This is my first day as filling in as a chairperson, but I'm the vice chair, and I think I'm going to be voted into their time.

That's right.

So just pretend I'm doing a good job, so all right.

It's four o'clock.

Uh we're going to get this uh meeting started.

Um thank you very much for being here on calling the new order.

Um, and the commissioners announce their attendance, please.

I can do a roll call.

Commissioner Marlowe.

Here, Commissioner Collin, Commissioner O'Neill, Vice Chair Rodriguez.

And Commissioner Smith Carvelo.

Staff today would be Planning Manager Hill, Principal Planner Roveri, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, and myself recording Secretary Argentwright.

Information on participating in this meeting and providing public comment, including it remotely by Zoom or telephone is on this meeting's agenda, which is online at Monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

Remote commerce will be muted until it is their turn to speak, and the timer will be shown on the screen.

If you are 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.

So on the consent agenda, we have approval of the July 10th, twenty twenty-five minutes.

Um that by the commissioners.

No?

Do we have?

Yes, please.

I thought the minutes were good and clear.

And I think Spencer for the minutes, it helps to have the review of the meeting.

All right.

Do we have to make a motion?

And make the motion then that we accept the minutes.

All right.

Any second?

No.

Oh, go ahead.

I'll second.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Since we're all present, please check me.

We can do, or do we have to do roll call?

We don't, right?

Okay.

And all those in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

All right.

Uh minutes pass.

All right.

So now we're gonna move uh to the first item on the agenda, which is to consider eight five eight five eight one Scott Street.

Um and sorry, we did we check for public comments for items not on the agenda.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Any public comment for items not on the agenda today.

There's currently no attendees online currently.

I see a hand in the public.

We can't hear you.

Not on the agenda.

I understand you want to make a comment on something on the agenda, right?

Okay.

So anybody online, Spencer?

No, still no attendees online.

All right.

Okay, so I think we can now move to consider the first item on the agenda to which is to uh consider uh 581 Scott Street.

And I think uh staff has a presentation for us.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Bear with me for one moment.

My name is Chris Schmidt.

I'm a senior associate planner for the city, and I've been working with the applicants on this project.

Uh today we are looking at an item that was heard by the uh HPC, the last meeting on July 10th.

That item was continued to uh a date uncertain.

Um, and I will get into those specific details as to why, but uh just to start with the staff recommendation.

Staff recommends that the HPC adopt a resolution approving the permit amendment application for an expansion of uh a rooftop deck, as well as the historic permit application for alterations to the garage and tobacco barn, as well as adoption of an amended historic reservation report uh in support of both proposals.

Uh these are amended reports uh basically addendums to the original report for this project uh for the proposals at 581 Scott Street.

Uh so just some background information.

The subject property is located in the lower old town neighborhood.

It has a uh medium density multifamily general plan designation and is zoned R36H2.

The H2 is the city's local historic overlay zoning district.

It's a fairly large lot at 25,550 square feet, and it contains uh the primary residence is known as the Hellem House, uh, and it does contain a number of accessory buildings on the lot, some of which that are proposed for alterations today.

Uh so just some further background and these were uh this is information that was presented to the commission in the past, but uh since we may have new viewers today, I'll go back into that detail.

So uh this project started uh years ago with the submission of a MILS Act application in July of 2023, as well as some uh alterations to the exterior building uh in the form of an architectural review permit.

Uh by November of 2023, the property was rezoned.

H2, as I mentioned, it was the Frank Hellam House for association with Frank Hellum, who operated Helm's Tobacco on Alvarado Street in Monterey and qualified as a local historic resource based on the California register criterias one and two association with uh architecture as well as uh persons important to the area.

Um, in November of that same year, the council also approved the Mills Act contract.

Flash forward uh to July of 2024, the HPC reviewed and approved a 1,317 square foot addition, and then in July of this year, the HPC reviewed the application that we're looking at today.

The application includes an expansion of a previously approved deck.

This would be a 68 square foot addition within the footprint of the already approved roof line.

And then there are also restoration and alteration work proposed at the tobacco barn and garage structures, which I'll identify on a following slide.

But those that work includes new foundation work, interior structural walls, and roof framing, new roofing materials, skylights, and other repairs.

So starting with the deck, so if you can see my cursor, hovering it over the previously approved deck.

This deck was approved as part of the addition, which you can see on the south side of the lot here.

And this deck is would be located above the hyphen connection between the original structure on the northhand side and the additional side.

The assistant is proposing this 68 square foot addition here.

And then just to identify the other buildings where there's work proposed, we have the garage and the DePecco farm.

And just for reference, here and Larkin Street on the left-hand side.

So looking at the plan view here is using the same colors I've identified the roof, the previously approved roof deck in orange, and the location of the new deck in blue.

So this is this is the project as approved before, where you could see there was a roof line that extends out almost to the gable ridge line of the existing uh dwelling here.

Um the deck would be kind of set back a little bit behind the uh the addition here.

And so here's a comparison.

So that's uh kind of same image, similar rather image on the left, and the proposal on the right for the deck expansion.

And then I do have a couple of elevations that show what what that would look like.

So this would be this would be the view from uh from the neighboring property uh at 211 Larkin Street.

You can see this is the previous approval where you could uh see the windows here.

The deck railing is would uh would generally be located behind the gable here.

Uh, and then you could see into the window through the windows where the spiral staircase to access the second floor would be located.

And then here's the new deck railing, which is uh uh a glass railing to match the railing on the other side of the approved deck.

Uh moving on to the tobacco barn and garage.

I just am highlighting uh again their locations, but also showing where those skylights would be.

This is not to scale, just an estimate shown in these blue rectangles here, but I just wanted to identify them so it was clear where they were proposed in relation to property lines and neighboring properties.

And the elevations uh for the tobacco barn.

So you can see those skylights.

Uh, one of the comments from the commission last month uh was there was a lot of discussion relating to the skylights and their adjacency to Larkin Street, uh questioning whether they should be located on this side of the building or on the other side, which would be visible from Scott Street.

Uh similarly, here's the garage improvement.

The uh skylights are highlighted here as well.

Um so generally the outbuilding uh accessory building improvements are our maintenance, construction of uh new roof structural members, new roofing materials, skylights, uh, and then the applicants are also constructing new structural walls within the interior of the building to support the existing building, and constructing a new foundation to connect to those structural walls on the inside of the building.

So they would construct the walls and excavate where they would pour the new foundation and attach at that point.

I went and took this photo today.

Uh one of the discussion points relating to the skylights was uh brought up by the project historian that the at least for the tobacco building, the Larkin Street side was selected because this is the primary view of the historic building and of these buildings as viewed from Scott Street.

So this is the I was standing kind of in the middle of Scott Street to take this photo.

And so as you can see, they may be a little bit more visible on this side.

That's something for the commission to consider.

Now the city did receive public comments for this project.

In July, we did receive public comments from John Bailey, who represents the owner of 211 Larkin Street, and he included a number of issues pertaining to uh issues with the expansion of the deck as well as issues relating to uh the work being done at the garage structure because there uh is a sewer lateral that crosses the subject property.

Uh and then we did receive comment from Tony Flores, who owns 226 Larkin Street.

Um Mr.

Flores had issues with the sort of impacts that would come with a rooftop deck, um, and and uh requested that there be adequate notice and public hearing discussion about the project.

And then we just also had a number of meet comments during that July meeting relating to um you know, whether the project is uh appropriate and consistent with uh the city's requirements, um, and so just wanted to touch on those items.

Um and I do believe Ms.

Surveilly did submit another comment letter today, which was forwarded to the commission uh in advance of the meeting, further discussing some of the similar points, identifying that uh kind of general location of where that superlateral would be.

Um, so yeah.

Uh so moving on to the findings for approval.

Uh the required findings for historic permits that must be made by the HPC include consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards.

Uh staff was able to make this finding, it's consistent based on what the historian recommended as submitted.

Um the applicant hasn't made any changes to the project since the commission viewed this project last month.

Uh and the project historian still maintains that the project is consistent.

Staff does agree.

Um I do have those findings on later slides.

There, it's a lot of information.

I can reference them if there's any specific finding that we want to discuss, but I'll hold off on that unless requested by the commission.

Uh and then number two, the next set of findings have to do with uh adoption of a historic preservation report.

Um, historic preservation report was adopted when this project was initially approved.

The historian prepared addendums for both scopes of work, the garage and tobacco barn work, as well as deck addition work.

Um historic preservation reports per code are required to have uh consistency with a number of additional findings, you know, identification of the Secretary of Interior standard treatment, which in this case is rehabilitation, uh, description of events describing its significance and and changes over time, historic context and interpretive period, which is determined to be the context was architecture and physical development and context period of 1900 through 1936, um, an architectural history of the resource, a program for preservation of the resource.

Again, these are addendums to the original preservation report, which has been included as an attachment to your resolution.

So with that, staff recommends approval of the project.

I'm available for questions.

The applicants uh and owners are here, the project historian and architect are here as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the commissioners?

Yeah, just a couple of do we have um a material sample of the roof, shingle?

Uh I don't have that as part of that page.

Oh, sorry.

And then if the com if the commission here were to make some modifications to let's say the skylight location, would that require the historic preservation report to be um you know, true-up or could we updated to be consistent with what's approved?

Yeah, we would recommend that it be updated.

Okay.

So something for the record meaning.

You have it so you have it for the file or for the record in the.

So we would require that the report be amended and then it would be included with the resolution.

Okay.

Yeah.

That's it.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

I have one question.

Um, so we're at issue here is only the extra 68 square feet.

That's one.

One of the issues, plus the skylights in the bar, but for the main structure, we're talking about the okay.

Okay.

All right.

So I heard the applicant is present.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Hello, I'm Meg Clovis.

And uh the point the point that I'd like to um talk about are the skylights.

So uh the as you know, the um tobacco barn was a storage building.

So there was no natural light in the building.

It will now have a new use that will require some natural light.

I'm not sure what that new use is, but it's not going to be storage.

So there's two options.

First, you could cut new windows into the building into the walls, or you can put in skylights.

On secondary elevations.

Now, if you were going to cut new windows in, that would require disturbing original fabric.

In other words, those walls are original.

And so that's why the skylight option was selected.

The front of the building faces the house.

And that's where the front door is.

So that's the primary elevation.

The location of the skylights are on a secondary elevation as the standards require.

And so that's why that location was selected.

Can I answer any questions?

Did you consider, did they consider ridge skylights that run along the ridge of the building?

I will let the architect answer that question.

I'm not sure.

Okay, and and do you know if the skylights are non-reflective?

No, I don't.

So again, thank you.

Anything for me or shall we?

Yeah, I just a quick clarification.

So these accessory buildings are contribute are contributing building.

They're not historic resources themselves.

They're contributing to the property and the classification of an H2 zoning, right?

Well, they are um a contributing building is considered an important part or significant part of the complex.

So the comment that you had about the primary, the you know, the the east facade, the front facade versus the rear being, you said something that was it piqued my interest a bit about um the reason one of the reasonings you were placing the skylights on the west facade is because it wasn't the primary, the front, but these are contributing uh accessory buildings.

So would they still have the integrity if we did do the skylights on the west side?

They are the standards apply to these buildings since they're contributing.

Okay.

The standards and guidelines.

Yes, yes.

So would the would there still be integrity to the tobacco barn if we kept the if the skylights were moved to the east facade?

It's not a recommendation from the Secretary of Interior Standards.

It would not be appropriate.

It's not a good preservation decision.

Please.

Do you have further information about why that wouldn't be a good recommendation?

Yes, it's from the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation in the guidelines.

Uh, the guidelines say that um they recommended recommend adding skylights or dormers on secondary roof elevations.

And this is the uh the elevation that was selected is a secondary elevation.

The elevation that faces the house is the primary elevation.

I understand that.

And we did take a field trip and we did walk around the property.

It was in the afternoon, and both um, well, actually the side towards the house, the the roof slanted side, not the not the um, I call it the front where the door is where it's facing the street.

That is yes, that's a secondary elevation, that's not a front elevation.

The door that's facing that is on the facing the house, that is the front elevation, and you can see it from the sandboard maps, that it's always been the front elevation.

Well, I'm just saying that on both the larger rectangular sides of the roof both had sunshine at that time in the afternoon.

The part where they there was um a larger entrance, maybe not a door, but it seemed like it towards where the loading dock is towards Scott Street.

Okay, that's a secondary elevation.

Okay, and um, so I'm talking about the the slanted large part of the roof that goes toward the house, not the part that goes towards Scotch Street.

What do you call that?

That's the primary elevation.

That's the primary.

Well, when you actually look at it from Scott Street, you see a little bit of that, but the fact that the building is narrow as it faces Scott and broader as it goes back, you don't see that so prominently.

We had we had neighbors showing us photographs of the side that faces them, and it was a larger, broader um view than the side that faces the house.

It's just because of the angle.

You you would be it would be hard to place yourself on Scott Street and find the same view of that side, you know, because of the angle of it and the fact that the you know it would be a side view.

I know you saying it's primary because it faces the house, but to the neighbors, the other side felt primary to the so it so but if if this if the skylights were placed on the primary elevation, which I think you're suggesting, it would not be consistent with the standards.

I don't I don't understand why not because the primary elevation is the front elevation, it's considered the most important part to keep intact to keep the integrity intact.

And so that's why the Secretary of Interior standards suggest that any changes be made on secondary elevations.

So really the view that the residents in the what we call the Hellam home, that would be the primary view from their window looking toward the garage.

There they get a higher value on that than from the street where the neighbors have a view.

That is correct.

That's what I'm trying to figure out right.

You're you're correct.

That's that's what I think I understand.

You see that.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from the commissioners?

Just one follow-up.

So then the main residence, a primary elevation is the one facing Scott Street.

For the residents for the main residence.

Yes.

So I'm just I'm we're getting into the semantics of what's the you know, the front, the primary elevation and how it's related to the street frontage, how it's related to the main house, how it's related to neighboring properties.

Um, and so I'm just want to get your your opinion of how you defined the tobacco barns front primary elevation, east facing, and then for example, the garage, what would you find the primary front elevation?

Primary elevation for the garage is the entrance.

So you're looking for an entrance, the front entrance, and that is a defining characteristic.

And it says that in the Secretary of Interior Standards, a front entrance, a front entrance.

Or accessory building.

No, no, for any building.

Is the primary elevation.

So, for example, with the Hellam house, it has well it had it has a side entrance.

Uh historically, it had a high side entrance and had a rear entrance.

But those aren't the front elevation, the front door defined where people go in from the street, that would be the front.

Now with the tobacco storage building, it had a different function.

So actually, trucks would be rolled up to the front of the building and loaded with tobacco.

There was a much larger loading dock there at one point in time.

Any other questions from the commissioners?

I'm going to open it up for public comment, but I'm oh, please.

Yeah, of course.

Uh good afternoon, commissioners.

My name's John Scorcus.

I'm the architect on the project.

And just a couple things back to the skylights.

I want to get back to the deck at one point, but as far as the skylights go, you know, I'm not quite sure what your fear is of seeing skylights on that side.

You know, you've got this ugly roof.

This is that has that old um composite roof on it, you know, and disposed.

And I mean, that's what you're looking at now.

And I can't think that you're proud of looking at that view.

And so, you know, it's going to have a new roof.

The skylights are flat.

You know, they're they're only stuck up, I think like three inches off the deck.

And and with the roofing, you're you're, you know, it's going to be a clean, smooth roof with three skylights in there that are going to be non-reflective, they'll be dark, and it'll be, you know, a wonderful appearance for that part of the project.

And like Meg said, that's the back side.

It'll it'll look incredibly better than what you're looking at right now.

And you know, skylights are kind of, I mean, they're they're really it's when it's done, you would see them as a non-issue, is my opinion, because they're going to be clean, they're flat, um, and the whole appearance of that side is going to be a new appearance and a good looking appearance, as well as the whole tobacco barn.

Um, with the depths, um, Chris, can we pull that one then that shows everything?

Yeah, thanks.

So if you look at the where it says two eleven Larkin Street, and you look at the house, which is the house that is part of our discussion, and you look at the size of their deck, um, where their deck is where our bedrooms and bathrooms are.

So you hear all this stuff about oh, it's gonna be noisy, they're concerned about noise privacy.

You know, we're more concerned about privacy than they are.

You know, the windows in the bathrooms will have uh opaque glass, so there's gonna be no privacy issues at all because there's nothing to see one way or the other, and then quite a ways away.

And then um, so I mean, as far as noise, we would be more concerned about noise from their deck than any noise generated from the bedroom, the bathrooms.

I mean, there's virtually nothing there.

It's it's like you know, there's no there.

Um, and then when you get to the deck that was approved and the small deck, you know, basically there's already a roof there.

We're just bringing the boards over for mostly appearance, and you look at how far that deck is over, it doesn't even line up with the house at all.

It's it's completely to the uh the opposite side of the house.

And then we've got the huge tree there, and as far as you know, and there's the wall where that top skylight is, it's a two story or it's a single story wall, but it's two stories in the building.

So you've got the wall, and then you've got the existing roof uh where the main deck is.

So any noise or anything up there would be projected to the uh to the east.

And uh once again, it's not it's not gonna be a highly usable space.

If you if the the barbecue everything is down, down at the ground level, and that's just the view kind of sitting in space, and there's and a corner is is behind the stairway tower.

So you're not gonna be sitting there spending time there because the view's beyond that.

So it's a minimal extension, and it's mostly just aesthetic to get the death boards from looking at a um the roof that's there now.

That's not the best roof to look at.

And then we've got that huge tree that that stops any privacy.

I mean, creates the privacy.

So they can't see us and we can't see them, which is a perfect situation.

I know there's a comment from one of the people where they're talking about a glass rail, be not relative to the Secretary of Interior Standards.

And once again, for the historic report, everything we've done is consistent with the standards.

And as you recall, we had metal rails on the project first, and you're the ones that told us to go with glass.

You know, you you guided us in that direction.

So it's not like we're not doing anything that wasn't consistent with your direction.

Um, and so I mean, it's basically, you know, pretty straightforward.

I mean, if you look at where that deck is located relative to the house, I mean, they can't see us, it's it's so far away, and it's not a highly usable space.

Um, but I think that's kind of please.

It when you were speaking, I couldn't clearly understand the first part of it, but you talked about windows and bathrooms, and I'm not sure.

Um, and so you kind of open the subject of bathrooms.

Are there any bathrooms planned in the future for the no, no?

I'm saying what's existing where the two skylights are by the tree, which is the closest thing to their deck in their house.

How many bathrooms are in the house?

That's a relative.

Well, I was just trying to figure out where the bathrooms are about the addition that was approved.

Okay, this is the addition that you approved.

And the part that is closest to their house is the bathrooms in the bedroom.

So when they talk about a noise issue and worried about noise, there's not noise coming from the bedrooms or the bathrooms, it's the quietest part of the house, is what I'm saying.

So when they're saying, you know, it's a privacy issue.

You know, there's all going to be all this noise and all this stuff.

That's the least noisy spot of the whole entire house.

That's where those bathrooms and bedrooms are.

I think I think that's I think of what they're saying is that anybody would have a privacy concern, it would be them because they they're the ones that are on that side.

They have the bathrooms and and um and the bedroom on the and as far as the noise issue, you know.

Cause when they talk about noise, that you know, that's not where the noise would be coming from.

I don't I don't remember the noise issue.

And then, you know, once again, with the the uh, you know, in the you know, if you look at the historic report, it that that deck, the board extension is consistent with the standards, the rail is consistent with the standards, and the rail is something glass that was directed by this board instead of a metal rail.

And there's other talk about a rooftop deck.

There was no rooftop deck, it's this deck that's above the hyphen and it's tucked behind both structures.

So it's all right.

Any any questions uh for the architect?

Just one question, yes.

Um, can you I I doubt you have a uh material sample of the proposed roof shingle, but can you describe the color, the type, and whether or not um it is matches what was being put on one of the smaller accessory structures, it'll match that one on the smaller accessory structures.

So can you describe the color and the type it's it's kind of like a I mean it's a wood-shaped roof, so it'll be a wood, darker wood, medium color roof.

And then we have a twist.

Brown.

It's pretty much what you saw out there, except it'll be a little bit more.

We didn't go on to the site, we saw it from a pretty far distance.

I was just hoping you could describe that.

I mean, it'll when you look around and you see a wood-shake roof, they're usually weathered and darker, and and that's what it'll look like.

Okay, so you're putting wood shaped roofs on the accessory structure.

Yes, but I think we have another question.

Is the the roof material match the skylight?

It will be.

Well, I I'm not quite sure how you do that.

The skylights are gonna be first of all, they won't be reflected.

And if somebody complains that they're reflective, we'll certainly take care of it, but they're not they're not gonna be reflective.

I'm thinking, the frames will be dark.

I'm thinking if we know the color of the skylight, and if the color of the actual wood shape, not composition looks like wood, but no wood.

We're gonna go with the wood.

You can buy it in many colors.

Can you choose a color that matches the skylight so they don't stand out automatically?

Match more likely.

There's this the skylight's gonna have a dark frame, like an anodized dark frame.

So it'll have a dark frame, and then the wood shakes will eventually weather and and get the gray grayish look to them.

It'll be consistent.

So they so they may be very different in the color.

They won't be very different.

Well, that's what I'm asking.

And asking if the color of the roof could be similar to the skylight.

Yeah, it'll it'll weather out.

Typically, they weather out and it'll become more of a grayish.

There they both will weather out, or it's just when you say they will weather out.

I'm trying to understand you too.

The fakes will weather out, the wood will weather out.

And that will make it more like and make it darker.

Sometimes it makes it lighter and grayer.

It doesn't always make it lighter.

They're darker, but I'm just suggesting is it possible to get them to look as similar as possible so that the skylights don't seem like a you know, do that.

I'm a very dramatic difference.

I'm trying to support we can make them as compatible or as consistent and um similar as possible.

Thank you for considering that.

Okay, it seemed like there were some options there.

Yeah, I mean, we we could definitely try and you know match the colors and and I understand the weathering will in time change the tone of it.

Well, we can minimize the difference between the two.

Thank you for understanding my sure.

All right, any other yes, I have a question.

Um, did you consider uh ridge lines coming?

You know that that would even affect the the elevation more by creating a higher roof on both sides, and that would just be and it's it's it's it's more work, it's more money.

It's it's it's something, you know, and as far as the framing goes and how you have to get the light down.

It you you would need bigger skylights to get the same amount of light down, really.

It's just not practical.

And why on the um roof deck was that was not considered in the original plan?

No.

Well, you know, what happens is you know, on any construction project when you're building, you see things that you didn't visualize or see before, and and that was my where I drew the line because we weren't sure what it was all looking like, or if there's gonna be a level change there, and that that was what I drew at the time.

So when it's framed and you see that both roofs are at the same level, one is this GPO, which is more of a plastic material, and you got the roof boards there, and right next to that is the spiral stair, and it's floor to ceiling glass.

So it just makes sense to carry the wood boards over.

So you're not staring at the roof from the window, and you're looking at, you know, you're looking at the wood boards, and it's simple.

I mean it's not creep, it's not anything, it's just something when you're out there and you visualize it, and it would simplify it, it would make it nice looking.

Um, and it's kind of a non-ish, nobody could see it.

I mean, it's it complies with the standards, and it's it's a simple little thing.

I mean, nobody could ever see that.

It's hardly gonna be ever, nobody's really gonna be on it.

It's more just a visual, you know.

Originally we just had the planter there, the building department that didn't think that was uh enough security for prior or for um somebody walking off the edge.

So they wanted the building department asked for the glass rail, and and that's typically all it is.

It's just no nobody's gonna be standing there trying to look at the neighbor, nobody's gonna be standing there, you know, you know, playing a musical instrument or you know, I mean it's it's just a simple space.

Okay, thank you.

What more clarity?

So the historic report talks about classic comp shingles on these two accessory buildings, they're not wood or something compared to that, right?

Compatible with that.

No, it doesn't say that.

I think there's I'm just reading it here.

I'm just trying to get on record because it's really hard to see what you're planning on doing on the roof material where we're laboring a lot over location of uh, you know, skylights, which again are on a not, which are we're gonna be in an area that's already altered, and we're just trying to get clarity of what your roof material is going to be, and now, you know, we have a little bit of a discrepancy of what's being stated and what's being written.

Well, the the thing was it was supposed to right now on the garage, there's wood shingles.

That's what wood shingles on the garage.

And those are going to be and and it's hard to replicate because that's it's hard to replicate that look.

Is this gonna be replaced?

Yes.

There's cedar wood shingles.

Okay.

The owners are comfortable with using wood shakes, which is I if the historian can confirm and update their report, um, the staff would support that.

Okay.

Uh, we have a question of the architect, I believe.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

So I'm looking here at packet page 68.

If you it um and that's that's where it says the deteriorate shakes on the garage roof, although it didn't look like shakes, it looked like some kind of asphalt, it didn't look like these wood shakes.

Will be replaced by class A composition shingles that meet code and fire requirements.

The new shingles will replicate the original wood shingles as closely as possible.

And you've been saying wood well, part of the part of the situation was the accessory, the non-historic buildings.

Well, this specifies grunge, though.

I know, no, I know, but the context of the site is what I'm talking about.

And what's hard both the tobacco barn and the garage both say class A complex.

Right now the garage has the wood shakes on it, and it's hard to find it look like wood shakes when I saw it look like kind of a well, if you're out there now, it's covered with a tart, so you can't see it.

Oh, is that for the garage?

Yeah, it's hard.

Okay, you have to look at some earlier pictures before it was tart because it was leaking.

Um, and it's hard to find something consistent with the look of a wood shape that's in a composition shingle because it all lives, you know, not what's appropriate.

Maybe it was and here it actually spells it out.

So are you saying there's going to be a change in the plan that's here on page 68, so that instead of composition shingles that meet code and fire requirements, you're going to put wood or what we'll do is we're going to match what was on the garage as close as we can with the wood shape because we feel that's more appropriate.

And what it does is it separates the accessory buildings from the main house, which is the composition shingle roof.

So that kind of became the plan.

There's five buildings on the site, and we could have the historian, you know, work with the report, you know, to work with what we're doing.

But what but what's happening is you know, there's the main building, and there's the two um tobacco farm and the garage, and then there's the two back buildings, which is the wash house and the tack room.

So there's five buildings on the property, but there's the main house, and then there's the four accessory buildings.

So what we're trying to do is keep the main house consistent with where that has the composition shingle roofs, and then I'm trying to I hear I hear what you're saying.

I'm just trying to understand that um when you say and that kind of became the plan, it makes it seem to me, and I'm you know, I'm not a contractor or an architect, but it seems like it just morphed into a different plan rather than follow the plan written here.

Now it's a different plan with wood shingles, is that right?

Well, yeah, I mean it's the same thing.

But we could we could you know not the same material.

We could work out the material situation.

Well, if you don't want to have the you know, the class A composition shingles that meet code and fire requirements, then you need to write up a change, don't you?

Well, we could accommodate that because here it says you're gonna put that in.

And I'm I'm looking for integrity through the project so that things aren't slipped in or just changed.

Yeah, with them.

I think you could talk better about uh the specifics.

I'm on the golf one.

So yeah, the it's that the shape cedar shake shingles, it's a natural wood product.

That's what we were planning to use.

Either that or the composition shingle, either one will be fire rated, either one will work.

We were just trying to keep it.

I thought the wood, because it was on the car barn, we'd keep it all consistent with the wood fire rated.

So it's um is that it's gonna look much better than the shingles.

I'm sure it it might look terrific, but but what I'm looking for is sort of the integrity of the plan.

If you say you're gonna use one, I'd like you to stay with it unless you get a change and say we'd rather use something else, and then that would be the point.

And do either one, it really doesn't matter.

We thought for aesthetically that the wood shingles would look far better on the barns.

It might, but just then it's submitted order and say that you're changing it so that we understand that it's been it's gone through that city point.

Sure, sure.

That's what we're asking for, so that we don't think you're doing one thing, and then it's kind of changed to something else.

That's certainly the concern.

And just to finish off, like I'll give you a little more detail on the barn itself.

It was built on three by boards.

There was no foundation underneath it.

It was so what we're having to do, like uh Chris was saying, we have to basically put a foundation into just to support it.

The whole ridge is sagging right now, it's pretty much ready to cave in.

So all of the work, like you were saying about that skylight uh on the ridge, it really wouldn't be we have to put a whole new beam across the middle to support that roof to get it back up level again.

So it's it's a lot of structural stuff we got to do from the inside.

So structurally, the skylights are an easier way of going without without another way of doing it, you know what I mean.

I so I'm kind of um the one that I don't know why this is all kind of this is such a a great project, and I want to say we really appreciate the fact that you're keeping this fragile structure and you have to do so much to support it, so that it the property has that kind of integrity and feel of the older historic property, such a big part of the whole property, you know, yeah, and they really need to be kept.

I think I think we all appreciate that.

We just want kind of the assurance that if you say something, that's what you plan.

Is and as and and we also understand as you get into the project and have some options that you think might be better that can happen, but if you could let the city know so that the write-up is consistent with the work you're doing.

I think that I just want to point out from day one, we've been very transparent and we've followed through everything we said we were going to.

So from the first day we met Fernanda, and I we're there's so much about this that's so positive for the city and for the community, and and it's always a pleasure to drive by and see the property looking like, you know, the blocks kind of fitting in the open space and the we believe so too.

We believe so too.

We just we just don't want to look back and say, you know, but that didn't match this, and we didn't really approve that.

And the neighbors say, Well, did you ever look at this page and pay attention to it?

We want to do our job also.

Absolutely.

We're we're 100% behind her, yeah.

Thank you.

Any uh, I know, yes, I saw you standing up.

Any any uh any questions for the gentleman that just sat down?

I take it as an okay, please uh name O'Reilly, I'm one of the other owners.

I just wanted to follow up on the skylight one side versus the other.

We haven't really done any improvements on the uh facade side or the main side of the structure where there's overgrown trees, and so I think when all that is all said and done, you're gonna be way more exposed to that side.

I think it's gonna be way more visible um than what it is right now.

So I understand when you go up on to Larkin that you do, you know, it's seems like the least appropriate side, put it, but um, I think from the historical standpoint, I think it's gonna be shown a lot more the main side.

Not only that, if anybody's concerned about any reflection on it, we were we'll fix it, no problem at all.

If we want to do composition roof, you will save us thousands of dollars.

So we can go that direction too.

Um, and then the other point is on this rail or deck, it's being called like a deck extension, it's really just more aesthetic.

And it's like John said when we went down and started, we're like, look, it makes more sense for a glass rail here than here.

And we really wanted to plant out that side and just kind of make it go away and aesthetically more pleasing from when you walk out to our main there.

So it's not an expansionist look for us, it's just more aesthetic.

All right, doesn't look, I'm gonna chime in before we move on.

I think it could be helpful for the commission to hear from the project historian on whether or not there's a lot of conversation about two different materials being used for roofing material.

I think uh ultimately it comes uh prudent of whether or not both would be consistent with the secretary of interior standards.

So I think it'd be a good idea to hear from the historian on her thoughts on that.

Clovis, um, yes, both would be consistent.

So either wood or the asphalt shingles, the standards have got um with the barcodes these days, the uh standards have uh become a little bit more lenient and also for insurance purposes.

So asphalt is considered okay, especially here in California.

But um, you know, of course, shingles would always be consistent too.

So and I'd be happy to amend the report anyway that you feel um is suitable.

From my point of view, I mean the one that is it just that it matches.

It's I'm not suggesting an aesthetic choice.

I'm just looking for the match between what they said they'd do and what they plan to do.

And when the contractor spoke, it sounded like it just sort of changed that the paperwork didn't change.

And so no, I understand your concerns.

Thanks.

All right, for procedurally speaking, could we in the motion amend the report to add the shingles?

I mean, well, due respect to the applicants.

I do want them to spend a little bit more money because I I love uh I love what shingles is not your money.

Yeah, it's on mine.

I'll I get to drive by and and see the the beautiful roof, but is that something that we can do so it could be consistent with the report?

Can we do it today?

That's correct.

Now that we've heard from the historian that both materials are consistent.

If the commission chooses to approve the project, they can do so.

They could do so with a condition of approval for whatever material the commission prefers, and then with a secondary condition that the report be amended and submitted to staff prior to issuance of building permits.

Okay, so we can take care of it today.

Perfect.

I would also recommend the plans be amended because they do say comp shingle.

Okay, you all have to help me when we do those motions too.

We will be consistent, please.

All right.

So I if there are no more questions for the from the commissioners, I'm gonna open it up to public comment, but I was gonna check with Spencer if there's anybody online.

Um, maybe let them uh participate first.

There are no attendees currently online, but I will remind the public that information on how to participate remotely by Zoom or telephone is found at monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

There are still no attendees online.

Okay, thank you.

I'm gonna open up for public comment.

Anyone that's present that wants to talk about this item.

Please.

Hi, my name's Elizabeth Atkinson.

I live at 236 Larkin Street, and this is the view that I have had for the last 30 years.

I'll pass it around.

So my concern has to do with the tobacco farm barn that's there.

It's designated historic resources as noted in the Secretary of the Interior Standards, which is a federal standard.

The standards cover four primary treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.

Restoration focuses on accurately depicting a property's appearance at a specific period in its history.

There is no mention of alteration for the sole purpose of non-compatible use while preserving its historic character.

The whole intent of the historic preservation and compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties, is not just to be concerned as noted in the historic preservation report.

The intent is that the modifications are to be any modifications are to be adhered to in preserving historic resource.

The proposed skylights, whether or not minimally visible, is the destruction of the historic resource.

And that property is well loved.

It really is.

And I'll pass this around.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other public comments?

My name is Connie Hahn.

I live at 641 Scott Street.

I also brought some pictures in.

This is the view from my bedroom window that I look at every day and have looked at for the last 33 years.

Before that, I rented an apartment across the street from Randy Fuller.

So I'm very familiar, and I also knew Mr.

Helen when he lived there.

This is the change I've had to make to my windows when they remodeled the house adjacent to me because of the lights.

I'm here for purely selfish reason because I don't want to be looking at those skylights.

I don't want to see the reflection of the sun on them in the afternoon.

So that's why I'm here, and I don't want to see the light coming out.

I also have a couple of other things I wanted to mention.

Before they bought the property, the area down on Van Buren was not fenced off.

It's now fenced off and has a mailbox numbered 200.

Are we splitting the lot?

My other comment that I'd like to make is that I have a lot of sympathy about the people that are directly behind the uh patio that they want to add on to.

Um the reason I feel so sympathetic for them is because they've had no respect for the people living here so far.

We've had nonstop construction seven days a week.

One Sunday they took off at the beginning of this month.

And that's because the owners were there.

Um, so anyway, I just wanted to say if we could quit blocking the road, quit blocking the sidewalks, and let the people that live there have some peace.

Last Sunday or Sunday before last, I can't remember which one.

I'm brushing my teeth and I'm looking at all the workers on the roof.

We haven't had a break.

But if you'd like, I'll pass that around too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Rodriguez, members of the commission, my name is John Bailey.

I'm here representing the owners of 211 Larkin.

It's been a spirited discussion.

Uh, it's been quite a while since we've discussed the Page and Turnbull report.

If you all remember in the distant past, there was another historian that did a report that was sponsored.

Uh, in order to look at this, also, but this project is morphed many times.

This project historian report was supposed to be project specific.

Um, I think there were some really good questions asked by Commissioner Barlow about what is the use of this property.

What is the contemplated use of this property?

You have the owner here.

Um, maybe the historian doesn't know what the contemplated use is, but I think before you approve any amendment here, you should ask what is the contemplated use of the property?

Because I think it's important.

Is this really important to the historic use of the property, or is this just something that they want on a whim?

They're saying there's no privacy issue.

By my clients looking out on this new balcony.

The person sitting on the balcony will be closer to my clients' bedroom than I am to you right now.

Imagine at night you've got your windows open just like you do.

Usually you're gonna have to close your blinds because someone to be out there all the time, peering through the tree, looking into your bedroom, looking into your kitchen.

It's a privacy issue.

Yes, it might be nice for them, but is it a must have?

There's two sides to this equation.

So that's one issue.

Is the privacy on this new extended balcony?

They've got their balcony, they've got their balcony approved.

You don't have to give them everything that they're asking you for.

There's other people in this equation.

So that's first.

And then the second is the sewer lateral issue.

There's a sewer lateral that's been in place for about 50 years.

Contrary to what staff said last time, staff is aware of this sewer lateral.

I put a letter in uh through a public records request from October 10th.

You've got Mr.

O'Brien here.

You can ask him if he's aware of this.

He said in a letter to staff, uh, the neighbor's sewer line ties into one of the laterals coming off our property.

I show this on the attached document.

I provided that document showing you where the sewer line is.

They say they're being transparent, ask them if they know where that sewer line is, and if they're gonna crush that clay sewer line, putting their heavy equipment in to do these modifications, because my client's not gonna have a toilet.

Second, he said we plan on installing a concrete paved driveway in the future over that line.

To uh Ms.

Barlow's comment, why do they need to put a concrete driveway in the future?

What are they planning to do?

Yes, they're developers, they want to make money with the property potentially, but are they splitting the property?

Are they using that for a residence?

What are they gonna do with that?

Ask them directly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, let me do something clear here.

I'm sorry, yeah, can't do in public comment as you already spoke as the applicant.

If the commission has any questions for you, you can.

I'm sorry, it's just public comment.

Brown Act.

Um, remind the commission if they do have questions for the applicant, they are able to ask questions and the applicant is able to answer.

I was gonna ask if the commissioners had any questions on the sewer line or anything uh related to that from the applicant.

Yeah, we didn't discuss that the other day.

I'd like to hear a little bit more about it.

All right.

Uh, can you tell us a little bit more about the sewer line, please?

Yeah, yes.

Uh Mr.

Bailey uh called one day, or basically it was uh it was the property management that got a hold of me after, like a week after we got approved for the project to let us know that there was a sewer line running through the property.

We had no knowledge of it, nothing.

So I went and I checked with public works.

I checked with uh the owner, and he had no recollection of a sewer line.

The public work says there is two laterals from our property, but there's no easement records going from 21 Larkin to our property.

They said they were having problems with their sewer line, they didn't know where it went, where it went from, they did not know it was going to Scottsry.

In fact, they thought it was because I met their plumber and to let him onto the property to camera the sewer line, and he thought it was actually going through our addition down on the Scotch Street, which was not the case.

So they've been snaking this sewer line for the longest time.

Nobody ever told us about it, nobody ever approaches about it until after we got our approval.

They then went and did an application to replace the sewer line without our knowledge.

I got notification that plumbers were going to be coming out onto the job site to dig up our property and replace the sewer line.

So I got to hold it.

The building department, public works planning, and wanted to know what was going on because they were getting a permit issue.

Well, public works had issued a permit, but building did not, because building needed approval.

It either needed proof of an easement or they needed an owner's letter to say that it was okay.

Since that date, they have not brought anything to the table.

They've not approached us about it.

And so to say that we knew and were gonna damage it is the complete lie.

That's not our intent.

Our intent here is to follow the Mills Act, restore the buildings as we were required to do, just like we have on the main house, and that's it.

So the sewer line, we're not, and we're not developers.

This is a family home.

I want to make that clear.

We are not here to upset neighbors.

That's not our intent.

I know there's been a lot of construction going on, but unfortunately, the way the property was, it required it.

And still requires some more work.

And I know at the end of the day, when it's all said and done, it's gonna be beautiful.

And I think we've stole to our word from day one and you know we'll continue to do it.

That's it.

All right thank you.

Do you have any questions?

Do you I mean do you know where this sewer line is?

We do now where is where does it go between the main house and the garage.

And it's only 18 inches below gray.

Okay.

They do you have an option which they were given by the city was to take it from their property up onto Larkin.

Yeah.

So that is an option.

Yeah.

And they've been they've been notified of that.

So let me ask a question uh I've heard from the uh members of the public that sorry is your mic that door can be shut that would help us shut it all the way um so there's been some questions as to what your intentions uh for the property are I hear you saying you're uh using as a residence and I if I recall correctly from us here both brothers were gonna live there yes uh yeah okay some family home gotcha so that's the intent of for the property loot and handles it okay yeah any other questions um I don't know if this is it it does say on the next page 69 that the grudge will continue to be used as a grudge and none of the proposed work will affect its um relationship with a house the tobacco barn um some of the possibly that could be used in a different way uh I guess because it's certainly not going to continue to be used as a tobacco barn.

Not even now we're just obligated to restore it we I mean we don't know we don't know what we're gonna do it I mean we have our nice edition now we have our you know it's it's like we don't know we're just we want to fix it up in fact what we did the last time was we were told we could demo the the tech room and the uh wash house and we opted to keep them and we restore them both of them and we put it back together exactly it is a wash house it's a laundry room right now we put back the shake roof what should be in there it's beautiful and I think it's a real part of the property and that's what we want to do we were told to demolish them we kept and I'm I don't have questions about the post use okay any other questions before I close public comment any other comments from the public all right so we'll close public comment I'm opening it up to the commission any comments and motion well I I just want to point that our standard is rehabilitation not restorations which someone had mentioned so um it allows some we don't have to turn it into a tobacco barn right it is a good one yeah so I just want to make that that clear any other comments I have a comment um I I'm glad we had the opportunity to to walk around we couldn't get some views because of the construction and the limitations we were on the sidewalk so we were limited a little but I think it it helped to see it I also enjoy uh looking at the pictures again and looking at the sunshine and how it hits the the two sides I know they're proposing the these um uh inserts that will add light on one side but I'm also kind of hoping they'll consider just because of the neighborhood and some of the comments to have the that put on the other side with the trees trimmed.

I think they'll also have lots of light from the other side.

And I don't think it's as visible to the neighbors on either street as um I couldn't come up with an angle where it was more visible.

I know that they say this is the front because of the doors, but I'm just saying the side of the the structure is not nearly as prominent as it is, you know, from the other side.

So you as you move forward and see where the trees are and the light, just consider that maybe be a move toward helping people feel more comfortable with it.

I think sometimes when things change in a neighborhood, it is upsetting to people that you used to seeing it the same way.

And I I think these changes are within the standards within the direction we have.

I just think that sometimes it's it's uh it's an adjustment for people, and adjustment sometimes is uncomfortable because they're just not used to seeing it that way.

So we we um um we want to feel that the public is heard by the commission and we want to um uh think about ways to help them um with their feelings with the whole project as a whole.

And we really do appreciate the fact that you're taking such care with the project and that you really uh want it to be successful um place with and save the older buildings and have it be comfortable for your family.

Any other comments?

I agree with Gerald on all of that.

When I was looking at the tobacco barn and where the skylights are going to be, I really didn't have a problem because they're facing a landscape lot, not a house.

However, now I hear about this reflection thing from uh from other neighbors.

Um I don't know.

I mean, I was thinking about that too because uh I heard the concern from the neighbors, but I also heard the commitment from the architect and the applicants that if that was ever an issue of with a reflection, they would certainly take care of it.

So I mean, I hope that yeah, I don't know how binding it is that um, you know, but uh, but yeah, I mean, as somebody that lives in a city with neighbors not in the country, yeah, all these things uh affect us and I'm sympathetic to the neighbors, but I'm also you know grateful to the applicants of the the work and the restoration and and you know, keeping this building um for many, many, hopefully many, many years uh to come in good state.

So I don't know if anybody has any comments or anybody wants to make a motion.

Well, I just just I mean agree with everybody, what everybody's saying.

I'm not sure what taking care of uh reflectivity of a skylight.

Well, I don't know how you would do that, and I don't I I get a little concerned if we say like, oh yeah, I could get taken care of because you know it's gonna be reflective of its uh glass on any level.

So uh I don't I don't want that to be kind of as a as a way to ameliorate neighborhood concerns.

Um, you know, with that said, I think I said last time, you know, with the accessory structure, I I don't have a big concern of putting skylights on a roof.

Um, you know, there was some, but I also don't think that it would lose integrity.

I I could I could see us keeping I could see the building still maintaining integrity if we require the skylights on the east side so that you know the garage skylights and the tobacco skylights did face one another, but I'm not really strong.

I mean, I don't feel that strongly about that.

If that's you know, I'm not feeling that strongly about it.

So, you know, regarding the deck and the the railing, I mean it's barely minimal.

I mean, the the flooring, we talked with staff at the site visit, you could have a deck flooring as it is now, it's already flat.

You know, the real consider our discussion is do we want to have a three and a half foot glass railing there or not?

I don't really have much concern about it.

I don't think it's gonna have a lot of um impact on the neighbors.

There's no lights on that side.

So I'm not really concerned about that.

Um, the alteration, I mean, I think that you guys are doing a fantastic job on these old buildings, giving it, you know, another hopeless century of of use.

Um, I think I asked about use last time.

Um, Levi, I mean uh you did correct me that it's really not part of our purview to opine that much on use.

I mean, it has to comply with what's allowed in the the zoning and general plan requirements for the site.

So um, you know, they don't know what they they're gonna do with it now but you know the plans do not show you know accessory living you there's no you know plumbing being associated it's just uh electrical lighting and you know interior siding at this point um and then so really it comes down to to in my opinion our discussion on the skylights location of that and then amending that you know miss club has already said she'd be be making amendments to the historic report um and so we can make a finding question yeah I'm I think I'm good with everything but I agree with Geraldine that the report needs you've got two declarative sentences that declare opposite things so we need to have uh have that tidied up um but otherwise um we have skylights in our house and our neighbors up behind us have never complained in the 30 years we've had them in their old style so I'm guessing it they reflect uh you know I don't know that it's always an issue yeah the only thing I would for the amendment of the um I think it's we need to amend the uh make a motion to amend the permit the permit I think you mentioned and also to ask the historian to amend the report I would love to give them the option to say uh like I said I would really love shake uh it's not up to me it's not my money as I was reminded uh but maybe give them the option so they can as the building uh progresses and things come up maybe say shingles uh as stated in the report or uh shake roofing as uh stated by the architect just so they don't have to come back uh and they can be in yes yeah they've already started putting shake on the other two accessory buildings I think it we should provide some like either have it all be consistent or not so if they're on the path to shake let's just yeah have them continue that all right I'm I'm okay with that I didn't know they had already started all right so does anybody want to make a motion so is is that in the they would amend the papers here to say shake I would say part of the motion would be to um if I was making the motion I don't know if Brown Act yet I can do that uh but if I was making the motion I would make the motion as proposed by uh staff in addition uh condition probably to file an amended uh report that includes the consistent language with uh shake roofing instead of the composite that's there plus whatever we need to include to amend project finance yeah so the way I would recommend that is by making a motion uh that includes a condition of approval requiring if the roofing material on both structures be wood shake and that the historic preservation report and plans be amended to reflect that anybody want to make that motion I have one more thing that that part say the language so I didn't want to I could say it again you can say it again that's good because it went you said it so well so we don't want to lose that the wording sometimes we we get meddled up in that so I'm I just uh want to check with um the owners would they consider if the trees allowed it to move the skylights to the other side we'll have to reopen the public hearing to allow them to answer that.

Do we have to do that to be open the can I yeah you'd have to okay let's reopen the public hearing to hear from the applicants uh question from the commissioner whether uh you all would consider if allowed uh moving the skylights from one side or the other I think we need to go with the Meg and see whatever the standards are I would you know I can I'll comment on that I think we need to stick within the guidelines for all this the historical review here.

I think Meg is doing everything to stay within those guidelines.

So I would have to go with Meg's recommendation.

So you're saying you don't want to change the skylights what if the sky stuff so far and keep them within all the guidelines, and we were held to all the guidelines when we were submitting for the occasion.

We made adjustments for that from public comment.

And I think now I think we need to continue with that standard.

So this is one of those standards where I think we stay still stick with the guidelines.

I didn't understand.

To me, it would be it would not be contrary to the standards.

It would still be allowed.

But you're saying that you'd rather stick with the way she stated it.

Correct.

Okay, I understand.

I think I think uh go ahead.

Yeah, I have a question for you too.

Have you looked at skylights?

Have you made material determinations on the roofing changes at all?

Or is this all just kind of ideas?

We'll we've done the shape group on the on the washroom.

Right, I appreciate that.

What about the skylights?

Skylight.

What do you mean?

What are you have you picked out what skylights you're gonna use?

The color will tie in with the roof.

Okay.

No reflectivity.

Okay, so I know you have the criteria, but have you actually chosen which skylights you're going to buy if this is approved?

They looks okay.

Okay, since we'd opened it up, do I need to open up for a couple public comment?

All right.

Any public comment on on what was mentioned uh right now?

Yes, we have someone.

And then Spencer, I'll ask you if there's anybody online.

Uh my name is Mike Hahn, live at 641 Scott Street.

And the picture you took was from um Scott Street going up.

And so you don't really see the whole side of the roof.

Whereas if you're on Warkin Street, that's all you see is the whole roof.

Every time you walk by, you see the green uh rolled roofing.

And I know if it's gonna be uh wood shing shingles or shakes.

Um that's fine, but the skylights are always gonna pop out because they're a different texture.

You know, it's not with glass, so right away it doesn't blend in, and then you know, facing them, people walking up the street, you're not gonna even notice them because all the giant redwood trees on the other side is totally exposed.

So if they only have a problem with switching sides, put it on the other side, not the side that's totally exposed.

Thank you.

Uh, Spencer, anybody online that has raised their hand to participate.

Uh there's still no attendees online.

I will remind the public one more time.

Information on how to participate remotely by Zoom or telephone is found at Monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

Uh no attendees online.

Thank you.

Ma'am, I see you stood up.

Do you want to comment something on the on the skylights?

This last portion of it, please.

My name's Elizabeth Atkinson.

I live at 236 Larkin Street.

And I would just like to reiterate that that uh roof line is beautiful.

And I think if you put skylights on it, you're gonna remove it from its historical use.

And I think it's just it's it's not gonna be seen under those beautiful redwoods at all.

It's I mean, it's a gorgeous building, it is well loved.

And it isn't just another skylight.

Everybody that drives down there, it's a low roof.

We all walk by it, we've driven by it for years.

It's gorgeous.

It does destroy the use of that building.

If you can move them to the other side, just put a couple there, nobody would notice.

And I think it would be fitting, and thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, I'm going to close uh the public uh comment section.

I think I now need to go to the commission again if they have any comments on what the latest that was discussed regarding the skylights uh position, materials, color matching, etc.

No, yeah, I uh comment.

So it seems to be a question between the historic preservation of the facade versus what the neighbors see, which side you put the skylights on, and from the commission's standpoint, I would think preserving the facade would be the preferable decision.

Yeah, I mean, even if it upsets the neighbors that they're gonna be looking at skylights from an historic preservation standpoint, that should be the only way to go.

I think once they get rid of the green rolled roofing, it's gonna look way better.

Uh even with skyline, but um all right.

Any other comments?

Okay.

So I'll also take motions if anybody's interested in making any.

I'll try.

Leva will help us.

If you'd like.

Commissioner O'Neill, if you'd like, I can just read a motion and you can jump on that.

Okay.

So I believe the motion, based on the conversation we've heard today, I believe the motion would be to uh a motion to approve the project as submitted with the special condition of approval that the wood uh shake be used as the material for both accessory structures and that the historic preservation report and project plans be amended uh to reflect that and submit it to the planning division prior prior to issuance of building permits.

Well done.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Oh, no, I was the she made the motion.

We made the motion, yes.

I'll say it.

Second, all right.

All those in favor.

Aye, aye.

Aye.

Hi.

All those.

Oh, sorry, I thought you said I, that's why I asked you.

Okay.

I uh all those uh post.

I'll stick up for the neighborhood here and say may.

All right, and before we move on, uh Mr.

Argent Bride, do we have an accurate reflection of that vote or do we need to do a roll call?

I believe that is uh all uh eyes and one no from Smith Corvello.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

That's correct.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um motion passes.

Um I'll just remind that that action is appealable to the planning commission within the next 10 days with forms made available on the planning website or in the planning office.

All right.

Well, thank you very much to the applicants, to the members of the public that came today and to the staff for the report.

Um I think we now need to move on to uh the next item, which is to confirm annual appointments for chair and vice chair.

I don't know.

Did I do an okay job?

Very good, very good.

All right, so it works, but in all fairness, uh Spencer did uh um warn me that that was happening.

Was it yeah, with Spencer?

You you warned me.

I think you emailed me that that was happening today.

All right, so um, we just wanted you to say yes.

You know, we didn't want to have a Spencer's.

All right, so do we need to make a motion?

I'm assuming yes.

We have a brief staff report uh that we can provide as well before we do that.

All right.

Do we need a motion?

We're gonna do it.

We can buy a brief staff presentation that we'll do, and then yeah.

Is that Chris?

Or who oh uh?

Okay, thank you, Fernanda.

Okay, my name is Fernando Roveri, principal planner for the city of Monterey.

And I think based on uh Juan's performance, I think he's ready.

Um so yeah, each July, the chair and vice chair positions rotate so that each member gets a chance to serve and to ensure the even distribution of responsibilities.

To be eligible for the chairs or vice chair positions, a member must have served for at least six months, and so based on appointment dates, Commissioner Rodriguez is next in line for the chair position, followed by Commissioner Barlow.

As such, staff recommends that the HPC appoint Commissioner Rodriguez as the new chair and Commissioner Barlow as vice chair.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and you should take public comment and then discuss and make a motion.

All right.

Um I'm gonna open it up for public comment.

Spencer, anybody online?

And there are no attendees online.

All right, I see none in present unless I'm missing something.

All right.

So I'm gonna close uh public comment.

Any uh comments from the commissioners.

I'm good.

I'm happy to um support that the concept of changing the voice of the leadership in the committee.

I think it's good for us all to hear from somebody else and have that.

And I'm so glad that you're going to accept the nomination to be there.

Well, I was gonna say based on today, I don't know if I wanted, but then I heard distribution of responsibilities, so it's my turn.

We didn't want to decide without you.

I appreciate it.

I know last year I was out of the country when that discussion happened and I got a one-year pass.

So I know I'm due.

I know.

So I'm happy to make the motion, unless there's more discussion, that we um um follow the the plan of rotation, and that we now have a new uh chair of the commission.

So congratulations and the vice chair Julie, so pay attention and we'll move ahead.

All right, and I just need a second.

Did I hear a second?

Second.

All right, all those in favor?

Uh anybody opposed, right?

Unanimous, and I think.

Oh, and I'd like to uh thank um Chair Wrath for her service, even though she's not here.

We need to do that next uh meeting when she's here.

All right, so um nothing.

Oh, planning updates.

Anything from the department?

Sure.

So uh just quickly uh as noted in the uh agenda packet for this meeting.

There's currently no items that are tentatively scheduled for our September 11th meeting.

But if that changes, we'll be sure to let this group know.

Um also noted are the historic and uh cultural events happening.

Uh in case you didn't hear during this meeting, it's car week.

Uh so that's going on.

Uh but also uh also West End celebrations happening August 23rd and the 24th over in San City, and the Festa Italia is September 5th through the 7th at the Custom House Plaza.

And I think I got an email from the City Turkish Festival too.

Right around in between next weekend.

Or both, or both, yeah, why not?

All right, um, if that nothing more for the I just I've got two things.

One is um I don't I don't think we had it on our uh upcoming events, but the um Monterey Foundation had the uh Marcia DeVoe lecture, which was from uh Julie was there.

Um was the historian from PLI?

It was really a good presentation.

I'm sorry, yeah.

Um, so if we could I don't know how you find out about those things, but if that would that would have been nice to know that we've how did the three of you find out about it?

Uh I probably read it in um the week.

Yeah, yeah.

I I think I read it in the week.

We'll have to subscribe to that, I guess.

Yeah, we can be simply that day.

Yeah, it was I'll use Julie's login information.

It looks like that the modern history and arts association sent an email about it as well.

I got that, yeah.

So if in the future, because it would be nice to know not on the morning of with, hey, you want to not have dinner and go listen to a lecture, but it was it was very, very good and well attended too, yeah.

It was um and point sur did have our open house or living history, but we've got another event which everyone is waiting for.

Oh, we have an open house at the Naval Facility, which is the Cold War listening facility.

That is the August 31st, so it's Sunday of the um Labor Day weekend, yeah.

And it's 15 bucks, and you drive in and we give you a guide and you walk around and people tell you secrets.

Right, yeah.

What time is this, Carl?

Uh noon to two.

The last car should be out by three.

So, yeah, it's not a hour.

You can yes, you can walk around and do it.

Three, you've got three hours to visit.

Yes, but we just want everybody out by three.

You'll be fine.

Any other announcement?

All right.

I promise I'm gonna do this once because I've never done it before and I'm not gonna do it again.

I'm gonna adjourn the meeting.

Uh, all right, it's 5 27 and we're adjourned for today.