Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, the Planning Commission will come to order. This is the, what day is this? August 25th, Planning Commission. And Erica, would you please introduce staff to a roll call and instruct online participants how they can call in?

Sure. I'll start with the roll call. We have Chair Silva.

Here.

Commissioner Bluth. Here. Commissioner Freeman. Here. Commissioner Palmer.

Here.

And Commissioner Pauley.

Here.

Our planned absences today are Commissioner La Tassa and Commissioner Stoker. Our staff members present are Community Development Director Kim Cole, our Planning Manager Levi Hill, our Principal Planner Fernando Rovery, our Principal Planner Christy Sabdo, Senior Associate Chris Schmidt, and myself, Recording Secretary Erica Barrera. information on participating in this meeting and providing public comment including remotely by zoom or telephone is on this meeting's agenda which is online at monterey.gov forward slash agendas remote commenters will be muted until it's their turn to speak and a time will be shown on the screen if you're connected on zoom the timer is accurate with no delay in the chamber we recommend keeping phones and devices muted to prevent audio interference with the meeting thank you for participating in your city government

Thank you, Erica. And we will begin with the consent agenda. I'm going to ask that we take a separate action on approval of minutes and then address the other items on the consent agenda separately. If there's anybody in chambers that would like to speak before the commission regarding either the minutes or the other items on the consent agenda, you may do so now. Yes, sir. Is there anybody online, Erica, that wishes to make a comment about the consent agenda?

There are no hands raised.

Very good.

We're going to take this back to the... No, we'll get to that after this.

I understand. So we're going to bring this back to the commission, and we'll have a separate roll call vote on approval of minutes. Are there any comments from commissioners? Motion, please.

I'll move to accept the minutes.

Second?

Second.

All right, so we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Freeman and a second by Commissioner Bluth. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Sure. Chair Silva? Yes. Commissioner Bluth? Yes. Commissioner Freeman? Yes. Commissioner Palmer?

Yes.

And Commissioner Pauley?

Abstain.

The minutes have been approved.

And now we will direct our attention back to the consent agenda for the items that we did not vote on, items three, four, and five. We have a request to pull one of, or two of the items on the consent, which there are three and four, was that correct? Yes, thank you. And so we will start with item number three. Can we get a staff report, please?

I believe we have one other item that remains on the consent agenda. The commission would like to act on that before we move on.

We can do that. So item number five, which is 18 Spray Avenue, that has not been requested to be pulled. And do any of my fellow commissioners wish to make a motion on this? I'll move to approve.

I'll second.

So we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Palmer and a second by Commissioner Bluth. Roll call vote, please.

Sure. Chair Silva? Yes. Commissioner Bluth? Yes. Commissioner Freeman? Yes. Commissioner Palmer? Yes. And Commissioner Pauley?

Yes.

That item has been approved.

Very good. So now we will go back to item number three. Levi?

Yes. And we'll bring forward Senior Associate Planner Chris Schmidt will present the item.

Well, thank you members of the Planning Commission. My name is Chris Schmidt. I'm a Senior Associate Planner for the City of Monterey. This was an application that the Planning Commission heard on August 11th and was continued based on public comment. There have been no changes to the project design as of date. So I did give this presentation, then I will give it maybe a little bit more rapidly this time around since we're all generally familiar. So the application is for a two-story addition totaling 635 square feet. And it also includes a deck addition as well as other related exterior alterations. So here we see that property. It is located in the Fisherman Flats neighborhood. It's a 1961 California ranch-style residence on a 9,500-square-foot lot. It is zoned R1 and has a general plan density of low-density... general plan land use designation of low density residential. So this was a code compliance case. Our staff, our city inspector had found that there was an addition under construction and the owners were sent a code compliance letter and subsequently they applied for the proposed addition. So here we see that addition. It's located close to the rear on the left-hand side there, highlighted in orange. The primary residence is generally one story in nature, and so this basically steps down with the grade at the rear. And here you see the floor plan, basically mirror image of the two bedroom addition floors. Here we see the north and west elevations with that addition on the right hand side, looking at the north elevation and then centrally located on that west elevation. And the south elevation, here's the addition. so the addition was proposed to match there would be a gray blue cement plaster white trim with eaves class a composition roofing to match mill guard vinyl windows and sliding doors and there's no new fencing tree removal or grading proposed Staff was able to make the findings. Generally, there are four findings that have to be made for architectural review permits. In the case of this one, staff found that this was a modest addition relative to the existing residence. The siting is appropriate. It meets the setbacks applicable to the site and the massing kind of runs down the land and is appropriate for that site. It does comply with all of the applicable development standards and the nearest neighbor Residential structure is about 65 feet away, with the nearby accessory building is about 20 feet away. The impact from the balcony should generally be limited. It is facing a separate direction from the neighboring residential structures, and it's relatively small. uh and as i mentioned the project matches the existing residents and staff was able to make these findings so with that staff recommends approval i'm available for questions thank you thank you chris any questions

Chris, I have a question. I believe, if memory serves, two weeks ago this came up, we tabled it, and I had, if I remember correctly, asked whether or not there had been a geotechnical investigation on this. There has not yet, yeah. And there hasn't been any progress in the last two weeks on that?

I would defer to the applicant, yeah.

Very good, okay. No further questions. Would the applicant like to come up?

GOOD AFTERNOON, PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS AARON, AST DESIGN GROUP. YES, WE WERE HERE TWO WEEKS AGO. HOPING TO HAVE APPROVAL. WE WERE MADE AWARE OF HOA And speaking with the president, we were asked to get approval from neighbors. So my clients, the homeowners for both projects, which you'll hear on the next item too, but item three here, had a verbal approval from the next door neighbor that they're okay with the project. So we have achieved that. As far as geotech, it was not asked for right now. So we have not addressed that. So... If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer. Thank you.

You're jumping the gun here, but that's okay. Go ahead. You're up.

Yeah. Tom Raleigh, president, Fisherman's Flats, Homeowners and Residents Association. Some of you are not here at the meeting on the 11th. Some of you were. I guess Latasha and Stoker are not here. But I think Stoker was the acting chair. And one of the things as a president of the Neighborhood Association, when somebody's adding a second floor, I'm gonna be contacting and say, what the, what's going on? And so as the neighborhood president, I checked it out and there is a deed restriction private deed restriction. The city allows two stories, but the private deed restriction says a story and a half. One of the things I discussed was the fact that one of the original models in Fisherman's Flats was a story and a half where you walk in, you go down to bedrooms and you go up to a family room, a split model. There's like seven or eight of those in the flats of the 153 houses. But I wanted those that weren't here last time to be aware this is a private deed restriction that's recorded that every owner was given a copy of this when they bought their house. So somebody that puts in a permit and says, I wanna add two stories, the logical thing would be for the staff, I believe, to ask, have you notified the neighbors because it violates the private deed restrictions? And these are recorded. October 14th, 1960 was when our neighborhood was brand new. And it tells you, for instance, no trailers allowed in your yard. You can have two dogs and two cats, and you can go a story and a half. And this is recorded. Everybody gets a copy of it. They can't say they didn't get it, because they would have gotten it when they bought their house from the title company. I just want to make sure you understand that as a president, I would be the one contacted with people complaining about, how did I get this new story house next to me without being told about it? Rep from the builder said they've contacted people in both this one and item four. So what I wanted to make sure that you knew, as all the planning commissioners knew, we have a private deed restriction. It's not homeowner's dues. It's not homeowner association. It's recorded with our deed. Every house in the flats has this. Thank you.

Tom, can I ask you a question, please? Sure. Is there a definition of a story and a half?

No, but there was a model that was one of the original models that was a story and a half that was permitted. And I can show you, we could drive around the neighborhood, I could show you which houses, there's about seven or eight of them. And I used to have a handout that was given out by the developer when they originally built this. I'd have to search for it. It's buried in my study someplace. But it was one of the models, like the primary model was the Colton model, which is a basic three-story, two bath with two car garage. That's the basic floor plan. My model that I'm in is the country club model, but it's been modified so much that you know most of the houses have had additions put on i just found out today you can add a adu unit you don't even need to notify your next door neighbor if you have an ad unit which i think you know the state is blowing it on that i mean at least the neighbors should be notified when you know somebody's going to put a second you know addition on to their house next door but that's apparently what the rules read tom let me let me follow up so how is the

the language and the deed restriction enforced if there's no codified definition?

It would have to be enforced by the neighbors. That's why I'm the one that gets the calls as president of the association when something like this shows up and say, how did the city give this? And basically, my question to the owner, have you checked with the neighbors?

And is there any kind of a design review process in your HOA? Is it an HOA?

Well, we have a homeowners and residents association, yes. We're the only neighborhood that has residents in its name. And yes, we have an executive committee, and we're having our semiannual meeting September 28th.

And is there going to be a separate approval process for this application? No, there's none. So this is it?

Yeah, this is it. It was just... The reason I contacted the city was, did the city inform these people and remind them of the private deed restriction? Because it is recorded. It's not invisible. It's still in effect for every owner in the flats. So if a neighbor objects to it, they would have to hire an attorney to enforce the deed restriction.

We have another question for you, Tom.

Okay.

Did I hear the applicant say that they contacted... The HOA and the HOA?

Yeah, I've talked to him. He says they've contacted, they had on the one on Via Martimo, they've had the two neighbors on each side, and he's verbally contacted the other neighbors on the Augusta Place house. So they've been contacted.

And I'm sorry, I'm not challenging. I'm just, are you contending that that approval from the HOA should not have been given?

There's no approval from the HOA. It's a private deed restriction. It's part of the recorded lien on the property. It's not an HOA restriction. We have a voluntary homeowners and residents association. Yeah, but Tom just testified that the neighbors enforced this. Yeah, it has to be enforced by the neighbors. And basically my question was, has the city notified the owners?

Well, I have a similar question. The applicant said that they got verbal approval from the neighbors. So how can you contend that the neighbors weren't contacted?

Well, this is subsequent, at least in one case, the house on via Martimo. He actually got signatures and, you know. So it hadn't been done by the previous meeting, as far as I know.

Well, we just got public comment. Otherwise.

Yeah. Yeah. And that's what he told me before. And so there's no objection to the neighbors. Hey, go for it. Thank you.

Thank you, Tom.

I have a quick question from Chris. Did you say that this addition goes down, not up?

Correct. Okay. I can't recall the city. Several cities have zoning regs that don't count basement square footage. Is that true in Monterey? I can't recall.

So there are I want to be careful because we do have definitions for half story, but it's, it's completely separate from the document that he's referencing. I will know that that document does provide for an approval process, whether or not the goes through that process is really irrelevant to the decision and that the commission is making today. And that's why it's back on the agenda today.

Right. Levi, the, um. The deed restriction that doesn't play any role in our, um. discussions here. That's correct.

You have another question? Yeah. Anybody else in chambers wishes to speak before this application? Seeing nobody. Anybody online, Erica?

There are no hands raised.

Very good. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Questions?

Um, any kind of liberation? Um, so in the commission tables, an item that gives staff an opportunity to investigate concerns, looked at the staff report and satisfied with it. And I'm extra reassured that the neighbors are supportive of the project. I don't see why we would make a decision based on models from decades ago. So, um, I'm supportive of these projects. want to make a motion yes i moved to approve um items three and four uh for 14 30 augusta place let's just do three right now because that's what the item is okay um i moved to approve item number three 14 30 augusta place application arp 25-0010 i'll second

So we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Palmer and a second by Commissioner Pauley. Can we get a roll call vote, please, Erica?

Sure. Chair Silva.

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth. Yes. Commissioner Freeman. Yes. Commissioner Palmer. Yes. And Commissioner Pauley.

Yes.

Okay. That item's been approved. The decision is appealable within 10 days to our city council. We have applications online or in our planning office.

Thank you, Erica.

And we will move now to item number four, which is another item that was continued from our last session, 1490 via, I hope I pronounced this right, Meritimo.

Is that right, Chris? That's how I would pronounce it. Thank you, Chair. Again, this is Chris Schmidt at the City of Monterey. We're looking at 1430 via Meritimo, which includes a first and second story addition. In the presentation, so the staff recommendation is that the planning commission approve. The project is for a 46 square foot 1st story kitchen addition a 608 square foot 2nd story addition above the garage and related balcony at the rear and other exterior alterations. So here we see the project site. It is located in the Fisherman Flats neighborhood. It is a 1964 California ranch style home on a 10,000 square foot lot. It is zoned R1-12 and has a low density residential general plan designation. It's about a block away from the other site as well. And as I just noted, there's a small kitchen addition, second story addition. At the second story, we're seeing a new primary bedroom, bathroom, and balcony, as well as throughout the building, new windows and new sliding doors, new roofing, new board and batten siding to match, and a new garage door. And here we see the site. The proposed second story addition is located above the garage here and kitchen addition here. And I will note there's a public walkway through green space on this side here. Here's the floor plan showing the two additions, the first floor on the right-hand side and the second floor on the left. And starting with the west elevation, you can see that second story addition. North elevation, which is the side elevation as viewed maybe from the neighbor or from that walkway I noted. And the east elevation, this is the rear. Generally, the colors and materials will match existing. We've got board and batten siding, charcoal comp roofing, a taupe body color and a designer white trim, white mill guard, final windows and sliding doors, and a wood balcony with a wood railing. Staff was able to make the findings to approve the architectural review permit. The second story addition is located over the existing garage, which limits the expansion of the building footprint. The gable roof forms and batten and board siding, color trim, windows, and all other features complement that existing California ranch-style residence and match the existing dwelling. The project does comply with the development standards. The balcony size is limited, and The improvements comply with setbacks, and placement over the garage would not unreasonably impair views, privacy, or the living environment, though it would be visible. There aren't a lot of views to be impacted, and it's set back further enough away from neighboring properties. And lastly, that the project maintains the existing single-family use and is consistent with the general plan and design review requirements. So with that, staff recommends approval. I'm available for questions, and the applicant is here as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. Any questions for Chris?

Aaron? Thank you. Aaron Tollefson, AST Design Group. Only comments I have on this one is that we did get written approval from four different neighbors on this project and was submitted to Chris and Levi as a document. The neighbors are happy with the project. So if you have any questions, I'll be available. Thank you.

Anybody in chambers wishes to come up to the podium and speak before this application, you may do so. Seeing nobody, anybody online, Erica?

There are no hands raised.

Thank you. We'll close the public hearing and bring this back to the Commission. Do we have any comments, or would somebody like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve 1490 via Maritimo, ARP 24-02-45. Second. Second.

All right, so we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Pauly and a second by Commissioner Freeman. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Sure, Chair Silva. Yes. Commissioner Bluth. Yes. Commissioner Freeman. Yes. Commissioner Pauly.

Yes.

And Commissioner Palmer. Yes. Okay, that decision is, or that's been approved. The decision is appealable within 10 days. We have applications online or in our planning office.

Thank you, Erica. Very good. So now we will turn our attention to item number 6, 717 Woodcrest Lane. Approved permit application PG260067. for the expansion of an existing non-conforming single-family residence. And this is exempt from CEQA. Christy, would you like to do a staff report? Chair Silva?

Chair Silva, if I may? I just want to disclose I had some ex parte communication with the neighbor of this project over a month ago, not knowing it had come before the commission. And while I gave objective information, I think it's appropriate that I recuse myself. You're welcome to recuse yourself if you believe that there's a conflict of interest. I consulted with staff. Very good. Thank you. We'll call you back in when we're done. I think since the last item, I'll probably leave with my son. Okay. Then very good. Thank you, Eric. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. I'm presenting 717 Woodcrest Lane, an expansion of an existing nonconforming single family residence. So staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving application PG260067 for expansion of an existing nonconforming single family residence at 717 Woodcrest Lane. So the property is highlighted in blue here. It is zoned R1. It's a single family residence in the Monterey Vista neighborhood and the land use designation is low density residential. So this is a table showing nonconforming conditions, also showing the lot size, which is fine. The R1 standard is 15,000 and the existing condition is larger. There's no change in the lot size. We just wanted to give that for reference. So the first story setback, the requirement is 20% of the lot width. So for this lot, the combined required setback is 15.4 feet approximately. The existing non-conforming condition is 5 feet on either side. So the residence is 5 feet from the west, 5 feet from the east property line, and that does not include the unpermitted deck on the east side. And then the proposed condition with the retaining wall system, porch slash balcony, that is 0 feet from the property line. So it's right on the property line. As background, this is just showing some of the lots along Woodcrest Lane, and many of them appear to be in this existing nonconforming condition with respect to the R1 side yard setbacks. So as background, on August 29th, the code enforcement officer issued a warning notice to the property owner indicating that corrections were required, including the removal of an unpermitted deck. The applicant submitted to the planning application to remove the existing wood deck structure and construct a new retaining wall system you see highlighted here in orange to fill in and create a new landing at the existing door and stairs. And so the retaining wall system includes stairs. There's like a landing here where the door is, and then you see the steps down. And then on either side, there's a concrete landing here. that's not highlighted in orange. And then this is the property line on the east side. So the construction of a new retaining wall system is a raised uncovered porch and balcony. So it meets the definition of both. A porch is an open or covered platform usually having a separate roof at an entrance to a dwelling or an open or enclosed gallery or room which is not heated or cooled that is attached to the outside of a building. A balcony is a platform that projects from the wall of a building 30 inches or more above grade and the retaining wall system is 3 feet. So it's beyond the 30 inches, 36 inches. This proposed system would be an expansion of the house, which is an existing nonconforming structure. So at its tallest point, the retaining wall system would measure approximately three feet in height or 36 inches. So the retaining wall system, this cross section here, it's highlighted in orange. You can see they dimension the height of three feet. So only in like a portion of it, it's three feet. That's the max. And then it goes down. I'll show you another.

image of the east elevation.

The retaining wall assembly would also be topped with decking material to provide just a nice landing. This landing is required. A landing is required according to the building code, not this one in particular. And steps for the door opening would extend to the side property line. On the other side of the, so you have the door in this location, the retaining wall system, and then there's going to be a fence above the retaining wall system. And that fence will be approximately three feet, six inches. So overall a six foot, six inch at its highest point fence. So this is the southeast elevation showing the existing door. You could see below this dotted line, that's the retaining wall. And then above that is the fence that also acts as a railing. And so that retaining wall system varies in height, maximum three feet. And then the fence above that is three feet, six inches. And then you have your steps down and then landings. So this application was noticed for a 10-day administrative noticing to neighbors within 100 feet. We did receive comments during that 10-day administrative noticing period. I'll summarize some of the comments received. Questions whether the doorway to the unpermitted deck was permitted as a door or a window. Questions regarding whether a conversion from bedroom to crawl space was permitted for this room. Documentation of prior approvals, differences between a retaining wall and a deck, concerns about privacy if a new landing were to be permitted, concerns about whether the doorway should exist, and if so, it should go through the city's permit process. We did look into the historical records. These records are limited. The home was constructed in the 1960s, about 1965. So when we were looking at these records, the building official made a determination that the change of the room from a crawl space to a bedroom and the doorway for this bedroom was approved with a field change in the 1960s based on notations made on the plans. The deck, however, was not shown on any of the plans on the file with the city and was determined to be unpermitted. So upon noticing of the architectural review permit, staff determined that the project represents an enlargement of a non-conforming structure as the existing single-family residence fails to meet the current R1 side yard setback requirements. Therefore, the project was re-noticed to the Planning Commission for consideration pursuant to the city code. And the part of the city code that applies here is, I'll read the portion in orange, is that the Planning Commission may allow a structure housing, a nonconforming residential use in an R district to be altered and enlarged by adding not more than 10% of the existing habitable floor area, provided that the number of dwelling units is not increased. So that's the finding that needs to be made basically. So in this case, the use is conforming and that it is an allowed single family residential use, but the structure is nonconforming and that it exceeds the required first story side yard setbacks. The existing single family residence totals approximately 2,781 square feet of living area. So that would allow them potentially to increase or expand the nonconforming structure to 278.1 square feet in accordance with the code and pending approval from the Planning Commission. So the expansion as proposed, this porch slash balcony would add approximately 117 square feet and therefore would not add more than 10% to this existing nonconforming residence. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the expansion of an existing non-conforming single-family residence at 717 Woodcrest with standard conditions.

Thanks, Christy. Any questions?

Yes.

If they didn't have the deck and the supporting retaining steps, the door would just open out into thin air.

Correct. They are required by building code to have a landing. And this is the one they chose to propose.

Christy, I have a... If you don't mind, can you go back to the slide that shows the section through this retaining wall system?

Right there.

Yeah, that's good enough. And I'm just curious, why are we calling this a retaining wall system when it's not retaining anything other than itself?

They're creating the...

They're creating a situation.

And then they're adding soil.

We've got a higher grade on the adjoining property. There you would call it a retaining wall. But in this case, there was nothing to retain to begin with. Yes, understood. It was only after this concept came about that it's called a retaining wall system. Now, is that because there is some kind of a...

semantical issue with the fact that it's in the side yard setback and retaining walls are okay but maybe um a deck or a landing or something would not be okay i can i can respond to that so again the retaining wall system is terminology being provided by the applicant as staff looked at this it was reviewed as chrissy mentioned either as an uncovered porch or a balcony serving the first floor based on the definitions in the zoning code So I can see where the retaining wall system terminology is confusing. And yes, it is a created condition. I think it may be because the site is sloping. So as you move towards the back of the property, it's probably doing more retaining than at the front of the property. But your comments noted, but that's not really how we reviewed it in any significant way. It was looked at as uncovered porch or balcony.

It was just a curiosity that the applicant decided to use as a way of describing this. Yeah, and maybe they'll be able to provide some more insight as to why that was. Any other questions?

Just one more question. How many exits from the house are there?

That's a good question for the applicant or property owner. Okay.

Would the applicant like to come up and give a brief presentation? Hello, Doug.

Hi.

My name is Doug Roberts with JHW Architects. Hi, Christy. Hi. Let's see, I'm going to have Christy refer to a couple of slides. I think I can start with answering that one question. the uh it was determined that the um the wood deck is non-compliant with the building code because it's a wood structure too close to the property line for the fire code requirements and so we needed to replace it replace the landing with something that wasn't going to be a wood structure and so you know building up I think I'm going to let most of Christy's presentation stand. I do want to point out that the... So I've got a dashed line on that elevation that's showing where the six-foot fence would be following the line of the grade, and then as it hits the retaining system, you know, the way I'm reading the zoning code, is that when you're retaining at a property line for whatever reason, you can... the, let's see, it allows six feet from the high side. And so that line is following six feet from the high side of that whole system until it gets back down to where it's following the grade again.

And we're quite a bit below that.

We're much less visual impact to the neighbor than, you know, would be allowed there. The other piece of this is that I think, and I haven't verified this with Christy, that the The size that's being quoted in the report is probably larger because I think you're probably including all of the steps and everything is part of the area. Yeah. Yeah. And whereas the landing itself is is like eighty five square feet. It's just a little bit of a landing. with our initial discussions with the city because it was a book and it was found in violation was to see if there was some way to retain the wood deck, cut it back, have it two feet from the property line, whatever. And then, um, Laurie Williamson at the time finally said, well, just a second, it's, you just can't have a wood deck here except for like the last foot or something. And it just wasn't going to work. So that became the impetus for the solution. Um, Les Turnbow has been in this house since the mid-late 80s. And so the wood deck that was there when he moved in had never been an issue with the neighbor at the time. And I think the transition to the new neighbor was just a few years ago. the pre-existing wood deck was replaced exactly as it was in 2020 and that's what really was unpermitted because technically a complete replacement like that should have been through a building permit. We don't really know that the previous deck that was that was there when Les moved in wasn't there originally. You know, 1965 plans don't necessarily define everything that's built and approved. Let's see. I don't know that I have a lot more to add to that. I mean, if there are any questions or if you need to bring me back, you know, with questions during your discussion, I'm happy to do so.

Just one question. How many exits from the house are there?

There are two exits on the floor that we're talking about.

One is this door and one is the back door that goes out on back into the yard.

And the upstairs there are three. Okay. Is that it?

Yeah.

Les, can I ask you a follow-up on that?

So the primary way of getting into the house would be through this deck, or is there another main entrance to the house?

The main entrance is on the second floor. There's a stairway that goes up into the front door. That's where the bedrooms are, or part of the bedrooms. Okay.

Christy, if you could go back to the slide that was the picture from the violation notice. Can I ask a question?

Is there an internal door and up that exterior staircase? No, there's internal circulation. You come downstairs into the area and stuff, and then there's the family room, then there's this guest bedroom.

It was according based on the early plans. It looked because this area was coming back up the upstairs from this area. This bedroom is a living room that's sunken. It's down a couple of steps and so. When it was originally designed, you can kind of look at the old plan and say, hey, I understand why this was a crawl space. They probably thought they weren't going to have enough ceiling room. And then when they got building, somebody figured out, hey, we could turn this into a bedroom if we lower the floor from what the rest of the first floor is at, or the lower floor. And it is down some. So there's a couple of steps up. I don't know if it's actually what might be considered a legal access, but there is an access to get into the family room from this now.

Christy, could you go back to the slide that showed the profile of the allowable fence height? Not this one. It was an elevation sketch. I wasn't quite... Yeah, this one. And maybe, Doug, maybe you can help out with this. Is there a property line fence existing?

No, there's no fences existing. Most of the neighborhood doesn't have fences, as I believe. Yeah. I think I was trying to find the document and I was unable to. I think there is a document from when the neighborhood was originally built that limited the neighborhood for something like 10 years from being able to build any fences. And so nobody did.

And so from the property owner... next door looking at this that's what they would see this yes as opposed to what was there before is there a can you describe what was there before all of this happened um no i'm i'm talking yeah i can actually i have a photo if we want to put it up where is that so is that the front door

It's from the back.

I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong...

It's the east side, yeah, like one of the sides.

Are there any, like, complete floor plans? Because I'm looking at a floor plan in the documents that we were just told there's internal circulation, but that doesn't show any stairs.

Yeah, the stairs are a little rough in those old 1965 plans.

The... My question, Doug, is the 1965...

deck that was there that lasted a number of years yeah what what did that look like compared to what we have now well the the existing wood deck that's there now can we put this up that's the general appearance on looking at the high side and then um this is looking the other way it So it meets grade, the grade falls, and then that's the high side.

Well, is this the unpermitted deck?

Yeah, this is the current wood deck that was built in 2020 to replace the pre-existing deck that was the same configuration.

I see. So this has to be torn out and replaced with what you've presented tonight.

Yeah, this wood deck has been determined by the building department as non-compliant with building code because of the fire restrictions and the materials. being too close to the property line. The property line just misses the corner of the deck that you see there in the middle of the photo.

So we have a situation where from at least 1965 maybe, there was some kind of a deck with a railing that was not permitted, and then it was rebuilt to this?

Is that correct? The 1965 plans don't show a deck there, but they're pretty sketchy anyway, right? And in fact, the field change that was on the 1965 plans was probably just some red marks that the contractor made over the counter with somebody in the building department. showing a wall, scratching out the name Crawl Space, showing a window and the door, apparently a sliding glass door at the time. But they didn't call out the deck. It's hard to know what the reason would be. They would have had to have some landing outside of that door.

Les, do you have something to add to this?

Yes. The deck... that was there before when I bought the place was getting old and needed a replacement. So I had it replaced in-kind with Drex fluorine and whatever else, but I didn't increase the size or anything of it, just had it modified and built up. So now it lasts another so many years.

All right, so what we see here is the in-kind replacement that you put in. Yes. Right. Any other questions for the applicant? I think that's it. Thank you, Doug.

Thank you.

All right. Anybody in chambers that wishes to speak before this application, you may do so. Yes, sir.

And state your name, please.

Yes, absolutely.

My name is Adam Kolesha. I've been living almost for six years at the immediate adjacent property. I wanted to thank you guys for being here and your time for considering our concerns. I want to focus on three things. Do you have my slide deck by chance? I've got three pictures that I'd like to present. It was a PDF that I sent earlier. Do you mind if we pause the timer? I'm sorry. I probably should have mentioned that.

Christy, it should be open in the Adobe.

Oh, yeah. Okay.

On the bottom.

Oh, oh.

I think it's to the right of where you are. This one? Yep. Oh, thank you. So first, the city's own staff report shows what's actually being proposed here. The existing house is already nonconforming with approximately a five-foot setback on the east side. The proposed condition is zero feet with the new porch and landing extending directly into our shared property line. So this is not simply removal of an old and unpermitted deck. The commission is being asked to approve new permanent construction that expands an already non-conforming structure all the way to the adjoining property. Next slide, please. This photograph shows what the boundary looks like in the real world. The survey stake is visible in the foreground. It's the pink at the very bottom.

Sorry.

Yeah, can you guys make that out there? Yeah. The existing deck on the left, and this is the sloping area where the proposed retaining wall fill and landing would terminate at the property line. Before permanent construction is approved at this location, I believe the commission should have complete confidence in the survey basis. The boundary information relies on a survey I commissioned for my property to build a fence, rather than a separate survey prepared for this application. Given that the proposed work would terminate at zero foot setback, I believe the boundary should be verified for this application by a licensed surveyor, along with how drainage and runoff will be handled. Next slide, please. My third concern is whether this zero setback construction is actually necessary. Staff explained that when the unpermitted deck is removed, the options are to provide compliant landing for the side door or to remove that door opening.

replaced with a window, I don't know.

But this is the rear of the same lower portion of the house. As you can see, it's difficult to make out. And this question was actually asked just a bit ago. There appear to be two other exits on the same level that exist. So I'm not asking the commission tonight to resolve any historical question about this property. I'm just asking that before then existing non-conforming residents, It's permanently expanded into a zero foot setback. The city determined whether a less intrusive solution is available and fully addressed the boundary and drainage inspections. For those reasons, I respectfully ask that you continue this application for additional information rather than to approve it tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Anybody else in chambers wishes to speak? Yes.

I don't know if you guys would like to pass that around, but these are potentially better to see than what you saw there. Hi. Good afternoon.

And state your name, please.

My name's Julie.

My last name's Honor.

Thank you for the Planning Department and the Planning Commission for your time. I live immediately next door to the property in question at 741 Woodcrest Lane. My husband has explained our technical concerns. I want to explain why the location of this deck and proposed landing matters to our family. All five bedrooms in our home are directly adjacent to this side of the neighboring property, including the bedrooms of our three children. They are normally in bed by about 830. God willing. The existing deck is not simply used as a passageway. It has regularly been used as a place where people stop, talk, and congregate. Because these disturbances became frequent, we kept a log for several months. I had a slide, but it's also being passed around there. The data from that log, yeah, is graphed there in a little bar chart. It was only for three months, and then we stopped just for sake of our time. During the period we recorded, activity at this deck disturbed us on close to half of the evenings. The gatherings are usually brief, often only about 15 minutes, but they commonly occur around 10 p.m., 1 a.m., and as late as 3 a.m. When that happens directly outside five bedrooms, including children's bedrooms, even 15 minutes can be very disruptive. This is important because neither planning staff nor the commission has visited the property. So the slope, the proximity of the homes, the relationship of this outdoor area to our bedrooms are very difficult to appreciate from the plans alone. Our concern is therefore not hypothetical. We already know from experience how an occupied outdoor space in this particular location impacts the privacy and living environment of our home. There are also a rear stair and landing serving two exterior doors on the same level. We are not asking that our neighbors be prevented from enjoying their home. We are asking whether approving a new nonconforming occupied outdoor area directly along this property line is really the least intrusive solution when another exterior access already exists. For our family, the location matters. I respectfully ask that you continue the application and consider whether there is a solution that provides necessary access while better protecting the privacy and living environment of the immediately adjacent property. Thank you. Do you have any questions for me?

I have a question.

I had asked a question earlier regarding fencing along the property line.

Yeah.

and it seemed like there was some kind of a thing in the neighborhood where a lot of people don't have fences on property lines. Is that a deed restriction in your neighborhood?

Not currently. Maybe it sounded like it may have been for a decade after construction, which was in the 60s and the 70s, but not currently.

Okay, so there would be nothing to prohibit somebody from building a fence at that location?

Nope. it's downslope and a little tricky uh just based on height and where the houses lay like a six foot fence and some part of the downslopeness doesn't make sense that could be why also people don't build and just another follow-up um

Did you and your husband purchase your property knowing that there was a condition like this at the property line?

It was certainly there when we purchased our property, yeah.

Okay.

It has gotten significantly worse over the last three years.

I see. One question. Do you plan on building a fence?

Part of, I think... discovering this deck was not permitted because that wasn't our intention we weren't out to get anyone was uh looking into what a fence may look like for privacy reasons my 12 year old daughter is six four foot from this uh landing that they have uh so do we plan on building a fence was that your question yeah this yeah this all that yeah potentially yes i don't know when and how and we're we're trying to get there

Have you had any discussions with your neighbor about sharing the cost of putting up a fence?

Not about sharing the cost. Certainly about noise and other things and disturbances in the middle of the night, but not about sharing the cost of a fence, no.

There was a comment. Your husband made a comment about the survey stake and wanting to verify. the location of the deck in proximity to the property line has that um are you contending that this um landing is extending onto your property not necessarily sir could you please come up to the podium it just sounded like you might be contending that it wasn't on fully on their property

The engineer that conducted the survey that we had done, I think was a little miffed that he wasn't cited on the fact that his work was used to design this project. But I guess I was just commenting on the fact that because it is downslope, because there's drainage concerns that... there should, in my opinion, and according to the engineer as well, that there likely should be a survey unto itself topographic, as I did for this project that does not exist. So what you see before you in this design is the work that my engineer did, I guess is what I'm trying to say, which I freely shared, but I'm just trying to point out that maybe more is necessary. Any other questions?

I guess I never got my question answered fully by the applicant. I'm still confused on whether this is a one story or two story house.

Like, I think it's a two story.

So the floor plan we're seeing in the application is the lower level floor, but this door isn't shown into this. We don't have a plan of the existing condition.

to get additional awareness of this.

And is this lower level being used as a rental unit?

Are you asking me?

I'm asking anyone. Can we... Can we make a point to direct our questions to individual members of the public? We are in public comment. So right now we have 2 speakers at the podium. They're both been limited time.

You guys. Yeah.

Yeah.

So we should really with the applicant, please come back up and are we allowed to call the out?

We just need to make sure we have 1 person speaking at a time existing with planned construction, impede your ability to build the fence that you were considering.

It's likely. Yes. And it complicates matters based on the downslope nature, because if you're standing at a raise level here. That's three feet high. But the city statute says that I can build a six-foot fence. It makes it very difficult to achieve any privacy, as you can imagine. Does that make sense to you? Yes.

I'm sorry. Say that again. Say this with the diagram.

I'm only able to build from the ground up. Yeah, right. It only goes up half of the way.

We need you to speak into the mic just for the TV. It's okay. I'm sorry to interrupt.

Would you like me to repeat that? So I guess I was using this as a reference, but if a deck is at three feet and I'm building a fence to six feet, if you're standing on the deck, you're a three foot over my six foot fence. If that makes sense. Yeah. So it obviously creates a privacy concern and it's complicated and even more so because it's also downslope too. So to achieve privacy, you'd need to get a variance to have a massive fence, which I don't know if anyone wants.

But on the other hand, the way that the applicant is characterizing this is a retaining wall system, meaning that there's soil that is being raised up. all the way to the property line right and under city zoning code the fencing would be established by where the finished grade would be so there's separate regulations for fences that are combined fence retaining walls

So there's no shortage of combinations of how, but there's a maximum height required for fences and there's maximum heights for fences with retaining walls.

So it would hypothetically be consistent with zoning if there was a six foot fence coming off of the point where that retaining wall system is at its highest level.

I would hesitate to speculate on that without looking at plans of what you're describing. But that would make it, generally speaking, a nine-foot fence if you were setting a grade next to it. Yeah. Yeah, it's complicated. Any other questions for me?

I don't have any further questions.

Can I ask the applicant? I've still got that question for the applicant. I'm sorry. I just feel like I'm asking questions. All right.

Sorry, I can probably answer the question. Let's have Justin.

I have a question. Is the lower level being used as a rental unit?

No. It's all a family home. There's two generations there, right? Yeah, it's two generations, but it's a family home. Sandy?

My question is, you've got a deck, a balcony, landings. all three have your is your microphone on sandy thank you well so you we've looked at definitions of a deck a landing and uh i think and i want to know how deep to meet uh city requirements would a landing be versus this pie-shaped deck? Because it might be less attractive to socialize from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m. if it were just a landing going downstairs versus a gathering deck.

Right. It would also be less attractive to the homeowner and the property value and so on. The existing deck, as it's built, is about three and a half feet clear of the house. So the configuration that's there could be pulled back to three feet from the house.

Okay.

and then the leftover space to the property line, which because the property line's going away from the corner of the house quickly, there'd probably be, I don't know, three or four feet on the high end and then a foot or something to whatever that fence would be on the, when I'm saying the high end, I mean the tallest end, the low spot, and then about a foot to the high end. We just kind of filled it in because you've got all this dead space that's not usable. You can't traverse it because it's narrow. It'd be narrow between the fence if a fence is built. And then it also facilitated a way to avoid a kind of a messy railing system that I'd have to add just for that. The... Let's see. You were talking about the deck and balcony and so on. I think in my discussion with Levi was that I think that the zoning code is broad enough that, yeah, it could be considered a porch.

Uh-huh.

But I think there isn't anybody that would consider it a balcony because a balcony is usually a projected kind of platform from a building. It's not some pile of dirt outside of the bottom floor of the house. We're having to build this because it's on a sloping grade and it's going away quickly and you need a landing. And we're trying to keep it as simple and everything as possible, make it attractive, a place that right now they have a few potted plants out on that deck. This would give them an opportunity to put some more potted plants. Part of the design has a little terrace down the one side that's closest to the fence so that they could plant that also and things. I might... Just point out, as far as privacy goes, the photo that you saw, that sky view that looks down into Les' yard is actually taken from the neighbor's house. So I don't think there's any expectation of privacy in a two-story house in a hilly neighborhood like that, no matter what kind of fence you have. OK.

Thank you. Hey, Doug, can you hang on for a second? Chris, would you mind going back to the slide That showed the plan view of this new structure.

Yeah, go back.

That one.

You can kind of see the dashed rectangle where the existing deck is now. Yeah. The outside dash is the edge of the railing. That could pull, if you minimize the amount of landing, that would pull a few inches further closer to the building. But that's about all you'd say.

So if this were, Doug, if this were just a replacement, a permitted replacement in kind, so to speak, but built in such a way where it was noncombustible and it met the fire issues, that would have potentially less impact to neighbors?

Well, I mean... Physically, this has no impact to the neighbors. The use of the deck apparently had the prior use of the deck that was recorded apparently has had impact to the neighbors. And I don't know that anything, you know, anything's going to prevent that use other than neighbors talking to each other and saying, hey, your use is annoying to me. And unless...

oh let's get testify to that i think that they've done what they can to try to mitigate that yeah we're kind of switching back and forth so we've been having an informal public hearing in which members of the public are certainly welcome to come up to the podium but we had some technical questions to go back to the applicant so i just want to make sure that everybody absolutely yeah okay we haven't closed the public hearing

One point I'd like to clarify regarding the noise and whatever disturbances that are occurring. That's called neighborhood, good neighbor policy. Got a problem here, blah, blah, blah. Can you fix it? Yeah, I can. So for the last couple of months, we don't sit out there. I mean, my son and my daughter-in-law don't go out there and take a break because I have a point that says no smoke in the house, and sometimes they smoke, and that's a problem. And so now they go out on my upper deck or another area so they don't have the noise or the smoke. I mean, so we're doing whatever we can to minimize the what I call social disturbance, like a muffler on a car and leaving at 10 and getting back at 2. You know, I mean, it's going to wake people up. So you have to be considerate and kind of work back and forth. That's what neighbors do.

Thank you, Les. Any other questions for Doug? Let's move on to the last comment, and then let's go to dialogue on this. I'm sorry? Move on to the last comment.

Could I make one more comment in response? Regarding the survey, we felt that using Well, one, the property line has been staked by the surveyors that provided their services, by Monterey Bay engineers who provided their services to Les' neighbor. And that staking, I would assume, would be satisfactory to the neighbor that we would stay off of their property as we're building this thing. And it's such a small thing. It's going to be kind of build to suit. You know, I've done as much field measurement as I can to make it approximately what you see in the plan. Is it down to the hundredths of an inch? No, it's probably down to plus or minus two inches, you know, kind of thing. So, but the key part is that the property line has been staked by a professional engineer and that, you know, we can build without going onto their property.

Thank you, Doug. Thank you. Okay, anybody else in chambers wish to speak for this application? You may come up to the podium, state your name.

Hi, I'm Jen, and I'm going to read off my notes to stick within three minutes. Okay. Hi, Christy. I don't think we've actually met, but it's nice to actually see you. So my name is Jen. I'm a homeowner at 640 Martin. Did you want to go to the topographical? Because you might be wondering where that is. It's not actually on Woodcrest. Christy might be able to kind of point to the general area. It's on the right-hand side of the screen. I am one of five homes in the HOA called Mirabella Oaks. We actually surround the Herbert Hoover Hunting Lodge, if you're familiar with our little area. It's about an acre and a half. It is a blissful, quiet community. Historically, our biggest issues have been when the hawks are in the trees and they're squawking at each other. It's very quiet. We back up to the school, you have occasional noise from the school, but that's pretty much it. Until about two years ago, I can't put down an exact time, but suddenly every time that I cracked open my window or went out to sit on my deck or even opened my French doors downstairs where my dining room is, there was noise, there was conversation, there was coughing, there was even whiffs of pot smoke. And I was like, where is this coming from? And it became a constant annoyance. And I've actually had to change how I'm using my outside property. And then even inside, I'm not able to open up my windows at night and sit and read a book in my bedroom because of how my property is situated. Specifically, I think, I know this might sound that I'm exaggerating, but I'm really not. If you go to the site and you kind of understand the topography of the area, I'm downhill from Woodcrest. And so the graded slope of the land and the corresponding trees and the brush essentially effectively create this funnel of noise directly to the side of my home where my deck is. So since all this noise has begun, I've mentioned I've had to pretty much adapt and not use my outside area. Simply begin, I also haven't said anything because there's nothing I can do to make neighbors be more considerate, especially if other neighbors have already approached about the same issues. So I've ignored it until I got the postcard about this issue that I think Christy issued over the summer. And I was pretty surprised to discover that this behavior has been happening on an unpermitted deck, and then even more so in a spot where there's a door that was only ever supposed to be a window. And I don't want to go off topic, but if you look at the original plans, it is designed as a window as per standard plans, architectural plans. There's never any indication that a door was going to be there. And there are also aerial photos from 1966 that show that there was no structure in that spot. But beside that point, I can only guess that the original architect had always had been competent and had said, hey, there's no point in having an egress in this location. It is not appropriate for the plot, for the adjacent properties or the topography. So kind of jumping to where I want to go with this and kind of wrap it up is that, Christy, you shared with me the requirements for approval for a project like this. And I urge all of you to kind of reflect on those different... Can I keep going and finish? do you mind okay i'm rapping um how do i stop beeping um but basically two of those three approval requirements are not being met here the proposed design is not at all appropriate for the project site and then secondly but most importantly the proposed project is unreasonably impairing the living environment that is enjoyed by the other people on the property So I respectfully request that you guys revisit this and maybe dive a little bit deeper and have 717 Woodcrest either design a solution that is only used for ingress or egress, which is where these comments have been kind of going momentarily ago, or revert that door back to a window as it was always intended to be. So that's it for me. Thank you. I appreciate the time.

Any questions for Jen? Thank you, Jen. All right. Anybody else in chambers wish to speak before this application? You may come up to the podium. Any final words from neighbors? Anybody online?

There are no hands raised.

Very good. We'll close the public hearing. Take us back to the planning commission.

Bob, this would have been a good opportunity for a site. They said that their hand was raised in the audience.

Oh, I'm terribly sorry.

We'll reopen the public hearing. We do not have to for someone that's already spoken for three minutes. No, it's fine.

I just wanted to add to, I did bring up the situation with my neighbor Les, and I think immediately when I realized it wasn't going to go anywhere is that when I suggested that maybe they go elsewhere, he told me that then his kids would keep him up. And then it ended. So I just want to say that it was interesting.

Thank you. Very good. We'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the Planning Commission. Deliberations, Bob.

Yeah. No, I mean, it's hard to visualize what's going on here. It looks like there was a remodel done which put in this lower bedroom. And then the modification for this door potentially is somehow associated with that. So we have an artifact from the crawl space being turned into a bedroom. And I'm not sure, I think all we're looking at here is the city is saying that the existing exit is only safe with a landing, can't be wood because fire issues. So the engineering is bringing it into a more solid structure because it's next to the property, which is no, I mean, right on the property. So I'm kind of, I really don't understand what I'm looking at.

Well, I can respond. Yeah. I think the more we got into that conversation, the more we realize it's not about the deck. It's about how neighbors are behaving. And, you know, it's semantics, whether it's a landing, a deck, a stew. But it doesn't it's not the point. The neighbors are ticked off because there's another family living down there and they're going out at all hours of the night. And they're smoking and talking. And I've been there. You know what I mean? Like it's, we've all been there. And it's, you feel powerless and you feel useless. And it's a very hard position to be in. And personally, I think if the neighbors have gone to this person, gone to their neighbor, if they've gone and requested that this stop happening and it continues to happen, then, you know, why are we approving a deck there?

Exactly.

Yeah.

So I was sympathetic to the construction as proposed, because I think that in a very, very wooded area, which this cul-de-sac is, I had a friend who lived there, I was like, real woodlands behind all of the houses, you know, fire exits are important. But I believe that the architect said there were already two other exits on that same floor in addition to two exits above, which should satisfy the fire marshal right there. So the last person who spoke said, you know, turn it back into a window or just make it ingress or egress. And from my standpoint, understanding the social dynamics, maybe it's time to turn it back into a window.

Well, I came to the same conclusion, actually. And, you know, this has been a situation since 1965, where there's been unpermitted use of this structure, a previous version of it. And then we had a later version that was tagged and now the applicant is trying to do the right thing and get a permit. And is this something that we want to reward considering the use that has been going on for decades, unpermitted, and causing a nuisance? there's not a need to have necessarily a landing or even a door coming out of that room it could be a window that meets the code definition for emergency escape and egress or emergency escape and rescue um that would satisfy the fire issue um so i'm actually in alignment with the consensus here and i don't think that we need to go out there and look at it i think it's pretty clear what's going yeah

And I think this is something we're going to see more and more of because we are ostensibly approving the densification of all our residential neighborhoods through the addition of ADUs, junior ADUs, lot divisions. And I think it's incumbent on these projects to be conceived and considered in a way that recognizes auditory and visual privacy concerns of neighbors. And it can be done.

So with that. And this really isn't, we're not even looking at an intensification of use on this one. I feel like we are. Well, it's a continuation of really an unpermitted use.

Well, it's being used as a multi-generational tool. dwelling units. So it sounds like the lower level is being used as a secondary dwelling unit. Which we get, that's neither here nor there.

That's not germane in this case. For me, it's really about the impact on this more than anything else.

So with that, I move that Planning Commission deny the application pg260067 for the expansion of an existing non-conforming single-family residence and the finding would be the chart with the proposed condition inconsistent whatever you said Finding has to be that there has to be some consistency. So my motion is to deny the application.

I second the motion.

All right. We have a motion to deny the application by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Pauley. Can we get a roll call vote, please, Erica?

Sure. Chair Silva.

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth. Yes. Commissioner Freeman. Yes. And Commissioner Pauly.

Yes.

Okay. The application has been denied. The decision is appealable to the city council within 10 days. We have applications online or in our planning office.

Thanks, Erica. All right. Well, um, Sometimes that's what happens when we get applications that causes impacts. And, you know, Doug, you did a good job on the, you know, trying to work this as much as you could. But we just came up to a point where we just didn't quite agree with the solution in terms of its impacts. So as Erica did say, it is appealable to city council. Commissioner comments.

Just one. You know, all the trouble we've had with meeting 3,654 houses by 2030, or the plans thereof, and one of the sites was the vacancy across Highway 68 from Ryan Ranch, supposed to be owned by the County of Monterey school system, and there was some talk that that could be used for housing, and now Big Sur Trust has come in and bought it, right?

That's a separate property. So it's the adjacent property. The MPUSD property is still... That's correct.

Oh, thank you. You're welcome.

Is that Tarpey Flats?

No, it's the MPUSD property. It's about 50 acres. It's off Highway 68. It actually doesn't have any frontage on 68. So the piece you're referring to, I believe, was the HIST property that was acquired by the Big Sur Land Trust and recently, I believe... added to one of the tribal representatives in the area.

All right. So it's still on?

It's still on.

It's still a possibility? That's correct.

Can we get an informal vote on who's going to be at the planning commission for the next hearing? Do we have a quorum?

It's helpful. I can pull the date up as well. September 8th. Yeah, it'll be September 8th.

I'm here. Yeah, I'm here.

All right, so we're all here. Okay, thank you. Levi, what do you have for us?

Sure. So just to update from our recent City Council meetings on August 18th, we did have the second reading for the minimum density requirement that was passed, so that will go into effect 30 days from that date. And then we also, the City Council considered the application, you may remember, at Five Lower Ragsdale for the sign for Salinas Valley Health on top of the roof. City Council did hear that and considered it under a public hearing, and also concurred with the planning commission to deny that application. Also at that meeting the council considered the amendments to the Del Monte Center shopping or SC plan and approved that application as well. And with that, we do have our tentative items scheduled for our September 8th project at 2124 North Fremont. As of right now, that is tentative, so it's the only item that we have right now. So if that isn't complete by that time, we'll end up canceling that meeting and we'll let you all know.

Okay, very good. Thank you, Levi.

Of course.

All right, that's a wrap. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you. Thank you, Peter.