If I can interject.

I understand the question, but limiting it to only severely damaged would maybe minimize the replacement.

So if I can interject, upon my inspection of the red barn, 90% or 100% of that whole rooftop has been replaced. So when the steel builders did the repair, So everything that you see on the top cap is all, I believe it's a 24 gauge metal ribbing. It's all been repaired. And I reached out to the owners of the steel builders. Yes, we did the job. We have done that. And I believe that was probably done prior to it becoming a historical building. It was prior to my acquisition to it. The former owner, through the Caltrans bypass and everything created it as a historical site. So if you look at that, what we've gone is we've gone back and we've looked at taking the site structure, the top structure that's been probably within the last 15 years replaced and got a 98% match on it to the site structure. So What Belinda is asking is, yes, to see the sections of it. The challenge will come is the side panel that you have there to try to find is probably impossible. It's an 80-year-old panel. So if we start matching and we lose focus of keeping the barn to that look that's there, I have to go back and find material that matches the roof, because that's already been there, and be able to get a 98 to 99. same structure i mean same structure same look same color to the side so that's a challenge so if i start patching it what you're going to have is you're going to have what today's factor is out there to the top to 1945 or 1950 panels we're going to try to do the best that we can here to here to match this as we can okay so it's going to be it's going to that, but this material now with the next wind flaps goes, the screws are not in there anymore. So it's tough. This whole section here is now all newer 24 gauge material that's been replaced. So we went back, took an evaluation of the top to the side and said, okay, this is as close as we can get to keep this barn as an aesthetic look at what you see today with no change.

Okay, I'm going to take a break here. Let me open it up to public comment. Pretty brilliant. I'd like to speak on this project. Anybody? I don't see anybody online. Okay, seeing that, we'll open it back up to the board. Close the public comment. You know, I still see the siting as a separate issue than it really felt. Do you mean for consideration whether we're repairing or replacing it? Sighting, yeah. I mean, I don't think the sighting's there.

The roof is there. It's actually not a repair. He clearly stated replacing it and they cannot match. They can't match the existing sighting.

Description definitely says replacement.

We just have to consider whether it's

even though it says repair, whether the replacement is something that working is good. And I get what you're saying, too, is that the roof's been replaced in the last couple of years, and the HRV can do as good as we can. I know.

Yeah, I mean, there's more than 50.

But we're just saying we can do as good as we can to find things when we're lucky enough to get what's supposed to come in front of us in front of us, we consider what we can and how we can address it. I just want to say a lot of people say, well, it's been fixed a long time ago or it's been amended a long time ago. It's true, but we can address what we've got in front of us. I have a question. I was looking through this. Maybe the applicant can answer the question again, though. How long... are the lengths of the siding? I mean, they're not the length of the entire barn. Are they all six foot lengths? How do they look together? That's the first question. And then if you're going to be replacing them, can we require or can we consider whatever area needs to be replaced that the length of that siding be replaced at the same length? Even if you only need two feet wide, Put it at six if that's what the main, that's what the existing length is. I don't know if I'm making sense or not.

What are the wall girds? Tress is what, 20 feet? So the panels are vertical. How wide are your panels? Six feet. Okay. So you could probably trim them if you needed to, but it's going to be a six foot panel vertical. And so are you saying... If you replace six feet in that bottom right-hand corner, you replace six feet from bottom to top? That's my question.

Because if it's six feet wide and you've only got damage on three feet of it, you're still going to replace the entire panel.

Do you have panels tall enough to make those? Or currently, are they full height panels? Or are they seamed at the girts?

I was going to ask, are they standard size panels?

They're probably lapped at the girts. So...

Just to make it less patchwork-y looking. As good as you can to match something, it's still going to be a little bit off, even if you think you've matched it exactly. So just making sure whatever it looks like, we don't make it more patchwork than it would be necessary by making sure you're consistent in what you're replacing. But what's the difference between us saying that we were We're allowing repairing or replacing, because they are being repaired, but repair has a certain connotation and replacement has a different connotation.

It's clearly a replacement. A repair is they have a historic standard for repairing metal. I don't think they've even investigated the repairing of the, you know, the repairing of it is, which you'd take it out and you'd have to roll it again and take the panel off. And that, I don't think that's realistic with modern day siding because they don't do that anymore. They don't have the machines to roll.

They don't. I mean, that's historic fabric. I mean, would you? Basically on that drawing, it should all be read from what they're saying. If they're going forward to see them.

And I don't necessarily think the panels are full height. I think the panels come six foot wide, but... I don't know how far along the Walgurts are. I think they're seen at the Walgurts somewhere. Maybe it doesn't all, it's not all lined up on the six foot one or the 10 foot one, but that's how you usually do siding. It's coming down and hits, it's nailed off or fastened off to a girt.

Is it in pieces vertically?

Vertically, yes. They're vertically, I believe they're 16 feet. So the barn measures are, by 200, 16 feet wide at the edge of the rooftop. That's what comes in the front of it. The front of it is a little tougher. From here to here, I believe it's about 16 feet. Here to here. Here to here. This one here, you do have multiple sections and so forth. We'll do the best we can to try to do that and probably... we'll wind up having to reclaim some of the material to see how it will fit and work to be able to, like I said, this here is already, this was replaced a long time ago and I reached out to the company that did it. And he's the one that said, okay, this is the name of what we replaced here, all this that was done. And this is the name of the, sheet metal that's made and rolled and the ribs and everything. So we took a side-by-side with here to here, but the material we're going to, we're going to, we're going to match. And it's about a 98% visual looks the same. So our goal is when we finish, it's not going to look any different than what's here already. This is all going to be staying the same. This will all stay the same. All the, the way the barn sits right there, our goal is for it to stay the same, but keep the identity of the look.

But you're saying you're matching the roof panel and not the side panel.

We're going to try to do the best we can here. I wouldn't be truthful if I told you, yeah, it was going to match 100% there because you'll have some panels there that are existing.

But you can have two different hooks on the side then, some existing and some with a new pattern.

Yes. And due to the fact that the roof has already been repaired prior to my acquisition on it. So we're trying to match the look of what it's to the siding and the top at the closest that we can.

Because prior to... But right now, the siding's the historic. We're not talking about the roof. We're talking about the siding. So the siding's the historic fabric or the original fabric. I mean, that's what we're talking about. Well, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the whole... No, the site is, yes, but you're saying the roof was replaced at one time. We're talking about the siding now, the siding itself. That's the historic fabric. That's what we're talking about, not the roof. How exactly is it damaged?

It's not rusty.

You've got holes in them. You've got the metal rivets that hold it with the wind flapping. They're loose. Any siding is going to ruin it if you don't fasten it.

It's on the CBC report then.

So you haven't investigated the full repair of the existing siding to be retained?

Not in detail. That's why we, because we got to, we could go buy whatever is damaged and then replaced it.

Yeah, I know, but it's historic. Like we don't do that and tear my building down and replace the redwood. If I do, I have to put back redwood just as it is. So I don't see the difference. between an aluminum building and redwood siding on some of those old bungalows.

I mean, I don't think there's been enough evaluation to cite what you're doing, first of all. You know, it's just an open book. You know, if we like it, if we want to replace it, we can replace it all right now, right?

And that was one thing I... That's why I was asking if a full evaluation of the amount of siding necessary that needs to be repaired was evaluated. Because I don't think... I would be comfortable saying repair or replace as needed. When we do historic evaluations, we know exactly what pieces have to be taken out and we get to an extent of drawing this is damaged. We have to replace it in kind. We get down to square footage, you know, how many square feet of siding, how many, and that I just don't see. But I'm not comfortable with a permit that states, I think I highlighted, it was one of the resolutions, the siding based contractor shall repair as needed the siding based on field conditions. I think that needs to be identified of what we're talking about.

That is normal. When we have a damage, even siding or the roof, when even we get a permit and say this is the general area that we're going to be replacing, when we remove that, we can see that there is damage. That's for concealed framing. I'm going to tell you there's nothing concealed.

And it has to be replaced.

Exactly.

I agree with that. When we're looking at a house with stucco and plaster on the inside and redwood on the outside, we can't see it. This building, you stand on the outside and you go on the inside. And the only thing that you can't see is the siding behind those girts. That inside is fully visible. The outside is fully visible. So this one really shouldn't be a question mark. Oh, I don't know what's needed because you can

It's part of the... I know. And that was one of the questions I wanted to see a fascinating because... To be able to realize which of those details that need to be replaced in order to work on them.

That's how you choose to do it, but that's not how historic structures are standardly looked at.

See, the resolution here says to repair with limited replacement. That's not what that is.

It's not really limited. How difficult, apart from what the cost might be, how difficult and how much time will it take to do some kind of analysis that could give us a good idea of how much of this, how much is going to be replaced, you know, like an 80%, 90%. And I think that's a concern. I know that we're struggling with me too, is that we know, because we trust you, you're only going to do what you need to do. and you're not going to do any more, but doing what you need to do after you start looking, like Belinda says, to look into where the damages are. The damage could be just a couple of square feet and a couple of six-foot panels, probably a little bit more. It could also be 90% of the building, apart from the roof. It could be a huge, substantial amount. And not that we wouldn't decide one way or the other on it. We just don't have that information. If we're going to say, yes, we know that you're going to replace And not repair, but just replace 90% because that keeps the building standing. We might say that's acceptable for us to do, but we can't do that today because we don't know. That's one of the, I think that's a concern.

But I mean, if you see a panel with some density, you know, I mean, that's not, you know, where is your definite limitation or what's your criteria for saying replacement? Because like the resolution, you know, it says repair with limited replacement. That's, you know, that's replacement with little repair, I think, is reverse.

Well, is that an objective standard or a subjective standard? Is a dent a replacement?

Maybe that could be part of the analysis.

A hole versus a dent versus... We don't know. We're not going to tell you. But, I mean, maybe that's what part of it is, is to say if it's a hole that's going to leave this, whatever we're looking at, if you leave this in its state right now in five, ten years, you're going to have an integral problem that's going to hurt the entire structure versus, nah, it's a dent. We'll like it, but it's a dent. It's not going to structurally impact the building.

And then when you look at the structure itself, you know, it's just a metal panel, concrete slab, You know, I mean, that's all it is. That's all it is. I mean, there's not a lot of like waterproofing involved. There's not a lot of, you know. That's why it's important to work on the site.

I can't hear what you're saying. You need to state your name. related to the maintenance of the space. It was life and safety for all the businesses as well, so.

And do you work with Sal, or do you? Yeah, he's part of it too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

Because we just knew your name. So Geronimo Sanchez. Okay, thank you. How is life and safety augmented? These panels aren't blowing off.

Some of them do. During the tough winter months, we do have...

Isn't that a fastening issue?

It's a little bit of both, because being that the material is so thin, What happens is, as you know, this barn has been restored with suppressive system, everything. So it's a usable barn.

It was a usable barn in 45. It was a usable barn in 70. It was a usable barn up until you bought it.

But correct me if I'm wrong, the barn had some challenges. It needed the suppressor system fixed, which we repaired and did. So now when you get... As a barn, it didn't need it. Pardon?

As a barn, it didn't need suppression. To occupy it in any use other than a barn required suppression.

Prior to my acquisition, that was one of the conditions that the city, the county of Monterey had requested for me to do, which was done. So it is operational.

Correct. It was done so you could put people in the barn.

That is correct.

But as a barn, that baby did not need fire suppression.

Whether it needed or not, it's there.

Yeah. Okay. But that's what I'm saying is. you're putting a different standard of use on that barn than it is a barn. And if you do that, then it's really the challenge of the conversion of a barn, classically historically used as a barn, to something other, which he's saying life safety. I don't see where there's a life safety issue with the replacement or repair of the siding. That's my only comment to what he said.

So to add to that is, That's usable for vendors. We utilize that for business, Friday, Saturday, Sundays, throughout the week, however it is. Those panels fly out. They're very thin, razor sharp. They can rip in as a big wind comes in. If there's 30, 40, 50 vendors in there, 40, 50 people. One of those goes through, could cut somebody, could hurt somebody. So there is a liability to that because those panels are razor thin. So they need to be secured. But once again, that's a facet. That's a facet. Not a replacement. There's always so much material you can fasten because of the way this barn is built. It's not your normal framing inside. It's not aluminum siding. I mean, it's not aluminum framing. It's steel. It's got channel irons. It's just before my experience of this, you know, way above my pay grade on how it was designed and built. I mean, there's only... We've seen it, so... There's only about two inches that we can... be able to grab through within the middle. It's not your normal, where you have your steel buildings with your girths and so forth. So we are limited on where we can fasten it and do that. So for me, our goal is that, yes, keep the barn in integrity format, keep the barn in the original use, and also be able to keep a safe environment there for our patrons. and our businesses that are in there.

We're still talking about historic fabric, though. You can talk about replacement all you want, but there's an evaluation with historic structures and historic fabric and how much you can alter historic fabric. Understandable. And I'm just not convinced on the criteria you're using for replacement. Like I said, the resolution says repair with little replacement. You're proposing the complete opposite of that, so. remember, we'll do what we want. That's what you're saying. But I think we need a tighter evaluation and a better graphic of not just the, you know, red stripe across the building, but more focused areas on where you need to do that.

Yeah.

And if you got dented siding or something, you know, I mean...

Mr. Chair, I think it's important also that it be clear I'm thinking of the next steps with the construction permit and the inspection process as open-ended as it is today. I'm thinking it would be a problem for the building division and the inspectors to know really Is this work that we're serving in the field in conformance with the permit as granted?

It sounds like you weren't getting a permit, were you? Were you getting a building permit?

Yeah. Yeah. Once we have the building permit, then we can have that contractor help us identify which ones are damaged and replace. Yeah, you get a contractor.

Well, I guarantee you, he's going to say every single panel. Because that's how I can't grow my business.

I think that's the hard part, isn't it? Yeah.

But you don't have to wait. You can get a contractor out there now and identify that. You don't need a permit to do that first. That's what I'm saying. No, you're not saying that. You're saying when you get a contractor. We don't have to be like a scientist. You can do that now. You don't need a permit to do that. You can identify now with a contractor what needs to be replaced and make it clear for everybody.

Like a commercial, like when you do a home inspection, when you sell a house that you live in, you could do, we were kind of talking about the same kind of thing, kind of like a commercial house or commercial building inspection.

Once again, we're dealing with historic fabric, right?

So you have to. I think you can tell, at least me, I think we can tell we're not making a decision today. And if we do, it's probably not going to be the one a half of us are happy with. But for me to have more information, I think having some kind of a contractor or inspector go out to give us some specifics about the percentage of the siding that's going to be removed a discussion of whether it's causing a health standard or a health safety issue, whether it's just what I'm trying to say, a visual impact versus a safety impact. What kind of documentation can we get to make an objective decision versus a subjective decision? Are there architects or contractors that we could just say, go out and do this? Or do we need to give the applicant some direction about what we want him to tell that inspector to look for?

Well, I think if they get somebody out there to help evaluate, I think we need maybe some photographic images of what they consider repair and what they consider replacement. So we have some method of evaluation on what their parameters are. Because right now it could be anything, right? You could say we have a, you know, a two-inch hole eight feet high and we want to replace that, you know. And it's a dent and we need to replace that as opposed to, you know, it's not the prettiest looking panel, but we want to replace it, you know. And, you know, that's fine if it wasn't a historic fabric, but you're dealing with an old building and it's supposed to look historic. It's not supposed to look modern, right? You know, if your goal is to make it look all modern and pretty, that's not the objective of historic. And that's the concern. I mean, Like I said, when I look at your drawing, I mean, the fact that you just wiped out the whole thing in red tells us nothing. I mean, that's basically all replacement. So unless you kind of do more specific associations and give us some pictures of what you consider replacement, what you consider repair, It's just too open-ended.

Yeah, Michael. How big are the panels on there right now? You said 16 feet from the... 16 feet is the height of it. Okay, so if there's damage, would you have to take that whole panel and put a whole new panel in? You would, so that gets to the skin and how much... So if it were like half, you couldn't cut or something?

Well, then that's when some of the problem, you'd start making it kind of patchy. Right, exactly. Yeah, yeah. So I think it sounds like we know what we want. Who would do this kind of thing? Would we want a contractor who's not already part of the project, like a third party inspector? Somebody we can say, is something digitally objective or objectionable versus health and safety? We just get a contractor, ask for somebody who can't see me.

I think it'd be somebody, I mean, because it's historic, right? We're talking about historic. And I think it'd have to be somebody familiar with historic that could determine the extent of the damage and figure out what needs to be saved and what needs to be replaced, patched. Because if we get a contractor, he's going to take the easy way out.

Someone like Kent or Schist might know.

It might just be, it would entail a design team. We've done this before many times, and it always includes your architect, historian. usually a structural engineer or someone responsible for the connection or the material that's being replaced or in kind, if it's the same, if it meets the life safety conglomeration that you're concerned with. So I would think you'd need architect, historian. And clearly in Kent's phase two, it says under the 10 standards for rehab. The first number six is deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of the deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, which is the siding, the new feature will match the old in design, texture, and distinctive features. So that's, you have to match what's there. Very clearly it states that the new feature, okay, and it clearly states that replacement of missings will be substantiated and documentary in physical evidence. That's where Kent comes in and says, I can't repair this. I have to replace it. And then this is what we're replacing it with. And that needs to be documented, usually photographed. However, in his, as he reads it, he goes again, any employment of in like kind materials and the maintenance and repair approach is consistent with the standard in like kind. Same size, same width, same thickness, same tongue and groove, same. So I don't see where, oh, we can't match the groove. Therefore, we're going to rip it off or replace it. I don't see that. I can't back it. It's not substantiated by your phase two either. So I do believe you're going to have to work with Kent to get it in consist, more consistent is the way I'm going to say it, because it does, if there's places that are bent off and cracked with holes in it, I'm not saying don't fix it. I want it fixed, but I don't want to drive by it one day on my way home and go, what the hell? I don't want to look like the barn anymore.

And then maybe you need to resource the material further, you know, like live in some places that have resources of historic product.

And there's like 15 briefs on metal restoration. And I don't see a phrase in anything in here about analyzing or referring back to tin aluminum. I mean, they have every single brief. Oshpot has every brief or every type of material. So I didn't research that for this, sorry. But I can print them.

The bottom line for this project, as historians, we are replacing and using the Secretary of Interiors for historical places. We are not changing the design. We are maintaining the aesthetics of the building. We are maintaining and matching the existing color. So what's the difference? The number, the percentage, whether it could be 1% or 80%, will be the same anyway. To find out the amount of area that is damaged that's going to be replaced, that's another task. But in general, we as a body, or you as a body, has to say, you go ahead, get the permit, and we could even report to the body, what was the final damage for this building? Because, see, it is... Sally, you do that first, not after.

There's no way I can... Personally, I will never do that. We've got a legal battle over a house just like this.

You don't tell us what you did after the fact.

You figure it out first and then tell us. It's going to be harder.

I think what works for us here is it's June, which is, I mean, for God's sake, it's already happened here. We're not talking about this in September, right? Where you'd have some, we'd have some, you'd all have some concerns about. further weather damage and things like that. How long would it take? But I agree that if we give you a permit, it's hard to yank it back. And I don't know, and I don't think we're, I'm not saying that it turns out that you've got to replace 90% of that. That might be a really hard decision we have to make if it means if we don't do that replacement, not the repair or rehab that Ken's talking about, that the whole building falls over, we'd be just as sad about that. But it's just, that's a really integral part of the decision we're missing is what's how much i know this is always a shell right this is not structural at all this is just the shell yeah yeah but so how how hard would it be or how how much time would it be for us to get that can you do that in a month and to to get that information how much is going to be replaced um and what you know what the actual status is and then we can make a decision whether it's a good one or a bad one then at least we have that information because we'll have to defend it to the planning commission um you know and if you if you like our decision that's great or if you don't like our decision that's great we're just still a recommending body and a lot of times so we're going to have to be able to stand behind what we say we just say well we and we do trust you but we trusting somebody is like we still have to say here's the reason we trust you i guess i have a question um who are we recommending to

I don't know this one. Yeah. Because it's a planning. Yeah. Are we? It's a building permit. Yes. So are those appealable?

Well, I don't know. That's what I'm saying. It's not a design approval. Yeah. We've got some.

I think Elizabeth can answer that.

Yeah. Yeah. So it is not appealable. And it's... My concern is there's a different description in like in the building permit and the resolution. It's historic. So your recommendation is very important. And I would agree that it has to be specific to what's being done. The concern I have is Kent Seavey's report says repair and limited replacement. The resolution also says that as well. The building permit just says replacement.

I wouldn't find this to be such a big thing, but understand the whole reason for the historicity of this thing, it's the biggest barn built by Kaiser in 1945. The citing is significant.

I just wanted to answer your question. Why was it the chief of planning? I think it's just when there's a construction permit and there's obviously an assigned planner for the Red Barn project, they'll assign review by planning. That's basically the designee of the chief of planning. So it would be the chief of planning letting me sign off on the construction permit that's why it says you recommend to the chief of planning the chief planning gets this resolution from you guys and it says go ahead planner you can sign off on that construction permit it can't be appealed after that and that's why it's very important to have this step planning even considered like maybe this should be a design approval but that's not really a part you know it's not in a d district so it's not in a d district so it doesn't work in our zoning code so instead it's close hre

HAB-Masyn Moyer- HR review and it sounds like we're doing a continuance yeah and Mary, how are you just for for all of us, I mean well no, but how are you how are you related to the red barn project. HAB-Masyn Moyer- In the main planner principal planner so.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- The applicants a requested an amendment to their use permit and part of the settlement agreement came out that they had to do a general development plan. And so they have applied for that. And so I'm processing that. Gotcha. Thank you.

So that's in process now?

It's in process now. If you want to know the history really quickly, In late 2024, the Planning Commission did approve their request for an amendment to their use permit, expanding some uses through a general development plan. It was appealed, and most of the appeal was based on the CEQA analysis and the initial study and mitigating the declaration. And so... County recirculated the initial study mitigating negative deck in hopes of meeting the concerns of those appellants, but they actually again commented on the initial study during recirculation. And their comments made fair arguments that it needed an environmental impact report. So that was in 2025. So now staff has circulated a request for proposals for an EIR. And the applicant agreed to process an EIR to fund an EIR for this. Like in the next month, we'll get to the board with a funding agreement and a professional services agreement for that EIR to be prepared. That's where we're at. Very slow process, a lot of challenge. And by the way, the appeal had nothing to do with the historicity of the barn or any changes to San Benito County that have primary concern for wildlife corridors and are concerned that, you know, the noise and the traffic and other things that would come with a stronger use of this site could affect wildlife corridors. Thanks for that clarification.

Mm-hmm. Okay. Where are we? So, Liz, you said there's different, you said the definition in that. building permit was more about replacement. What we're talking about in Ken Seavey's report says repair with a little replacement. Yeah, so like there's a disconnect.

And the construction permit just says replace damaged siding on red barn, like for light interiors.

Okay, but they're not even saying like for light, so.

Okay.

Well, don't we usually ask for samples when we do site changes on siting and windows and stuff? Yeah.

And isn't that what you got this morning?

It was colors.

Oh.

And this is actually, you know, as everybody knows, when they print out something color, you know, Any examples? This is like a devil wears product kind of a thing. This is a blue. This is a red. So, I know you did a good shot, but yeah.

Put it on somebody else's printer, right? Yeah, yeah. Oh, gosh. Put the best printer in the office.

Go for it. So, we're dealing with the contractor for siding, so you must already know what the siding looks like that you're putting, you plan on putting on. And You know, I personally, I'm still against it, but I'm thinking potentially we can't let building go on deterioration because then we lose a whole resource. So I think we're going to have to make a negotiated middle ground kind of thing. I believe a full evaluation should be done in advance. That's standard in every jurisdiction that I've worked in on historics to make sure that the resource is preserved appropriately. I think the evaluation should also include the possibility of repair of siding according to the interior standards. They have many bulletins on metal and how to restore metal. I don't know if it's possible. I am not an aluminum expert or the siding expert of the world, but I just had a case of having to look through some of them. They're older, but there are good examples of how that can be done. And so I think further investigation is necessary and documentation to the board with samples. And, you know, if the samples or the wind is blowing them off and it's damaged, take in a section of the... The original, you don't have to bring a 16-footer just to make sure you see the ribbing and then the new. And if it's close enough, you know, I'll probably go it's close enough. But I think we need that evaluation first and foremost.

Yeah, I mean, I need to see the criteria, you know. Yeah. I mean, because Ken, even his report says repair, right? Very clearly states that, yeah. That's substantiated. And I think we need a drawing that shows it and we're going to get some pictures as well, kind of like a full evaluation.

And if truly the damage is because these panels blow around and a life safety issue because they fly off, I'm surprised you don't have an engineer already looked at it and said, this is how you can handle it. We clip and we frame all kinds of weird materials onto steel all the time. steel penetrating fasteners. You can clip on. I'm sure there's a multitudes of ways that can be handled. And that would be something I would think would be required from the building department to know how you plan on putting these panels and fasten them to these skirts. This isn't plywood siding nailed off to studs. It's not a conventional type of construction. They standardly see. And I don't want to drive by one day and look at it and go, oh shit, we got a new Butler building out there. I really would like it to, you know, match what's there.

And I do think there's resources that, you know, have historic materials salvaged or whatever to that might be a possibility. Yeah. So Kaiser and have a motion.

I was going to say maybe what we want to give them some specific direction right want We want that. And that's what I was trying to, yeah. I was trying to type this. Oh, I'm sorry.

No, no, no. That's a lot of typing.

That's good. No. Well, I'll say what I'm going to say what I have written down that we can add to it. But I'd make a motion that says that given the site's historicity, the additional information is needed for HRB's consideration of the proposed project for the following reasons. One, there is a disconnect. as unintentional as it may be, between the permit's application language, the historian's treatment of the project, and the resolution. So we're asking for further investigation and information from the applicant, either engaging in an individual or as a team, to develop a report that would include at least these following aspects. I just said it in a... stream of consciousness way, the percentage of the paneling to be replaced, photographic evidence or representation of the panels to be replaced, line drawing or representation, physical samples of the siding and the paint colors and style and material, a discussion of the damaged versus visually objectionable siding portions, meaning what's a dent and what's a real hole that's going to cause health or safety or Or structural issue and review the project under the possibility of repair according to the Department of Interior standards for metal repair. And we also recommend that the applicant do that research as as as extensive as you can or as possible about using or reusing materials. That's kind of the and then coming back, depending on how long you believe it might take to do that and having us take a look at it with the intention that our next meeting would be for a decision.

But I reference, you know, cancer report to where it says, you know, repair versus replacement. Yes, that is the recommendation from the historian.

Can I I have some pictures, they're all from the interior of the barn, so you guys get an idea of what it looks like inside?

Yeah, and then we're looking at the outside. If we had to look at the inside of everything too, that's theirs. That's a good point. So I would say for the investigation, especially given the differing wording, right?

The conflicts between the permits and documentation. Okay. So anyway, that's my recommendation. Inconsistencies in the project description.

But then I can't remember, you know, because we're talking about not just percentage, but an actual.

Square footage. Usually that's required square footage. You have 2,000 square feet of siding, and I have to replace 2.2 square feet or 990 square feet.

That gives us the… But we do want the elevations.

And we want them on… Right, because if they're on the primary, that's more concerning. On the backside, less concerning. Rather than just… Well, you got three primaries on that barn.

Strip them out across the building if you want.

That would be nice. Could it be recommended that spec sheets are requested in replacement to samples?

No. You want physical samples?

Yeah.

Because this is kind of a spec sheet. Like I said, if it's going to be a spec sheet, it would be in color. It would still be back where we're at.

We want to be able to see. Because the gauge will probably have to change. I don't know. I think I would.

But I think it would be nice to say if there's issues with fastening, see what that is, too.

almost need someone to know how to connect them yeah you you can dab them in you can clip them on you can there's a multitude of ways and of course you're going to want to use the one they have in their warehouse and they're just going to bring out the clips and clip them like a butler building does but that might not be something you can do here you might have to actually do the self-dapping taps into the girds to make it happen i don't know

And we won't look at what it looks like on the outside. Right.

So through the chair, the next HRB meeting is July 2nd. If not, the following one will be August 6th.

Let's look at updates on those.

I would have for July 2nd, I would need to... send it to the newspaper by the 21st of this month. That would be for July 2nd. For August, it would be I'm sorry. For July 2nd, it would be the 16th.

For a socialized meeting, they need to

Yes, we need to know by the 16th because that's when I would need to notice it to the newspaper. What about August? August would be July 21st. Okay.

That's really, I mean, Yeah, I think it's good that it's June, because if we do it by July, especially since this isn't something that's going to need to be set for the Planning Commission or anybody else, it's just going straight to the Chief of Planning. I don't think there's any way that the applicants in the next two weeks or 10 days could get all of this done. That's too much to do. Yeah.

Or at least for many of us. Yeah, we need to be able to have some time. It would be too much to get everybody together.

So... Anyway, so hearing what the deadlines are, what the dates are for noticing and everything else, it looks like that we would recommend that this come back to the August hearing and that we would get the documentation, the reports back from the applicant to no later than the 19th of July, really, because you're going to need to send things out on the 21st.

I would need to confirm, but if we set it to a date certain, I don't believe we need to notice it. I'm not sure if it's different from ZA to HRRB, but if it's a date uncertain, then that's when I would have to send it out to the newspaper.

Yeah, we're continuing from today, so it would be specifically. But we just don't have a set date or due.

Well, if we continue to the August date, then you will need to notice it. I need to confirm on that.

Yeah. And when do you need the materials too? Because we're looking at the applicants doing some information. Yeah. So you would need that information back to that submitted to you by the 21st of July. Yes. Okay.

Through the chair, I would need a draft report by July 14th.

Okay. All right. That's really good. You need to have it completed by the 14th. Okay. Okay. I'm not even going to ask how long it takes you think to do a report. It's the only thing you have to do. But maybe we can ask the applicant. I don't think they can do it in 10 days.

Yeah. So right now, the project's going to be continued with the information we're going to request and what you've heard. So if you want it for the July, it would need to be done and submitted back in 10 days, right?

For July?

It was a 16th around that yeah yeah July, the report would need to be to me by June 9 so.

So basically we're talking about continuing it to the August meeting August meeting. If that works with you. This would be the earliest that we can get it on the agenda. Time.

No, they're saying August.

You would need all the data in by July 14th, I believe you said.

What we're looking at is, you can tell, right? I think we're going to recommend a continuance because we want, we believe, not just we want, but we believe to make a decision given HRB's requirements and rehabilitation versus repair versus all the determinations we need to make that you'll need to come back. And to do that, you really, it's not feasible for you to come back until August, which would be the 6th of August. And that gives you three weeks a month, maybe even more to do the research that we've been asking for. So, and then it's still in August. I mean, that's not still, it's not fall yet. It's not rainy season yet. So if there is, if there is something substantial, you'd be able to know that. That's one thing I think just dawns on me that we haven't talked about at all, is that replacing this is something you need to do because it's gonna make it more safe or more weatherproof. Can we ask you, How bad of a condition is it in? Are you saying that the barn is not going to last another season? Or is it going to be able to stay the way it is? Can it remain and still be a safe structure if this activity, this permit, is an issue to you within the next month or two to get all of these things done? That was a really long question. I hope you understand what I said. Sorry.

So first and foremost, I can't make any assumptions of what the weather can bring or what can that sighting handle because I'm not an expert in the material world. The probability of saying, hey, within the next 90 days, is there health and safety issue? Probably not because of the weather that we are in this summer. The challenge is, the folks are out there that can do that.

Yeah, we're going to, whatever we do, we're going to tell you. I just want to make sure that there wasn't other information that we didn't have yet where you have been told or you believe that this building is currently as it sits is going to create an expansive hazard, a really substantial health and safety hazard if these repairs don't get done in the next six months or, you know, Two months or something like that. It sounds like it's something you need to do, but it's not an imminent health and safety issue. But we're going to be really specific. Absolutely.

No, you are correct. It's not fair for me to say that you would have an imminent health and safety. There is some, you know, whether... that we're in the summer of our season here it's okay on that the the roof of the whole facility is is good um so that we do have a solid roof on that um so uh the answer to your question though at this point in time is not a health and safety issue with that um it's just trying to find the right well We do have a lot of deferred maintenance that we're catching up and trying to do. And then on top of that, if anything else, you know, you've got obligations and so forth to move forward. So I was hoping today to, and I understand your point, I respect that, but to be able to move forward and put things in place because this construction probably wouldn't have been until September, October, being able to do that, only because of the industry's timing and ordering of materials and so forth. But That'll be a continuance. We'll just have to see what your request starts and see whether or not we can meet that deadline.

Thank you. And that's what we want to do. We don't want to wait. If we can get it done in the next couple of, you know, we, you, can get it done in the next couple of months, that would be the best thing. Because then we all know what's going on as well. And I'm so... Would just a regular contractor be able to be the one to take a look to say what needs to be replaced? I wouldn't get a regular contractor. I'd get a siding contractor. But I mean, is there such a thing as a historical resources contractor? We should say you must do.

No. Not in the metal industry. Not around here, I don't believe. There might be up in the Bay Area when they do.

Spectra. Oh, okay. Spectra, they're the ones that did the... in the library up there. Spectra. Anything you see with historic preservation, Spectra will be sponsoring them. But they did all the historic repair in Watsonville on the library.

boys aren't going to make the siding. They've got to go out to the industry. And that's where I'm like...

So the spectrum may be a good resource.

Exactly.

If I can interject for a second. My research on the siding is basically they take certain gauge metal, certain gauge metal, they roll the metal out. There's certain industry standards that are out through California, United States, that makes it. So when I took the pictures of this sighting, 99% of the people said, you can't find it. So I went back and I found as close as I can, which gave me from the roof to the sighting that matched the thing. So if this board is requesting to say, we're going to want like 100% sighting, please give me that number so I can reach out to them because I was not able to be successful with that because this is a sighting that is Very tough to try and find like as 100%. I'm trying to find the best that will cancel.

We can get Spectrum's number for you, but I'm sure there's... Yeah, we can't recommend them. No, but if they might be a resource, they might know where to find the material.

I just know they just did a project for the county up in Pajaro. Is that a metal building? No, but they do all kinds of stuff. They do a lot of building. And you might just call them for an opinion, if nothing else. Yeah.

So the company I reached out to, Salinas Steel Builders, they've been around since. How do I approach this? They're the ones that did the rooftop. We couldn't, you know, this is what you've got. This is what we can do. This is what we recommend. This is how we'll get there. So outside of that, I think they're probably the most experienced celestial builders that have been around in the industry. The Goldman's, they've built a lot of buildings. So outside of that, you are correct. There's a lot of historians that will replace with different woods and so forth.

meeting Spectra and dealing with them on this. And I know Sal's seen their work too, but I mean, they might just be a resource, you know, it doesn't have to be the exact, they may tell you, you know, you can't do it, you can do it, or this is what we recommend as a replacement siting, you know, and if it doesn't match exactly, maybe that's what we have to live with.

And I'm sure there's a mill that'll mill it, I guarantee you, but it's not going to be the cheapest option.

It's an opinion I would respect either way, you know, if they say yes, no, um, And just maybe for just good recommendation, nothing else. No guarantees, but they're just so experienced in the restoration business that I might give you some good advice or if you can't find it, we're willing to accept that. They're an opinion that I would totally respect one way or the other.

And that would be something if you and Sal were meeting with somebody, I guess we have a subcommittee that goes out and talks about these. That would be one of the same things you'd say if you were in a subcommittee to announce. Exactly. Okay. Exactly.

And I knew nothing about them. I just saw them advertised every historic event, you know, with the preservation, everything. They're always a sponsor. Yeah. And with Pajaro, they actually were there and did all the historic portion of that.

And that was a county contract.

So they had to comply with a lot of things to do the right, you know, to do it right. And they were absolute work. I mean, yeah, absolute work. So like I said, just maybe just for an opinion, you know, just kind of. match, then we'll work with it.

I'm going to give some feedback. We have approved projects that we have approved for replacing the roof, as an example. And due to the fire zoning on the area, we tried to replace with the original roofing. And we can find out that we can replace, as long as it looks hysterical, the same as the material of the roof. We have approved that. So why don't we do that for the siding? That's why I've been talking that way. Because we're meeting the Secretary of the Interior for historical places and say to meet and match the existing tools. you know, to the maximum to say, to match the siding. And we are matching, trying to match the design and the color. So what's the difference? We could, we all, okay, you, somebody just recommends to the county agencies that this is following those guidelines and be replacing, repairing, or whatever you want to call it, And just give us the go-ahead to get the permits. Because it doesn't matter if it is 1% or 90%, it's going to be the same.

It's not the same.

Roofing is a fire issue.

No, no, no. Roofing is a fire issue.

But still, the siding is the same. We have done it also for the siding. We're not dealing with the fire issue here.

No, but we also have dealing with the siding. Roofing is a fire issue. Yes. And it's an insurance issue. This is not that.

Yeah. I think the idea is that we don't, like you say, whether we call it repairing or replacing or whatever, we don't have, at least I don't feel like we have enough information in front of us to know what to call it. And if we could say we're repairing. Or we could, as you know, given OHP or, you know, the interior standard such and such, number two or nine or whatever. If we had enough information to say that, we could, but I think that's the disconnect. And we don't know if it's 90%, if it's 1%. And then on top of that, if we approved it, this doesn't go to a different, we're not a recommending body to anybody. If we do this, the permit gets issued and you can't, appeal that permit. If we just, if we said, look, we weren't given the correct information or we don't feel like we made the right decision because we're the hold into the planning commission, the whole County or the citizens, we didn't make the right decision because we just didn't get that right information. We had the opportunity to do it.

What's your historian says repair.

Yeah. That's the other thing. There's some disconnect between what it says in the, in the report and the, um, um, the staff report, the historian's report. So I think that's a big thing too, is we don't really know how much it's going to be. There's like a big black hole as to how much. And then after we say your yes or no today, if the permits gets issued tomorrow, we're done with it. We can't say, we can't take it back.

And again, the whole- Well, we want enough information to make a decision. Yeah. And that's what we're shooting for.

Yeah.

And the sooner you can help us with that, the sooner we can just say, you know, get you out of here, right? hearing that you're out of here. We're not looking to prolong everything. We just need enough information to make a decision, which we want to do for you to get it done.

Yeah, it might be that when we get done with the amount of whatever is proposed to us, we might not all say the same thing. We've done that before. Well, you can tell me, you know, even the subcommittee, they don't always have the same opinions. And it may not be something that we all agree upon. But I think we have to know what we're not agreeing on. We don't have the information yet to do that. So I would recommend it. Like you say, it might be two years or whatever, but I would recommend that we can continue this to the 6th of August. So we continue to a date certain with the recommendations that we're going to give to the applicant to go out to give us the information we need for us to make a competent decision on the permit that's in front of us or the application that's in front of us.

And we're choosing the 6th because that's the earliest we feel you can get us the information. Yeah.

for you and then if you can't you know if you decide that you can't get the right contractor they're not going to come out or whatever you can always come back and ask for it to be continued but this way we don't want to make you go out to september october if you can get it done in the next six weeks we want we want it done that's one because the longer you do wait the more possibility that what you've got out there couldn't turn into a health and safety issue we don't want that and you certainly don't want that either okay are we doing motions Do we want to say the report? Do we want to give some general ideas and then allow the contractor or the team, whatever it's going to be, to come back to be more specific for us? Or do we want to say what we think we want right now as far as what we want them to take a look at? I'd probably just say what we want right now. I saw you highlighting something. Do you want to put something else in? Oh, no. OK. All right. But what I've got so far, I think we talked about, is showing the square footage. I'll read the whole thing again, then I'll give it to you. Given the historic sites situation, additional information we think is needed for our consideration of the project. There's a disconnect between the permits application language and rehabilitation, repair, replacement, not putting any onus on anybody, just that it's different. We need to make sure we all have the same thing. Given the inconsistencies of those references, the application language needs additional information. So we as the HRB, as the board, we're asking that the applicant engage either individual or a team to develop a report addressing at least these following aspects of the proposal, which is the percentage of the paneling to be replaced, you know, square footage, including photographic evidence or representation of the panels to be replaced, you know, the number and the location on the building. I'm not going to line drawing representation, physical samples of the siding and the paint, not just a board, a discussion in that report of the parts of the siding that are damaged versus those that might just be visually objectionable, the possibility of repair to be discussed according to the Department of Interior standards for metal repair, and then taking into consideration the HRB's recommendations for local contractors who know siding who might be able to help you. And for that person to be able to hopefully do that inspection and be that person to present a report to the applicant and then to the board. Did we hit it all?

Yeah. I mean, it's just the contractor needs to be aware of the historic fabric though, not just siding, right?

Yeah.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. You're continued. And hopefully we're clear enough on what we'd like to see. Like I said, I'd recommend just talking to Spectra just for your own information. And like I said, that's an opinion I would truly respect as well, seeing that work. If you can't do it for August, let us know or come back for the meeting and continue it again. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your time.

That's right, you can go now. We still have something.

Yeah, I'll take care of that. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Troyers and Gaffers.

I hope it's all the same. Yeah.

Kelly. Yes, ma'am. Do you possibly email us your motion? Yes, yes. I was excited. I'll come back and touch it.

I have like three post-it notes, but they're only bulletins, so I don't think I can just tear them up and throw them away.

You'll have to remember all these ways.

Okay, other matters. Oh, you see, other matters.

I know. I went to, I can, are we at the reports yet? I went to AEP, Association of Environmental Professionals conference down in San Diego the end of May, I guess. I can't even remember when it was. But they had some decent presentations on AEP. historical rehabilitation. One of the striking ones, though, was the same comment I made when I went to an APA conference is that they took this big swath of San Diego that they rehabilitated that was old. It was part of the naval construction or naval contractor section, and they had started to do a lot of development. And I asked one of the panelists about the historicity of the site and what kind of historical reports did you do? Are there going to be storyboards and stuff? And they said, no, we didn't really do anything. And they didn't. And this was like a three or four block section of Old Town, not Old Town, but Old San Diego. And I don't know if it's just a disturbing trend that some cities are just You know, making some kind of a statement of overriding consideration and deciding that we have in reuse is more important than maintain historical structures or even doing any report, it was just a I was really shocked that two different groups in a row in La and then one San Diego just said yeah and just went on. So anyway, that was my report. Yeah, especially for San Diego. San Diego has a lot of really good stuff. So I didn't understand.

So they just work on adaptive reuse and that's it.

Yeah, they did some good stuff. They had another couple of panels where they did talk about that. But this one huge part that was down by the waterfront, they just, it's like, whatever. That was it. I'm hoping I did. So I did get for our CLG. I got my CLG's.

Any other comments?

Oh, there's going to be an event on the 12th of this month at the Puerto Vallejo Library whereby AMAP is having a presentation for preserving through the Monterey County and the supervisor in recognition for the efforts for the historical preservation of the library. That would be a good place to be. We as a subcommittee were, together with historians and very well performed by the contractors for that particular venue.

The county's putting that on, right? Yes. Yeah.

Publicity.

Yeah, yeah.

Is there a flyer or a notice or an email or something?

I don't know. I could maybe send that information to you, because I thought it was going to be inviting everybody or something.

The formal event is going to be farther down the line. This is just kind of an intermediate press event.

Yes, yeah.

It's not the big... Not the big grand opening. Not the big grand opening.

Yeah, because this is the exterior summit now, for the most part. We're just kind of doing it. Yeah. Good morning.

Do we have anything that we know for our July meetings? No, I didn't see any.

I think we have some coming in. All right. So it was the one in Pebble Beach, you know, the one on the golf course where they wanted the big glass windows. Yes. Oh, yes. OK. should be coming before us.

And as I always promise and have never yet done, we're still working on historic resources presentation for staff. I'm going to work with Jordan and get Melanie to review it. And then I want to clear to see if we can do that and have everybody be invited to be part of it.

So John, what did you say about the house something off course?

It's coming before us. It's coming back. They've worked on drawings. I think they actually did a pretty decent job. I mean, they went back and forth a few times. But they paid a lot more attention to what we talked about. I mean, because they were going to do it earlier and then they went even further about preserving some things. And I think they did a lot better job this time around. And I know he sent out some plans for the subcommittee to review. And he wants to get it on him. The next agenda. So I think we'll see that for sure. Well, she did a window schedule and everything. Now to show which ones are going to be repaired. And so they, you know, instead of the general.

They did a thorough and best evaluation.

That's a more thorough evaluation. Instead of the general note that they used to have. Yeah. Yeah. So they paid a lot more attention to clients.

I don't know. Oh, that was Liz, maybe. That could be Liz Gonzales.

That's her notebook. So are we adjourned?

We're adjourned. If you guys will leave, I have a question. Not for staff. This is purely historical-based question.