[00:08:55]
[00:08:55]
EVENING.[CALL TO ORDER]
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL LIZ THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER FOR MAY 26TH, 2026.[ROLL CALL]
CALL FOR THE ROLE.COMMISSIONER HUNTER PRESENT, COMMISSIONER PADILLA PEREZ PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER PIZZA PRESENT, COMMISSIONER PRYOR PRESENT, VICE-CHAIR GFE PRESENT AND CHAIRMAN WAN PRESENT, WE HAVE QUORUM.
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
OF ALLEGIANCE.COMMISSIONER PADILLA PEREZ WILL LEAD US.
MAY I HAVE EVERYONE STAND ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS? ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
AT THIS TIME WE'LL HAVE SWEARING OF THE WITNESSES.
[00:10:01]
IF YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE TESTIMONY, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE TO THIS CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION MEETING SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
BEGINNING WITH OUR REGULAR AGENDA, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE READ THE FIRST ITEM.
[1. 26-55179 Recommendation to receive and file Director’s Report. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
IS A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? YES.
THE MOTION WAS, WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER PADILLA PEREZ.
AND SECOND WAS COMMISSIONER PRYOR.
I WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS AND GOOD EVENING.
I'M GONNA PASS IT OVER TO OUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OFFICER, MARISSA MOSHER FOR THIS DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
I HOPE EVERYONE HAD A GOOD MEMORIAL DAY.
UH, JUST ONE ITEM FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT THIS EVENING.
WE'VE HAD A SUCCESSFUL MILLS ACT APPLICATION PERIOD FOR 2026.
SO STAFF HAS BEEN REVIEWING APPLICATIONS, CONDUCTING SITE VISITS, AND WORKING WITH THE APPLICANTS.
SO WE'LL BE BRINGING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MILLS ACT APPLICATIONS TO THE COMMISSION, UH, IN JUNE AT THE NEXT MEETING FOR YOUR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
DID ANY OF THE STAFF, UH, ATTEND THE CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION CONFERENCE THIS PAST MAY? UH, STAFF WERE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND, UM, THIS YEAR, UM, BUT WE UNDERSTAND IT WAS ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL CONFERENCE HELD THIS YEAR IN RIVERSIDE.
AN IMPORTANT, UH, ANNUAL CONFERENCE, UH, WHERE, UH, PRACTITIONERS ACROSS THE STATE CONVENED TOGETHER.
WE DID HAVE TWO STAFF WHO WERE ABLE TO ATTEND LAST YEAR AND BROUGHT BACK A LOT OF GREAT LEARNINGS THAT WERE STILL, UM, USING IN OUR DAY-TO-DAY WORK AND, UM, HAVE IN OUR, UM, WORK PROGRAM OVER THE NEXT YEAR TO HELP IMPLEMENT.
AND YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT SOME OF THOSE EXAMPLES IN AN UPCOMING, UH, STUDY SESSION LATER THIS YEAR.
WAS IT NOT IN THE BUDGET OR JUST IT WASN'T IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STAFF? YEAH, THANKS FOR THE CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO, UM, DUE TO BUDGET CHALLENGES, WE'VE HAD A PAUSE ON ANY, UM, UH, WHAT'S CALLED MULTI-DAY OR OVERNIGHT, UM, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY BUDGET FOR STAFF TO ATTEND MULTI-DAY, UM, TRAININGS, UM, GIVEN OUR BUDGET SITUATION.
THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING DIRECTOR'S REPORT? IF THERE ARE NONE, WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, PLEASE LINE UP AT THE PODIUM IF THERE ARE NONE VIRTUALLY.
IF YOU ARE JOINING VIRTUALLY PLEASE AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE USE YOUR RAISE HAND FEATURE NOW.
IF JOINING TELEPHONICALLY, PLEASE PRESS STAR NINE NOW.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
UH, AT THIS TIME MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
[2. 26-55180 Recommendation to approve the minutes for the Cultural Heritage Commission meeting of Tuesday, March 31, 2026. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
AND A SECOND REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING? MARCH, MARCH 31ST, 2026.THE MOTION WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PRYOR IN A SECOND WITH COMMISSIONER HUNTER COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MINUTES? IF THERE ARE NONE, WE'LL NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, IF NOT VIRTUALLY.
IF YOU ARE JOINING VIRTUALLY AND WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE.
IF JOINING TELEPHONICALLY, PRESS STAR NINE NOW.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO FURTHER COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM.
UH, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
[00:15:05]
COMMISSIONER PADILLA PEREZ.I CAN TAKE A VERBAL THANK YOU.
UH, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE READ, UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.
[3. 26-55193 Recommendation to accept Categorical Exemption CE-26-043, finding the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and Approve a Certificate of Appropriateness (COAC2511-01) at 755 Orange Avenue, to construct a detached two-story structure consisting of 936 square-foot garage area and 259 square-foot storage/laundry area on the first floor. Two 603-square-foot Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) over the proposed new garage structure were approved administratively as required by state law. The request also includes the demolition of an existing 309-square-foot two-car garage and demolition of an existing 260-square-foot storage area on the rear of the primary duplex structure. The property is located within the Hellman Street Craftsman Historic District, and the existing primary structure is a Contributing Structure in the R-2-N Zoning District. (District 1) Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
A RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CE DASH TWO SIX DASH 0 4 3.FINDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO QUA GUIDELINES, SECTION 1 5 3 0 3 CLASS THREE AND APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AT 7 5 5 ORANGE AVENUE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED TWO STORY STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF 936 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE AREA AND 259 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE SLASH LAUNDRY AREA ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
TWO 603 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OVER THE PROPOSED NEW GARAGE STRUCTURE WERE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.
THE REQUEST ALSO INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 309 SQUARE FOOT TWO CAR GARAGE AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 260 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE AREA ON THE REAR OF THE PRIMARY DUPLEX STRUCTURE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HELMAN STREET CRAFTSMAN HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND THE EXISTING PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN THE R TWO N ZONING DISTRICT.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND FOR THIS ITEM? THE MOTION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER PISO AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HUNTER.
I WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO STAFF FOR THE PRESENTATION.
UH, PROJECT PLANNER OF FU TORRES CAMPOS WILL PROVIDE THE STAFF PRESENTATION THIS EVENING.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND FELLOW COMMISSIONERS BEFORE YOU IS A MAJOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUESTS TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE STRUCTURE WITH ATTACHED STORAGE AND LAUNDRY AREAS AND TWO NEW ADUS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OVER THE PROPOSED NEW GARAGE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED AT 7 55 ORANGE AVENUE BETWEEN EAST HELLMAN STREET AND EAST SEVENTH STREET.
THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE R TWO N SONY DISTRICT, WHICH IS TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SONY AND WITHIN THE HELLMAN STREET CRAFTSMAN HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE LOT SIZE IS 8,073 SQUARE FEET AND CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A ONE STORY 2020 SQUARE FOOT DUPLEX RESIDENCE WITH A ONE CAR GARAGE AT THE REAR TO BE DEMOLISHED AND AN UNPERMITTED ATTACHED STORAGE AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED AS WELL.
THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED IN 1912 IN A CRAFTSMAN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
THE PROPERTY ALSO HAS AN EXISTING FRONT DRIVEWAY.
UH, THE PHOTO SHOWS THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING DUPLEX, UM, FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FACING ORANGE AVENUE.
THE EXISTING DUPLEX IS IN A CRAFTSMAN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING, COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF, WOOD WINDOWS, FRONT PORCH AREA WITH STEPS, RAFTER TAILS AND STONE MATERIAL ON THE FRONT AND SIDES.
THERE IS ALSO A CONCRETE WALKWAY FROM THE FRONT TO THE PORCH ENTRANCE.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE SECURITY BARS ON ALL WINDOWS AS WELL AND WITHIN THE PORCH AREA, WHICH ARE CONDITIONED TO BE REMOVED.
AND THIS IS PHOTO SHOWS MORE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL, UH, DEFINING FEATURES OF THE DUPLEX FROM THE SIDE ALONG THE FRONT DRIVEWAY.
SOME OF THESE EXISTING FEATURES WERE NOT DRAWN CORRECTLY ON THE PLANS, HOWEVER, PER CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
NUMBER NINE, WHICH STATES ANY BUILDING MATERIALS, ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS OR WINDOWS AND DOOR TRIM USED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MATCH THE EXISTING EXTERIOR FINISHES OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE GUIDE.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT WILL REVISE THE PLANS ACCORDINGLY.
DURING, DURING THE PLAN CHECK REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE PERMITS TO REFLECT ALL THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE MAIN DUPLEX RESIDENCE.
UH, THIS IMAGE HERE SHOWS MORE OF THE FRONT AREA, SPECIFICALLY THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, WHICH IS CONDITIONED TO BE REMOVED AND IMPROVED WITH LANDSCAPING TO PREVENT FURTHER PARKING ON THE FRONT YARD AREA.
PARKING IS ONLY ALLOWED WITHIN DRIVEWAY AREAS AND GARAGES.
AND THIS IS ANOTHER PHOTO OF THE FRONT WHICH SHOWS THE EXISTING CINDER BLOCK AND WR IRON FENCING PER THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE FENCE AND GATE SHALL BE REMOVED OR LEGALIZED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE PROJECT.
AND THIS SHOWS THE UN PERMITTED STORAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED.
[00:20:01]
IS ATTACHED TO THE REAR OF THE, TO THE REAR OF THE DUPLEX RESIDENCE.IT IS NOT ORIGINAL, NO PERMITS WERE FOUND, AND IT IS IN BAD CONDITION.
IT HAS ROTTEN WOOD, DILAPIDATED PAINT AND DOES NOT MATCH THE ORIGINAL DUPLEX RESIDENCE, HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING AND ROOF STYLE.
AND THIS PHOTO SHOWS THE EXISTING ONE CAR GARAGE, UM, THAT'S GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED, UH, WITH HORIZONTAL SIDING.
THE GARAGE IS PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED AND THE DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROJECT TO PROCEED.
ADUS ARE ALLOWED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS PER STATE LAW.
THE LOSS OF THE GARAGE IS PROPOSED TO BE OFFSET BY THE NEW PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE.
THE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE ORIGINAL GARAGE WITH THE MAIN STRUCTURE WILL HAVE LITTLE TO NO EFFECT SINCE THE NEW PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL ALSO BE DETACHED AGAIN, THE SCOPE OF WORK IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED TWO STORY STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF A 936 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE STRUCTURE WITH 259 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE AND LAUNDRY AREAS.
AND OVER THE NEW STRUCTURE, UH, TWO NEW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AT 603 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.
THE ADU ARE NOT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION UNDER STATE LAW.
THEY ARE MINISTERIAL AND SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL ONLY.
THE ADUS ARE SHOWN HERE FOR CONTEXT ONLY, UH, SINCE THEY ARE PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK.
THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION, AS I MENTIONED, OF A ONE CAR GARAGE AND DEMOLITION OF AN UNPERMITTED STORAGE AREA, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE REAR OF THE DUPLEX RESIDENCE.
IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE PROJECT MEETS ALL SETBACKS, HEIGHT LIMITS, LOCK COVERAGE, OPEN SPACE, ALLOWABLE UNIT NUMBERS, PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
THE REFERENCE TABLE HERE IS ALSO ON THE STAFF REPORT AND ALSO ON THE FINDINGS.
UH, THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
THE HIGHLIGHTED AREA IN GREEN IS THE UNPERMITTED STORAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED.
SAYS STORAGE IS NOT ORIGINAL AND IN A DETERIORATED CONDITION.
THE AREA IN RED IS THE ONE CAR GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED.
THE AREA IN BLUE IS THE NEW GARAGE STRUCTURE WITH STORAGE AND LAUNDRY AREAS WITH TWO A OVER THE NEW GARAGE STRUCTURE.
THE PROPERTY HAS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
THE DRIVEWAY WILL BE RETAINED AND NO MODIFICATIONS.
UH, THIS IS A CLOSER LOOK AT THE PROPOSED GARAGE AND STORAGE AND LAUNDRY AREAS.
THE NEW GARAGE IS FOR THREE VEHICLES.
ALL ENTRANCES COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED TURNING RADIUS ATTACHED TO THE SIDE ON THE NORTH.
THERE ARE THREE PROPOSED STORAGE AND LAUNDRY ROOM AREAS WITH WASHER AND DRYERS.
THERE ARE NO NEW WINDOWS ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
THE LAUNDRY ROOMS HAVE WOOD WINDOW, UH, WOOD DOORS AND THE GARAGE DOORS ARE CONDITIONED TO BE OF STEEL, ALUMINUM, FIBERGLASS, OR WOOD MATERIAL, BUT NO VINYL IS ALLOWED.
HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ARE THE PROPOSED EXTERIOR STAIRS THAT GO UP TO THE NEW ADU OVER THE GARAGE STRUCTURE.
UH, HERE FOR REFERENCE ONLY ARE THE TWO NEW ADU UH, FLOOR PLANS.
UH, THE TWO ADUS ARE 603 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE AND INCLUDE TWO BEDROOMS, A FULL BATHROOM LIVING ROOM, AND A FULL KITCHEN.
UH, THIS IS THE FRONT ELEVATION SHOWING THE EXISTING DUPLEX.
MOST OF THE PROPOSED GARAGE STRUCTURE WILL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW ONLY.
A SMALL SECTION IN RED WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE FRONT OF THE STREET.
THE AREA IN BLUE SHOWS THAT TWO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OVER THE GARAGE.
THE ADUS ARE PROPO, ARE APPROVED ADMINISTER ADMINISTRATIVELY, UH, PER STATE LAW, THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING DUPLEX IS 17 FEET AND EIGHT INCHES TO THE PEAK OF THE ROOF.
AND THE PROPOSED WILL HAVE 23 FEET AND NINE INCHES TO THE PEAK.
UH, THE NEW STRUCTURE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET AND ONE INCH TALLER THAN EXISTING AS MEASURED FROM THE PEAK OF THE ROOFS AND WILL BE SET BACK A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
UH, THE NEW GARAGE STRUCTURE WITH THE ADUS ON THE SECOND FLOOR WILL INCLUDE WOOD SIDING, WOOD ELEMENTS, COMPOSITION SHINGLES, GABLE ROOF.
THE PROJECT INCLUDES WOOD DOORS AND WOOD WINDOWS.
THE GARAGE DOORS ARE CONDITIONED TO BE, UM, TO BE ALLOWED IN STEEL, ALUMINUM, FIBERGLASS, AND WOOD MATERIAL.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED REAL ELEVATION.
THE NEW SIDING WILL MATCH EXISTING BUT WILL NOT CREATE A FULL SENSE OF HISTORY.
THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE IS DIFFERENTIATED FROM ORIGINAL SINCE ORIGINALLY THE
[00:25:01]
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE DISTRICT DID NOT INCLUDE THREE CAR GARAGES WITH ADUS ON THE SECOND FLOOR.THE PROJECT IS THEREFORE DISTINCT FROM THE STRUCTURES BUILT IN THE DISTRICT BETWEEN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE OF 1905 TO 1939.
AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE ELEVATION TO THE SOUTH WOOD SIGHTING CONTINUES TO BE PROPOSED ALONG WITH RAPTOR TAILS AND DECORATIVE ROOF FENCE.
AND THE NORTH ELEVATION SHOWS THE DOORS TO THE PROPOSED STORAGE AND LAUNDRY AREAS.
ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
THE DOORS ARE SHOWN TO BE A WOOD MATERIAL OVERALL.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IN A CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE THAT IS DISTINGUISHED FROM ORIGINAL, BUT IS COMPATIBLE IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN AND MATERIALS USE AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON THE PROJECT WILL ENSURE THAT NONCONFORMITIES ARE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, AND THAT PLANS REFLECT ALL EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ON THE PLANS SUBMITTED FOR THE PERMITS, WE RECEIVED FOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND DRAFTED THE CONDITIONS HERE, UM, TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS ABOUT FENCING SECURITY BARS ON WINDOWS AND THE PORCH AREA AND MATERIALS AND THE UNPERMITTED PARKING ON THE FRONT.
AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE NON CONTRIBUTOR TWO STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON THE BLOCK AND MULTIPLE TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WITHIN THE BLOCK AND THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
GIVEN THIS CONTEXT AND THE PRO UM, THIS CON GIVEN THIS CONTEXT, THE PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING CODE, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE GUIDE, AND THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FINDINGS, UH, WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS, WHICH ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT, JEREMY NO IS ALSO HERE, UM, IN THE MEETING TODAY.
UH, REFUGIO, UH, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? UH, YES.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU REFUGIO FOR THE PRESENTATION AS USUAL.
UM, I HAD A QUESTION REGARDING THE WALL OUT FRONT.
IT SAID IN THE CONDITIONS, UH, ALMOST THE SECOND TO LAST SLIDE OR LAST SLIDE, UM, THAT IT WILL BE REMOVED OR SHALL BE REMOVED.
BUT THEN YOU MENTIONED DURING THE PRESENTATION SOMETHING ABOUT IF IT REMAINS IT WOULD BE LEGALIZED.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER? YEAH, SO IT APPEARS THAT THE, UH, CINDER BLOCK, UM, WR IRON FENCE DOESN'T HAVE ANY PERMITS.
UH, SO THEY EITHER CAN DEMOLISH IT OR THEY CAN LEGALIZE IT.
UH, THEY DO HAVE THAT OPTION TO LEGALIZE THE, THE CINDER BLOCK AND, AND WR IRON FENCING.
UM, AND THEN I HAD A QUESTION.
IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE IN THE PHOTOS, BUT THE DRAWING SHOWS THAT THE FRONT DOOR AND EVEN THAT LITTLE SIDE DOOR, UM, WHICH I'M ASSUMING GOES TO A KITCHEN OFF THE DRIVEWAY, UM, HAS A HALF MOON, UH, LIGHT IN IT, UH, WHICH LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN DUPLICATED ONTO THE A DU BUILDING.
AND I WAS JUST WANTING TO VERIFY, IS THAT THE DESIGN OF THE EXISTING FRONT DOOR? 'CAUSE IT SEEMS UNUSUAL ON WHICH PICTURE? UH, SO IT WOULD BE THE, THE FRONT ELEVATION.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, UH, THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WEST TELEVISION.
I GUESS IT'S THE EAST OR EAST ELEVATION.
YEAH,
THERE'LL BE A, THERE'LL BE A TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
YEAH, I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW WE'RE ON COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
I THINK WE'RE WAITING FOR THE ELEVATION.
OH, IS THAT, IS THAT YEAH, THERE IT IS.
SO DRIVING BY THIS, IT LOOKED LIKE THE DOOR WAS A A A FOUR FOOT, LIKE A, A TYPICAL CRAFTSMAN WHITER FRONT DOOR.
AND THIS ISN'T DEPICTED THAT WAY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST A DRAWING ILLUSTRATION ERROR OR WHAT, BUT, UM, IT'S THIS HALF MOON VERY ALMOST TRADITIONAL TYPE
[00:30:01]
DOOR.AND I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT REALLY EXISTS THERE, JUST SO WE CAN USE THAT AS A, UM, A TALKING POINT.
MAYBE THE OWNER NEEDS TO HELP US ON THAT.
OR IF YOU CAN PICK UP THE PICTURES.
I LOOKED AT THE PICTURES AND THEY'RE SO DARK BECAUSE OF THE, THE PORCH.
THAT'S THE FRONT PICTURE, BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO TELL DUE TO THE SECURITY BARS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THAT CONDITION TO HAVE THOSE SECURITY BARS BEING REMOVED.
BUT I I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT, SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON THAT TOO, TO HELP US CLARIFY WHAT'S THERE.
VICE CHAIR GFI, I, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
I WOULD JUST LIKE US TO, UM, CLARIFY OUR PURVIEW ON THIS AS, AS COMMISSIONERS.
UM, JUST LIKE WHAT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE A DU ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE COMMENTING ON? IF ANYTHING? I MEAN, ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE MATERIALS OR DO WE HAVE ANY ABILITY TO COMMENT ON THESE? SO, UH, TECHNICALLY THE A DU COMPONENT ITSELF IS APPROVED ALREADY UNDER STATE LAW, BUT WE FOUND IT CHALLENGING TO BRING FORWARD THE GARAGE COMPONENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, SHOWING, SHOWING THAT, UM, WE DO HAVE, UM, GUIDANCE ON MATERIALS THAT, THAT THE A DU HAS TO FOLLOW.
UM, BUT CERTAINLY IF THERE'S COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, WE CAN BRING THAT UP WITH THE APPLICANT AND, AND IF IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S IN THE GUIDANCE STAFF CAN HELP MAKE SURE THAT'S REINFORCED.
UM, AND, AND THE FULL, THE, THE GARAGE, YOU KNOW, IS IN YOUR PURVIEW.
BUT I KNOW IT'S, IT'S KIND OF A STRANGE CONFLATION OF THE TWO COMPONENTS.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE STILL TRYING TO WORK OUT WITH, UM, OUR PARTNERS AND OTHER LOCALITIES IN THE STATE AS TO HOW WE BEST MOVE FORWARD ON THIS MORE BROADLY.
AND IT'S A TOPIC WE WANNA, WE WANNA DISCUSS, UM, IN A STUDY SESSION, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE OF A SPECIFIC PROJECT TO, TO HELP US GET TO THAT NEXT, UH, STEP IN TERMS OF HOW WE BRING THINGS FORWARD.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE SINCE WE'VE BROUGHT AN A DU, UM, FORWARD, BUT WE HAD MM-HMM
UM, A WHILE, OR SORRY, UH, SEVERAL OF THEM, UM, IN THIS SORT OF SITUATION OF THE, UM, TWO COMPONENTS.
SO IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC PIECE WE, WE CAN, WE CAN TALK THROUGH THAT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF THE GENERAL GUIDANCE.
AND, AND SO WHAT, ON WHAT GROUNDS ARE THEY REMOVING THE, THE GARAGE, THE EXISTING GARAGE, UH, JUST TO MAKE THE PROJECT FEASIBLE FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS? THEY, THEY CAN'T REMOVE THE GARAGE.
UM, JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ADUS.
I I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FROM, FROM PLANNING.
SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I'M, I'M TRYING TO WALK THIS THROUGH IN MY HEAD.
SO THIS IS PART QUESTION, PART COMMENT MAYBE.
SO FIRST OF ALL, THE HEIGHT, I'M GONNA START WITH THAT BECAUSE, 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE HD'S WEBSITE RIGHT NOW.
THE HEIGHT IS THE, WHICHEVER IS I THINK HIGHER OR LOWER.
UH, MUST BE UNDER 25 FEET AND THIS IS 23 FEET AND INCHES, NINE INCHES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR THE RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT IN THAT ZONE.
SO I'M ASSUMING THAT ZONE ALSO ALLOWS TWO STORY.
SO I'LL ASK FOR CLARIFICATION AND YOU CAN FIGURE THAT OUT IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT YET.
BUT THE HEIGHT IS ESSENTIALLY ACCEPTABLE UNDER STATE LAW WITH ADUS.
TO THAT IS CORRECT TO THE QUESTION.
I ALSO HAVE THAT SAME QUESTION.
IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO ADOPT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE, THEY STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO AT LEAST ONE A DU ON SITE, NOT ABOVE THE GARAGE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
IN FACT, I THINK THEY CAN DO TWO ADUS AND THEY CAN BE TWO STORIES ANYWAYS.
SO THEY COULD DO TWO, TWO STORY ADUS WITHOUT REMOVING THE GARAGE AND WITHOUT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARKING, WHICH THEY ARE NOW.
AND I THOUGHT ADUS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPACE.
NOW WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY ARE WITHIN THE, UM, THE AB 2097, UM, ZONE AREAS,
[00:35:01]
SO THEY'RE WITHIN A HALF A MILE OF TRANSIT.SO THEY DO NOT NEED TO PROVIDE A PARKING SPACE? CORRECT.
SO THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT I THINK ARE HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US, AND I CAN, I CAN NEVER REMEMBER THEM MYSELF.
SO THIS IS PART OF ME ASKING THIS.
SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY PARKING, IT'S ALLOWED TO BE TWO STORIES.
CORRECT? THEY CAN CONSTRUCT A TWO STORE, TWO, TWO STORY ADUS ON THE SITE AND STILL RETAIN THE EXISTING GARAGE, IS THAT CORRECT? POTENTIALLY, YES.
DEPENDING ON HOW THEY DESIGN IT, YES.
ARE BOTH ADUS ALLOW, SO IS ONE OF THE ADUS A STATE EXEMPT A DU? AND THE OTHER ONE IS THE, JUST BECAUSE A DU UNDER STATE LAW, BECAUSE IT'S A DUPLEX PROPERTY, IT'S CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY.
SO THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TWO ADU.
WHY IS THIS A DUPLEX PROPERTY? BECAUSE OF THE ZONING, IT'S A DUPLEX PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S TWO UNITS IN THE FRONT, UM, IN ONE BUILDING.
THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS A DUPLEX.
YES, I SHOULD, I SHOULDN'T SAY IT THAT WAY.
THE SINGLE STRUCTURE IS A TWO FAMILY DUPLEX? CORRECT.
A FRONT, UM, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
SO IT, IT'S A MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING, BUT IT'S NOT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF A D IT'S CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY, MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADUS.
SO THEN WE GO TO THAT SECTION OF STATE LAW AND AND THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE USING FOR THIS ANALYSIS IS THE MULTIFAMILY DWELLING SECTION OF THE A DU LAW? CORRECT.
I'LL HAVE MORE QUESTIONS LATER.
UM, SO IF THEY DON'T DEMOLISH THE GARAGE, THERE IS ONE PARKING SPACE AND AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD PARKING FOR THE THEORETICAL TWO TWO STORY GARAGE.
THE COMMISSIONER PRYOR, CAN I JUST MENTION, UH, I'M HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME HEARING THE STAFF ON THE SECOND ROW BACK HERE.
I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A SOUND ISSUE IF THAT CAN BE TURNED UP OR MAYBE YOU JUST NEED TO BE CLOSER TO THE MICS, BUT BOTH OF YOU.
I CAN'T, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU BOTH.
WE'RE CHECKING WITH THE BACK TO SEE IF IT'S, UH, A SOUND BALANCE ISSUE AND WE'LL, WE'LL TRY BOTH STRATEGIES.
UM, AND REFUGIO, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT TABLE.
UM, YEAH, THE SUMMARY TABLE, THIS IS IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL AT THE TOP OF PAGE, UH, FOUR.
UM, I KNOW THE TEXT IS SMALL HERE ON THE SLIDE, BUT IT IS ALSO ON THE STAFF REPORT ON PAGE FOUR IN TERMS OF THOSE QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, HEIGHT AND UNITS AND PARKING AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
SO, UM, AS WITH MANY OF OUR TABLES, THE, UM, THE FOOTNOTES ARE ALSO IMPORTANT
I KNOW IT IS NUANCED, UM, IN RELATION TO BOTH OUR LOCAL AND STATE REGULATIONS, BUT HOPEFULLY HELPS, UH, CLARIFY SOME OF THOSE COMPONENTS.
REFUGIO, IT, IT IS A HISTORICAL DISTRICT.
THE HOMES IN THE DISTRICT THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE HISTORICAL NATURE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UM, ARE YOU AWARE WHEN THIS HOME WAS CONVERTED TO A DUPLEX AND WERE THERE PERMITS PULLED FOR THAT? UH, I'M NOT, I DON'T REMEMBER FROM THE TOP OF MY HEAD, UM, WHEN IT BECAME A DUPLEX OR IF IT WAS A DUPLEX IN THE BEGINNING, BUT THE PERMIT HISTORY IS SOMETHING STAFF WOULD'VE LOOKED AT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS.
WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT WHILE WE'RE GOING THROUGH QUESTIONS, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN LOOKED AT.
IF WE CAN PLEASE HAVE STAFF, UH, GET CLOSER TO THE MIC.
SO, UH, VICE CHAIR GFI AGAIN, UM, ABOUT THE MATERIALS.
I HEARD GIO SAY THAT, UM, THE MATERIALS WOULD BE THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T CURRENTLY MATCH, UH, WHAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE SITE, WE CAN, THAT, THAT THOSE DRAWINGS WILL BE UPDATED AND THE, AND WE CAN RELY ON THE FACT THAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE THE SAME, UH, MATERIALS.
SO THE, THE DUPLEX IN THE FRONT WASN'T DRAWN, UM,
[00:40:02]
UH, SHOWING THE CORRECT MATERIALS ON THE DUPLEX ITSELF.UH, SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT.
JUST THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE APPLICANT REVISE THOSE DRAWINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DEPICT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE BUILDING, UH, DURING THE, DURING THE PLAN CHECK PROCESS.
AND THAT WILL BE REVIEWED ON A STAFF LEVEL.
WE DON'T NEED TO, THAT DOESN'T NEED TO COME BEFORE US AGAIN, RIGHT? CORRECT.
UH, CAN YOU SHOW ME THE SITE PLAN AGAIN? UH, IS, UM, THE VICINITY MAP, IT DOES THIS BACK UP TO AN ALLEY? NO, UH, IT IS NOT BACK, UH, TO AN ALLEY.
SO THE DRIVEWAY WILL BE HOW YOU ACCESS THE THREE CAR GARAGE? CORRECT.
AND SO OUR A THE ASK THAT WE'RE HAVING TODAY IS TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED TWO STORY STRUCTURE.
AND WHAT IF WE COULD NOT MAKE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS FOR A TWO STORY STRUCTURE? SO IF THOSE FINDINGS CANNOT BE MADE, UM, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE THE OPTION AS TO WHETHER TO, UM, APPEAL, APPEAL THE DECISION TO PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, UM, OR, UH, WHETHER TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATION FOR STILL ACHIEVING THOSE TWO ADSD THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED, UM, UNDER STATE LAW.
AND WE WOULD ASK FOR, FOR SOME INSIGHTS ON WHERE IT IS THAT THE COMMISSION BELIEVES IT CAN'T MAKE THOSE FINDINGS.
AND SO IF WE WERE TO DENY THIS, THEORETICALLY THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS COULD BE APPEALED.
THE ADUS ARE STILL APPROVED, SO THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY, BUT YES.
UM, I'M, I'M WITH YOU STILL WITH SOME CAVEATS.
SO THE ADUS TWO, 603 SQUARE FOOT ADUS ARE ALLOWED TO BE CONSTRUCTED, BUT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OVER A NEW GARAGE STRUCTURE, DO THEY? UH, NO.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE ON TOP OF A GARAGE STRUCTURE, YOU'RE SAYING? YES, THEY DO OR YOU'RE SAYING NO, THEY DO.
SO YOU'RE AGREEING THAT THEY DO NOT TO BE OVER A GARAGE? YES.
AND AT THAT TIME, THE APPLICANT MAY DECIDE THEY WANNA CONSIDER A DIFFERENT DESIGN? I DON'T KNOW.
I'M GONNA SAY IT LIKE A MILLION TIMES TO MYSELF NOW,
THIS IS COMMISSIONER PEREZ ON THE PLAN.
IT SAYS IT'S A EXISTING TWO CAR GARAGE, BUT I THINK IN THE STAFF REPORT IT MENTIONS SOMETHING ABOUT A SINGLE CAR GARAGE.
CAN YOU CLARIFY WHETHER IT'S A SINGLE OR A TWO TWO CAR? THAT WOULD BE A TYPO.
IT IS A ONE CAR GARAGE, UH, COMMISSIONER PIZZA.
TYPICALLY WHEN, UM, THERE'S AN HISTORIC GARAGE, THE A DU IS USUALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE, THE, TO RETAIN THE HISTORIC PROPERTY.
I'M ASSUMING THAT COULD BE AN OPTION HERE.
IN SOME SENSE, THAT COULD BE AN OPTION DEPENDING ON HOW THEY GO ABOUT IT.
THEY COULD CONVERT AND ASK FOR FOOTAGE TO IT.
ARE THERE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
OH, DO WE NEED PRIOR, PRIOR TO THAT, LET LET, I HAVE ONE QUE ONE QUESTION ON THE, UH, PICTURE OF THE FRONT ELEVATION.
THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOW TRYING TO RESTORE THE BUILDING TO SOME HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE, UH, JUST ABOVE THE ENTRYWAY, YOU SEE THE WINDOW UP ABOVE.
UH, WAS THERE CONSIDERATION ON RESTORING THAT, THAT AREA? UH, UP ABOVE AND CENTER? FRONT AND CENTER? I THINK THAT'S A VENT.
AND WASN'T THAT ONCE THE ORIGINAL WINDOW OR NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
IF, IF YOU LOOK ON THE GARAGE, IT MIGHT GIVE SOME, I THINK THERE WAS A SIMILAR VENT ON THERE.
THE, THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE GARAGE THERE.
[00:45:01]
I WE, YEAH, THERE IS THAT, IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT IS GONNA RESTORE IT TO, OR OR IS IT GONNA BE A WINDOW? IT, IT, IT WASN'T CONTEMPLATED OR, UH, ANY SCOPE OF WORK.THEY DIDN'T PROPOSE ANY SCOPE OF WORK ON THE FRONT.
UM, WE COULD CERTAINLY HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT.
AND PROCEDURALLY, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE STILL GONNA DO APPLICANT AND PUBLIC COMMENT COMING UP NEXT.
UM, QUICK QUESTION, NOW THAT YOU'RE ON THIS SLIDE, I SEE THE EXISTING DOOR TO INSIDE THE GARAGE, WHICH IS JUST A RECTANGULAR PANEL DOOR.
UM, GOING BACK TO MATERIALS AND OUR ABILITY TO, UM, COMMENT ON THE DESIGN OF THE A DU, WE, WE CAN MAKE APPROPRIATE CHANGES TO THE DOORS ON THE A A DU OR IS THAT NOT POSSIBLE? YEAH, WE CAN CONDITION, UM, MATERIALS FOR THE ACCESSORY TO UNITS OR FOR THE GARAGE STRUCTURE.
AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE GUIDANCE.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE NONE? I, I DO.
COMMISSIONER PADILLA PEREZ HERE.
I BELIEVE THE STAFF REPORT SAID THAT THE, THE DOORS AND THE WINDOWS HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR THE A DU.
UM, MAYBE THEN WE JUST NEED A, AN UP UPDATE TO THE STAFF REPORT STATING THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE COMMENT OR SUGGESTION ON THAT.
I BELIEVE THE STAFF REPORT DISTINCTLY SAID WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO.
I JUST WANT THE RECORD TO BE UPDATED APPROPRIATELY FOR WHATEVER IT IS, THE ACTUAL, UM, COMMENT OR SUGGESTIONS WE ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE.
YEAH, WE'RE, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH HERE TOO, CHECKING WHAT WAS ALREADY, UM, CONDITIONED AND, AND WRITTEN.
I BELIEVE THE CONDITION ON THE A DU ALLOWS FOR, UM, LIKE THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN US THE FINAL SELECTION, SO THAT ALLOWS FOR THE STAFF REVIEW.
SO, UM, I THINK WE CAN HEAR GUIDANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN'T CONDITION THE ACTUAL A DU ITSELF.
I FIND THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT CONSISTENT, UH, FOR A FEW REASONS.
UM, IN PARTICULAR SOME OF THE FINDINGS.
TALK COMMISSIONER BODAK, BEFORE WE OVER HERE.
BEFORE WE GO INTO YOUR, THE REASONS, YOUR MOTION YEAH.
DO YOU WANNA HEAR FROM, CAN WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND JUST CLOSE OUT THE PRESENTATION ON THE ITEM? CERTAINLY.
UH, BEFORE WE ASK THE APPLICANT TO APPROACH, THERE WAS SOMEBODY WAITING IN VIRTUAL THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, AND WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT YET.
RIGHT? SO I THINK WE'RE GONNA DO APPLICANT APPLICANT'S PUBLIC COMMENT.
YEAH, BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME CONSTRAINT ON THE INDIVIDUAL.
BUT FOR THE APPLICANT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO APPROACH AND STATE, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
NO, I'M THE APPLICANT FOR THE REPRESENTING THE OWNER.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER THE BEST OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
DO YOU WANT ME TO GIVE A SUMMARY OF THE PROJECTS OR WHAT? SO CURRENTLY THE PROJECT, THE OWNER REQUESTS THAT THEY WANNA DO A TWO A DU AND PER THE REQUIREMENT, UH, CITY THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO TWO A DU AND THAT'S WHAT THE OWNER WANT TO DO.
AT THE MEANTIME, THE, UM, THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE, THE, THE PROPERTY HAS ONLY A ONE CAR GARAGE AND IT'S PRETTY DETERIORATING.
I MEAN, THIS THING ABOUT TO FALL APART AND THERE'S DIFFERENT MATERIAL OR SIDING THAT ALSO BEEN REPLACED.
I DON'T HAVE THE, THE HISTORY OF IT, BUT THE ROOF ITSELF IS SACKING AND THE FRAMING IS NOT STABLE ENOUGH TO RESTORE.
UM, INITIALLY WE JUST WANNA DO TWO STORY DETACH, LEAVE THE GARAGE ALONE.
BUT LOOKING AT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, IT'S DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE IN A SAFE CONDITION TO STAY AND POSSIBLY THE, MAYBE THERE'S NO FOUNDATION IN IT.
UM, SO THE PROPERTY OWNER DECIDE TO ACCOMMODATE SOME PARKING SPACE FOR THE TENANT DUE TO THE IMPACT AREA THAT THEY MAY NEED SOME PARKING SPACE.
SO WE DECIDE TO LOOK INTO TAKING DOWN THE EXISTING DETERIORATED
[00:50:01]
GARAGE AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THE TENANT.AND THAT'S HOW WE COME ABOUT WITH THE SCHEME.
UM, THE, THE EXISTING HOW ITSELF APPEAR TO HAVE A LOT OF REPLACEMENT PIECES, DIFFERENT COLORS OR MATERIAL OF THE SIDING ALSO.
SO WE ARE GONNA TRY TO DO OUR BEST TO MAKE THIS BUILDING A LITTLE BIT MORE PLEASING FROM THE STREET.
UM, WE AGREE WITH, UH, MR. UM, TORRES THAT THE ROD IRON SHOULD BE REMOVED BECAUSE JUST DOESN'T LOOK PLEASING AND IT'S NOT, UM, UM, COMPLIMENT TO THE EXISTING, UH, STYLE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, THE FENCE ALSO WAS BROUGHT UP TO OUR ATTENTION AND THE CONCRETE IN FRONT OF THE FRONT YARD.
UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT MAYBE WE JUST FENCE OFF BECAUSE THERE'S A CONCERN THAT, UM, SOMEBODY PARKED IN FRONT OF THE FRONT YARD, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE CODE, THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF LONG BEACH.
SO WE SUGGEST THAT WE CAN FENCE IT OFF SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T GO IN.
THE ENTRY ITSELF IS ALLOWED PEOPLE TO WALK THROUGH FROM THE DRIVEWAY OR FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE, TO THE MAIN HOUSE AND TO THE SIDE.
SO WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THAT IF POSSIBLE.
BUT I THINK IN GENERAL, UH, DESIGN OF THESE, UH, PROJECTS, IT WILL BRING THE, THE BUILDING A LITTLE BIT MORE PLEASING FROM THE STREET AND WE'LL CLEAN IT UP AND WE'LL DEFINITELY TRY TO MATCH US THE BEST WE CAN TO BRING UP THE EXISTING FEATURE OF THE BUILDING.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS WITH, FOR THE APPLICANT? IF THERE ARE NONE, WE WILL NOW OPEN UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND IF WE COULD GO VIRTUALLY ON PUBLIC COMMENT.
MADAM CLERK IS, IS THERE A LADY IN THE QUEUE? IF YOU ARE JOINING VIRTUALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT.
PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE.
IF JOINING TELEPHONICALLY, PRESS STAR NINE NOW.
UH, WE HAVE ONE PERSON IN THE QUEUE, UM, TIM SHOOTS.
UM, TIM, YOU HAVE BEEN UNMUTED.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, UH, MY NAME'S TIM SHOOK, UH, ALONG WITH MICHELLE, WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE.
I'M THE CO-CHAIR OF THE KRATON VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS, I'D LIKE TO THANK, UM, THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR VERY DETAILED QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PROJECT.
UM, I DID HAVE THREE QUESTIONS, UM, WHICH, UH, MAY BE ANSWERED.
IT DID NOT SEEM THAT, UM, IN TERMS OF THE COLOR PALETTE FOR WHATEVER PROJECT IS APPROVED, WAS MENTIONED.
AND I'M ASSUMING THAT GIVEN THAT IT'S IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, THERE WOULD BE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ADDRESSING, UM, THE COLOR SCHEME.
UM, THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE WOULD BE, UM, THE PREFERENCE OF COURSE WOULD BE REMOVING THE NON-CONFORMING FENCE, BUT I BELIEVE REFUGIO MENTIONED ABOUT LEGALIZING THE FENCE.
AND I WAS WONDERING WHAT, WHAT, UM, PROCESS, UH, WOULD THERE BE TO LEGALIZE SOMETHING THAT'S, UM, NOT AN APPROPRIATE, UM, PORTION OF THE PROJECT.
AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION, UH, WAS I BELIEVE OUR COMMUNITY HISTORIC GUIDELINES SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS, UM, NOT BEING ABLE TO DEMOLISH THE CURRENT, UM, GARAGE THAT'S, THAT'S STATED I BELIEVE ON PAGE 34.
SO I WAS JUST WONDERING IF, IF, I KNOW THE A DU LAWS ARE KIND OF MAKING THINGS MORE DIFFICULT, BUT, UM, IF THOSE THREE QUESTIONS, UM, COULD BE ADDRESSED, I THINK, UM, WE'D BE GRATEFUL TO HEAR THOSE ANSWERS.
STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT OR, YES, HOLD ON.
WE'RE IN THE MINUTE OF, SORRY, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO IF WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE TAKEN PUBLIC COMMENT HERE IN THE CHAMBERS.
AND THEN IF STAFF IS UP HERE ALWAYS TO TAKE ANY, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
UM, SO IF YOU WANNA REDIRECT THOSE TO STAFF AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT.
THERE WAS THREE QUESTIONS THAT WE'LL ADDRESS LATER.
UM, VIRTUALLY ARE THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD
[00:55:01]
LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? IF YOU ARE JOINING VIRTUALLY AND WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE.IF JA, IF JOINING TELEPHONICALLY, PLEASE PRESS STAR NINE.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
THANK YOU, UH, IN THE CHAMBER, ARE THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE TWO THAT SIGNED UP, LOUISE AND MICHELLE AND ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ALSO PROVIDE, PLEASE LINE UP AS WELL.
UM, GOOD EVENING, UH, CHAIRMAN GOWAN AND THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, I'M HERE TONIGHT.
MY NAME IS MICHELLE AARON DECOFF.
I LIVE AT 1 2 0 3 EAST EIGHTH STREET, AND I'M THE CO-CHAIR OF CRAFTSMAN VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, I'M COMING TONIGHT TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
IT'S, UM, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO US BECAUSE THIS IS THE BIGGEST AND MOST BEAUTIFUL, UM, HOUSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BUILT ON SITE, UM, IN 1912.
AND WE'RE VERY, VERY PROUD OF IT.
UM, AND I ALSO WANNA THANK THE STAFF FOR, UM, LISTENING TO OUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONDITIONS.
THE ONE THING THAT I HAVE A, A DIFFICULTY ABOUT, I DO THANK YOU REALLY.
I REALLY, REALLY DO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
UM, BUT THE ONE THING I DO HAVE DIFFICULTY ABOUT IS LEGALIZING OFFENSE.
THAT WAS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS PERMITTED OR NOT, I DON'T THINK SO, BUT IT'S NOT ALLOWED IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT.
IT'S, IT'S OUT OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
SO I WOULD LIKE THE STAFF TO PLEASE LOOK AT THAT AND USE THAT AS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS.
UH, IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES, IT CLEARLY STATES ON PAGE 34 THAT, UH, A STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE DEMOLISHED.
THAT INCLUDES, AND THE USE SPECIFICALLY IN OUR GUIDELINES, THAT INCLUDES GARAGES, UM, GARAGES.
BY THE WAY, THEY DON'T HAVE FOUNDATIONS THAT ARE BUILT RIGHT ON A SLAB, AND SO THEY, THEY WERE WITHOUT A FOUNDATION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
UM, THE OTHER, UH, SORRY, THE OTHER GUIDELINE IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES, IT STATES THAT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING MAY NOT BE TALLER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
AND I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS INTERFACES WITH ADUS, BUT I'D LIKE TO THE STAFF TO COMMENT ON THAT AND HELP US WITH THAT.
I REALLY LIKED, UH, COMMISSIONER BODEX QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT, THAT IN THIS CASE, I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THE BACKYARD IS, HOW MUCH ROOM THEY HAVE, BUT I ONLY HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT
UM, BUT I THINK THERE COULD BE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ON WHAT THIS A DU, UH, CAN LOOK LIKE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S ANOTHER, UM, QUESTION ALSO ABOUT THE MATERIALS.
I LOOKED, I SAW THE DRAWINGS UP THERE.
UM, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT COMPATIBLE MATERIALS, I'M VERY INTERESTED IN, UM, LOOKING AT HOW THE WINDOW IS FRAMED IN THE DRAWINGS.
IT LOOKED LIKE A VERY MODERN WINDOW, VERY MODERN DOORS.
I'D LIKE TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO LISTEN TO THIS AND STAFF LISTEN TO THIS, THAT IT HAS TO HAVE APPROPRIATE FRAMING AROUND THE WINDOWS, DOUBLE HUNG, NOT, YOU KNOW, UM, WHATEVER ANY OF THE OTHER KIND OF WINDOWS ARE.
AND LET'S SEE, IN TERMS OF CONTEXTUAL INFILL OR OTHER APARTMENT BUILDINGS NEXT TO THIS, THIS PROPOSED PROJECT, THOSE WERE PUT IN IN THE 1940S, FIFTIES.
THE ONE ON THE END OF THE BLOCK WAS, UH, LIKE IN THE 1920S.
SO TO COMPARE, IT'S KINDA LIKE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES.
THERE ARE EXISTING BUILDINGS THERE WAY BEFORE WE WERE IN HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO YOUR TIME HAS CONFIRMED I RAN OUTTA TIME
THANK YOU MICHELLE, FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
MS. IVERS, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADVOCACY FOR LONG BEACH HERITAGE.
I WOULD LIKE TO CITE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS, WHICH SAY NOT TO TEAR DOWN A HISTORIC GARAGE.
SO THAT'S A REALLY GOOD REASON NOT TO DO IT.
UM, AS I SAID BEFORE, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THE CHOICE WAS MADE OF ALL THINGS TO DUPLICATE A 1980S HOME DEPOT DOOR ALL ACROSS THE A DU.
I'M ALSO REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND MASSING OF THAT A DU.
IT'S GIGANTIC AND OVERWHELMING.
I KNOW ADUS ARE APPROVED BY THE STATE AUTOMATICALLY, BUT HOPEFULLY AS MS. BODAK WAS SAYING, THE GARAGE COULD BE KEPT AND THE TWO ADUS COULD BE BUILT NEXT TO IT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBER THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM?
[01:00:02]
IF THERE ARE NONE, WE'LL BRING IT BEHIND THE COUNTER BILL.I WOULD LIKE TO, CAN YOU GO BACK TO FOR ALL RIGHT, UH, LET'S SEE.
ACCEPT THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 300, I'M SORRY, TO EX, TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 260 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE AREA ON THE REAR OF THE PRIMARY DUPLEX STRUCTURE.
I WOULD LIKE TO DENY A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AT 7 5 5 ORANGE TO CONSTRUCT A TWO, A DETACHED TWO STORY STRUCTURE, AND TO DENY THE DEMOLITION OF THE GARAGE.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A VISUAL IMPACT WHEN VIEWED FROM THE STREET.
I'M FOCUSED PARTICULARLY ON THE FINDINGS IN NUMBER FOUR, THAT, UH, THE, UH, TWO STORY STRUCTURE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE HOME DUE TO ITS HEIGHT, THAT THERE WILL BE A VISUAL IMPACT WHEN VIEWED FROM THE STREET.
AND THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE NON CONTRIBUTORS IN THIS DISTRICT, BUT THIS DISTRICT NEEDS ALL THE HELP IT CAN GET, AND WE SHOULD NOT BE CONTRIBUTING TO AN ADDITIONAL NON CONTRIBUTOR STRUCTURE.
UH, FOR THOSE REASONS, I DO NOT THINK THAT WE CAN MAKE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS TO DEMOLISH A HISTORIC GARAGE.
AND SOMEHOW I'LL ASK YOU TO FIGURE OUT IF THAT'S A REAL MOTION OR NOT.
YEAH, WE'RE GONNA FIGURE THAT OUT TOGETHER.
SO, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE, ARE YOU MAKING, LET'S JUST START WITH, ARE YOU PUTTING THIS FORWARD AS A FRIENDLY MOTION OR IS THIS AN, AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION? UH, UH, I AM MAKING, PUTTING THIS FORWARD AS AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION.
SO I HAVE A MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND? YOU HAVE THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION THAT I JUST MADE? YES.
I HAVE YOUR ALTERNATIVE MOTION.
WHICH IS TO ACCEPT THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND THEN TO DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED TWO STORY STRUCTURE.
AND THEN, WHICH IS THE 936 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE, IN ADDITION TO THE REQUEST TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 309 SQUARE FOOT TWO CAR GARAGE.
UM, AND THEN THAT IS ON THE BASIS OF THE INABILITY TO MAKE A FINDING UNDER NUMBER FOUR RELATING TO VISUAL IMPACT.
AND THAT IT WOULD, WE WOULD APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 260 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE AREA.
SO WE WERE ALLOWING THE DEMOLITION OF THE STORAGE AREA, RETAINING THE GARAGE, AND NOT ALLOWING FOR THE BUILDING OF THE TWO STORY STRUCTURE.
I'M GLAD WE DID THIS TOGETHER.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION, I THINK WE HAVE A CLEAR MOTION, UM, AND WE'VE GOT A VERY NICE RECORD.
I THINK YOU HEARD MY REALLY MINIMIZED ARTICULATION ON YOUR INABILITY TO MAKE THE FINDING, BUT I THINK WE'RE LIVING UNDER THE SAME FINDING, WHICH IS FINDING FOUR, AND IT RELATES TO THE VISUAL IMPACT.
IS THERE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? I'LL SECOND THE DISCUSSION AND I KNOW I'M THE MO I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA ASK ABOUT HOW WE FINAGLE THIS, BUT NOW WE HAVE A MOTION, SO I'LL SECOND IT.
WE MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
OH, NO, I HAVE MORE DISCUSSIONS.
YEAH, I'M NOT READY FOR A VOTE.
SO JUST LIKE AS A HIGH LEVEL, WHERE WE WILL GO FROM HERE, BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS THAT ARE BEFORE THE BODY.
WE TAKE THEM IN REVERSE ORDER.
SO IT'S LIKE, KIND OF LIKE RUSSIAN NESTING DOLLS THEY ENCLOSE ON EACH OTHER.
WE CAN HAVE A MAXIMUM OF THREE BEFORE WE START REMOVING THEM VIA VOTE.
SO RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION, AND NOW COMMISSIONER BODEX MOTION HAS COME ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF THAT.
SO WHEN WE ARE READY TO CALL A VOTE, IT COULD CONTINUE TO BE A MOVING MOTION IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS TO THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION, BUT WHEN WE CALL THE VOTE, WE WILL VOTE THEM OFF AS THEY CAME ON.
WE'RE ADDRESSING THE CURRENT, THIS LATEST MOTION.
UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS BECAUSE I AGREE THAT, UM, VISITING THE SITE, THE VISUAL DOWN THE DRIVEWAY, THE GARAGE IS QUITE IMPACTFUL.
UM, IT'S ONE STORY, IT'S ORIGINAL,
[01:05:01]
AND I DID FEEL, UH, THIS BUILDING WOULD, UM, DESTROY THAT, UM, UH, VISUAL, UM, SENSE OF HISTORY, SENSE OF PLACE.AND THE A DU DOES, UM, DEFINITELY IN MY OPINION, UM, CREATE A GIGANTIC WALL BEHIND, UM, THIS, UH, ORIGINAL HOME.
AND, UH, THERE'S NOT EVEN A, A, A ROOF DELINEATION OF MAYBE A LOWER, UH, AREA AT THE DRIVEWAY TO, TO, TO EVEN HAVE MIMICKED THE, THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL GARAGE.
IT, IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST A BIG FLAT, UM, UH, TWO STORY, UH, VOLUME.
AND I, I DO HAVE ISSUE WITH IT.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY I AM SUPPORTING THIS, UH, UH, MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER BODA HAS PRESENTED.
SO I, I'D LOVE TO HEAR OTHER COMMISSION'S OPINIONS, COMMISSIONER'S OPINIONS AND, UM, WHERE THEY FALL INTO THIS AND, AND FEEL ABOUT IT.
BUT, UM, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M STANDING VICE CHAIR GFI.
SO, UM, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT TO ME MAKE THIS, MAKE ME CONSIDER THIS, UH, UH, AS A POSSIBILITY.
AND ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS THAT HE STATED THAT THE GARAGE IS DETERIORATING.
AND I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WITH PLAN, THAT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR DETERIORATING GARAGES THAT, THAT THEY CAN BE REMOVED.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS.
THE SECOND THING IS THAT, UM, IT, IT, IT'S, IT'S A PARKING IMPACTED AREA AND THEY WILL BE PROVIDING THREE MORE COVERED SPACES.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER, THE FINAL THING IS THAT IT'S, IT'S A A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE CURB, I GUESS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S, IT'S SET PRETTY FAR BACK.
SO, UM, I TEND TO, UM, DISAGREE WITH THE, THE, UH, THE MOTION COMMISSIONER PADILLA PEREZ HERE.
UM, I AGREE WITH, UH, VICE CHAIR G'S COMMENTS.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER WITH THE APPLICANT, UM, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEM TRYING TO, UH, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSING THAT IS VERY MUCH NEEDED IN OUR CITY.
UH, IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING.
I HAVE BEEN IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MYSELF TO, UM, YOU KNOW, VISIT THE BUSINESSES AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND PARKING AT TIMES.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE THAT FOR THOSE LIVING UNITS.
UM, BUT I ALSO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BODEK IN THE SENSE THAT I ALSO FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT TO RETAIN THE GARAGE BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, UH, TO THE, UH, THE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I BELIEVE THAT IF WE WORK TOGETHER, WE CAN, WE CAN COME TO A SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO HAVE TWO UNITS IN ADDITION TO KEEPING THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC GARAGE, UH, WITH SOME IMPROVEMENTS.
BECAUSE I, I, I DO REALIZE THAT THE, THE DOOR ON THE EXISTING ORIGINAL GARAGE IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
UM, BUT I THINK THERE'S A WAY TO, TO HAVE BOTH AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ABOUT HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT HERE TODAY AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO HOPEFULLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR PROJECT.
SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT CAN COME BACK AND PROPOSE A INDEPENDENT A DU PROJECT THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THE GARAGE.
IS THAT CORRECT STAFF? UH, THAT IS CORRECT, BUT ALSO I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT THEY CAN HAVE AN ENGINEER MAKE A STUDY AND THEY CAN DEMO THE GARAGE.
AND BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE AB 2097, WE CANNOT FORCE THEM TO REBUILD IT.
AND TO CLARIFY FOR A GROUND FLOOR, A DU WITHOUT THE GARAGE COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HEAR ME BETTER.
UM, THE ADUS WOULD BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF MINISTERIAL.
THERE IS ALSO A POSSIBILITY OF TIME AND MONEY OF AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO PROVE THAT THE GARAGE IS NOT FEASIBLE TO BE, UH, RESTORED.
UH, THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY OF AN A DU TO BE ATTACHED TO THE HOME AS WELL AS A SECOND, A DU NEXT TO THE GARAGE.
SO THERE ARE OPTIONS TO CONTINUE TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE ADUS ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT, UH, DEMOING THE GARAGE IN, IN MY OPINION.
UM, BUT THERE IS THAT POSSIBILITY, AS YOU SAID,
[01:10:01]
THAT THEY COULD GO THROUGH THE TIME AND EXPENSE OF ANALYZING THE GARAGE AND IT COULD GET DEMO DEMOLISHED ANYWAY.IS THAT CORRECT? THAT WOULD BE CORRECT, YES.
SO WE'RE TALKING NOW ABOUT THE BENEFIT OF PARKING VERSUS THE BENEFIT OF, UM, HISTORIC INTEGRITY.
COMMISSIONER PRYOR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE OR ARE NOT ABLE TO SPEAK TO WITH REGARDS TO THE FENCE IN THE FRONT.
UM, IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THAT WAS NECESSARILY ON THE DOCKET FOR US TO REVIEW, BUT I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THIS COMMISSION.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WITH ANY OF THE LOCAL OR HISTORIC, UM, PIECES OF THE, OF OR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CURRENTLY.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THAT PLAN DOESN'T, ISN'T GOING TO RESTORE ANY OF THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO SAY, LET'S ALSO ADDRESS THAT OR I'M NOT SURE WHAT I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHAT MY JURISDICTION IS THERE.
YEAH, THANKS FOR RAISING THAT.
I KNOW THAT CAME UP IN, IN PUBLIC COMMENTS AS WELL.
UM, AND UM, REFUGIO CAN GRAB THE SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT HE REFERRED TO EARLIER, AND I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING.
IT SAYS LIKE, REMOVE OR LEGALIZE, THAT'S A, A STANDARD, UH, CONDITION.
WE, WE, WE USE TO SAY YOU EITHER NEED TO COME IN AND GET A PERMIT, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
SO THEY WOULD NEED TO MEET THE STANDARD OR REMOVE IT COMPLETELY.
SO ESSENTIALLY IT CANNOT STAY THE SAME.
IT WOULD NEED TO COME IN, UH, FOR THAT APPROVAL.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OR, UH, REMOVE IT.
ANYTHING TO ADD? UH, I JUST WANTED TO SHOW FOR CONSIDERATION.
I HAVE SOME EXTRA SLIDES JUST FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER.
SO AS I WALKED THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DID NOTICE THAT THAT EXACT CINDER BLOCK AND WROUGHT IRON FENCING, UM, IS THROUGHOUT, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTIES THERE, NOT JUST ADJACENT TO IT, BUT IN THE, IN THE STREETS, UH, SIDE STREETS AND EVERYTHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WE HAVE CINDER BLOCK AND WR IRON, UH, TYPE OF FENCING.
SO VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SEE ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE CHAIN LINK, UM, MORE CHAIN LINK, MORE WR IRON, UM, MORE WR IRON AND YOU CAN SEE FURTHER THERE, UM, VERY SIMILAR FENCING AGAIN WITH UM, BRICK AND, AND WR IRON.
SO WE DO SEE THAT FENCING VERY PREVALENT THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
THAT SAID THE, THE SPECIFIC CONDITION, CONDITION 22 SAYS THE UN PERMITTED FRONT GATE AND FENCE AREA SHALL BE REMOVED, PERIOD.
IF REPLACING THE FENCE, A MINOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A COMPATIBLE FENCE WILL BE REQUIRED DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE PERMITS PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, ESSENTIALLY IT HAS TO BE COMPATIBLE.
SO TO CONFIRM THE UNPERMITTED FRONT GATE, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY AGAIN? THE UNPERMITTED FRONT GATE AND FENCE AREA SHALL BE REMOVED.
WHAT DOES THE FENCE AREA MEAN? DOES THAT MEAN, SO IT SAYS THE UNPERMITTED FRONT GATE AND FENCE AREA SHALL BE REMOVED.
YEAH, SO THEY COULD, UH, LEGALIZE THE OPTION THAT I WAS GIVING THEM WAS TO LEGALIZE THE CINDER BLOCK AND THE WROUGHT IRON ALONG WITH THE GATE IN THE DRIVEWAY.
THERE'S NOT AN OPTION TO LEGALIZE THE CONDITION, SAYS TO REMOVE THE CONDITION AS WRITTEN SAYS REMOVE OR REPLACE WITH A COMPATIBLE FENCE.
BUT THEY'D HAVE TO SHOW COMPATIBILITY.
BUT GIVEN THE DISTRICT ALSO, WE DO SEE COMPATIBILITY THROUGHOUT THAT, THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT WITH VERY SIMILAR FENCING.
SO I THINK SO I THOUGHT COMPATIBILITY MEANT WITH THE GUIDELINES.
YEAH, SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE IS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
SO WE WOULD LOOK AT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON WHETHER THERE IS ANY WAY TO MAKE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE COMPATIBLE OR IF THEY NEED TO REMOVE THE FENCE AND START OVER.
WITH A COMPATIBLE DESIGN THAT COULD BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF.
OH, ARE YOU SAYING THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IT IS GOING TO BE ADDRESSED AND IT CANNOT REMAIN? THAT'S CORRECT.
IT CANNOT REMAIN IN ITS CURRENT APPEARANCE AND IT ALSO CANNOT BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MEET ANY OF THE CURRENT GUIDELINES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
[01:15:01]
THE REPLACEMENT OR THE MODIFICATIONS NEED TO BE REVIEWED UNDER A MINOR CFA AND THE FINDINGS FOR THE MINOR CFA ARE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.SO WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE THAT FINDING IN ORDER TO APPROVE A CFA FOR THE FENCE.
UM, COMMISSIONER PIZZA, UM, BACK TO THE
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE THAT FAR OFF.
UM, COMMISSIONER PIT PI, BECAUSE I THINK I'M WITH YOU IN THAT WE COULD KEEP THE GARAGE BUT STILL HAVE THE ADUS AND THAT'S HOW I'M INTERPRETING THE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER BODAK.
I DON'T THINK SHE'S SAYING NO, A DU COULD GO THERE EVER.
I THINK SHE'S SAYING THIS A DU AS IT'S DESIGNED IS NOT BEING APPROVED AND WE'RE KEEPING THE GARAGE AND THEY CAN COME WITH A A FU THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
WELL, TO BE CLEAR, I'M SAYING NO TWO STORY RIGHT.
STRUCTURE OVER THE DEMOED GARAGE.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AN A DU AT ALL BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN OUR PURVIEW.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE THAT FAR OFF IN, IN THE THINKING.
I'D BE CURIOUS WHAT EVERYONE ELSE THINKS, BUT, UM, UH, UH, VICE CHAIR SFI.
SO IS THAT THE STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER BODAK HAS ASKED HAS, HAS SAID THAT THERE AREN'T ANY, UH, TWO STORY STRUCTURES ALLOWED.
SO I THINK THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M, THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE'S SAYING.
A TWO STORY STRUCTURE COULD BE ALLOWED, BUT IN THIS CASE, I AM RECOMMENDING AGAINST IT BECAUSE IT'S DEMOLISHING AN EXISTING GARAGE THAT I FEEL IS A CONTRIBUTOR.
SO AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THAT IS STATUTORILY ALLOWED BY STATE LAW COULD BE CONSTRUCTED ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT IMPACTING THE, UH, EXISTING GARAGE.
AND IT COULD BE UP TO TWO STORIES, AND IT COULD BE, AND IT COULD BE UP TO TWO STORIES, BUT IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE.
CAN I JUST ASK THAT STAFF ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WERE ASKED ABOUT THE WINDOWS AND THE, UM, COLOR PALETTE? THANK YOU.
UH, FOR THE COLOR PALETTE, THEY WOULD NEED A MINOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, A STAFF LEVEL.
UM, FOR, UH, I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE, THE BLOCK WALL, WHICH THE, THE CINDER BLOCK AND ROD IRON FENCE.
AND LIKE WE SAID, THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UH, REMOVE IT.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WAS ABOUT, UM, THE WINDOWS.
WINDOWS, UM, THEY, THEY CAN ON, ON THE ADU, THEY CAN DO, UH, ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS, UM, THAT DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE WOOD, WOOD WINDOWS ON THE, UM, ON THE MAIN DUPLEX BUILDING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UM, REPAIR ANY, ANY DAMAGED WINDOWS, UM, HAVE COMPATIBILITY IN TERMS OF MATERIALS, SO WOOD WINDOWS, AND THEN REMOVE ALL THE, UM, SECURITY BARS.
AND I THINK A COMPONENT OF THAT QUESTION WAS RELATED TO HOW THE WINDOWS WERE FRAMED AND TRIMMED ON THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
UH, SO FOR THE GARAGE PORTION OF THE PROJECT THAT IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR A DECISION THIS EVENING, UH, THOSE WINDOWS AND STUFF WILL CONFIRM THIS AND THE DETAILS SHOULD BE TRIMMED IN A TRADITIONAL MANNER TO MATCH THE FRONT HOUSE OR THE FRONT DUPLEX, EXCUSE ME, UH, FOR THE A DU COMPONENT, WE ALSO LOOK AT THE WAY THAT WINDOWS ARE TRIMMED FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO WE'LL REVIEW THAT IN PLAN CHECK AS WELL TO CONFIRM THAT THE WINDOWS ARE TRIMMED AND FRAMED CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE CONTRIBUTOR TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
CAN I, CAN WE TAKE ONE MORE LOOK AT THE, UH, FRONT OF THE BUILDING? UM, MAYBE THAT ONE THAT LOOKS, LOOKS DOWN THE DRIVEWAY TOWARDS THE GARAGE?
[01:20:02]
YES.ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? SIR? I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION.
I THINK WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SO, OKAY.
AND PLUS, I, I JUST, I'M SLIGHTLY SAYING THAT TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T MISS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT I DID.
I, WELL, I WANTED TO ENTERTAIN A DISCUSSION WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ON A POSSIBLE COMPROMISE, UM, IN A FRIENDLY TO THE AMENDMENT BEING PROPOSED.
UM, WOULD IT BE AGREEABLE BY MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE SECOND, THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE STRUCTURE AS PROPOSED WITH A CONDITION THAT THE FIRST FLOOR KEEP THE ORIGINAL GARAGE? I REALIZE THAT THIS WOULD MEAN SACRIFICING THE ROOF OF THE ORIGINAL GARAGE, BUT WE COULD KEEP THE STRUCTURE ASIDE FROM THE ROOF AS A SINGLE CAR GARAGE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW GARAGES WITH THE ADUS CONSTRUCTED ABOVE, UM, AS PROPOSED THE SECOND FLOOR CONSTRUCTED AS PROPOSED IN THE PLAN AS A COMPROMISE SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THE ORIGINAL GARAGE IN MOST OF ITS FORM.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING I WANTED TO PROPOSE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICANT AND POSSIBLY COMING TO A, A COMPROMISE.
IS THAT UP TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION? YES.
SO YOU CAN ACCEPT OR, UH, REFUSE THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I WOULD NOT LIKE TO ACCEPT THAT.
I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES ON THE PROPERTY, UH, THAT WOULD ALLOW THE GARAGE TO REMAIN INTACT AS IS.
MAY THE APPLICANT SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IS THERE A SPECIFIC QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT? YES, SORRY.
SO THIS IS US, YOU'RE IN, IN DELIBERATIONS, SO IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT RELATED TO THIS ISSUE? NO, HE, HE JUST SEEMS TO WANT TO ADDRESS SOME ITEMS THAT HAVE JUST COME UP, BUT, UM, IT'S, IT'S WITHIN THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION TO RUN THE MEETING.
UM, BUT WE GENERALLY RUN IT AS WE SET FORTH IN THE SCRIPT, BUT IT IS WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION AT THIS TIME.
I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK REGARDING THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, MR. CHAIR? UM, I, I JUST WANNA PUT IT ON THE RECORD.
THE, THE GARAGE ITSELF, AS I MENTIONED, IT'S REALLY, REALLY BAD SHAPE DETERIORATING, AND WE ARE IN A EARTHQUAKE SITUATION STATE, AND I THINK STRUCTURALLY FROM MY EXPERIENCE, OVER 25 YEARS, THIS BUILDING IS ABOUT TO COME DOWN AND THE ROOF IS SACKING.
THE WALL IS NOT EVEN FRAMED CORRECTLY.
I MEAN, IT'S OVER TIME THIS THING IS NAKED.
I MEAN, YOU JUST SEE A TWO BY FOUR FRAME AT 24 AND CENTER AND WITH THE TWO BY FOUR RAFTER, WHICH BY CODE IS NOT EVEN MEETING ANY STANDARD AT ALL.
AND TO HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING ON TOP WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION, THIS IS A VERY, VERY DANGEROUS, AND I JUST WANNA PUT ON THE RECORD, IF ANYTHING HAPPENED AND IF YOU'RE ENFORCING, KEEPING THIS GARAGE, IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO THE TENANT OR ANYBODY OCCUPY UNDER A CAR OR WHATEVER, MATERIAL DAMAGES, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT? THE PROPERTY OWNER.
SO THE PROPERTY IS THE OWNER'S PROPERTY AND HE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
IF HE HAS A SITUATION, THEN HE SHOULD GET A STRUCTURAL, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M SUPPOSED TO BE GIVING ADVICE, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND A STRUCTURAL ADVICE,
[01:25:01]
UH, STRUCTURAL ADVICE FROM A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IF HE FEELS THAT THERE A FA A FAILURE IS IMMINENT.THAT'S WHY WE ARE PROPOSING TO, TO TAKE DOWN THIS, THIS STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT IS NOT SAFE.
IT'S NOT A SAFE CONDITION, AND THE BUILDING IS NOT SAFE.
UM, IT, THAT JUST MY, MY ON HONEST, UH, OPINION AND WHAT I SEE AS A PROFESSIONAL, UM, DOING THIS, UH, TYPE OF, YOU KNOW, WORK, UM, IN LONG BEACH MAINLY I'M, I'M A RESIDENT OF 40 YEARS IN LONG BEACH, SO I, I, UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS CITY AND WE WANT TO MAKE THIS, UH, PROPERTY A, A BETTER PLACE FOR THEM AS FAR AS MAKE UP AND DO ALL KINDS OF EXISTING BUILDING TO MAKE IT BETTER FROM THE STREET.
SO MAY I CLARIFY SOMETHING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF? DID YOU UNDERSTAND MY MOTION TO BE THAT THE GARAGE WOULD REMAIN FREESTANDING AND THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY STRUCTURE OVER IT? I UNDERSTOOD THE MOTION TO BE THAT THE GARAGE MAY NOT BE DEVELOPED, MAY NOT BE DEMOLISHED, AND THAT THE TWO TO STORY STRUCTURE, WHICH SOME COMPONENT OVER, IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE OVER THE GARAGE? NO, IS NOT APPROVED.
UH, MS. IVERS, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.
WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT IN PUBLIC COMMENT MODE, SO, SO THANK YOU.
CAN I SEE A SITE PLAN ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE? AN ASSET SITE PLAN IS BEING PULLED FORWARD.
IT WAS MENTIONED BY STAFF EARLIER, BUT THERE IS A PROFIT PROCESS TO ADDRESS STRUCTURALLY, UM, CONCERNING CHALLENGES ON PROPERTIES.
AND IT'S BEEN ARTICULATED HERE.
IT JUST REQUIRES THAT ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, THAT THERE'S STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ISSUES.
UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER PETE.
SO I I DO KNOW PROJECTS HAVE COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND IN THE SENSE OF RETAINING AND RESTORING HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND HISTORIC STRUCTURES, THEY CAN NEVER BE REPLACED ONCE THEY'RE REMOVED.
I KNOW A LOT OF, UH, RESIDENTS OR OWNERS WILL TAKE THE EFFORT TO REINFORCE OR, OR REBUILD, UH, A GARAGE IN THE SAME STATE OF THE ORIGINAL.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN HOMES IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TOO, AND THEY NEED TO BE REFRAMED, REBUILT.
THEY HAVE TERMITE DAMAGE, DRY ROT, ET CETERA.
SO THERE ARE WAYS TO RETAIN HISTORY, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO REQUEST THAT MAYBE YOU CONSIDER THAT MOVING FORWARD.
I, I UNDERSTAND IT'S EASIER TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT'S DECAYED, BUT IT'S EVEN MORE OF A HIGH ROAD TO SAY, LET'S RETAIN SOMETHING FROM THE PAST AND, UM, KEEP IT IN, KEEP IT INTACT.
SO JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
SO I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION.
SO WE'RE CALLING FOR THE VOTE AGAIN, AS WE KIND OF DISCUSSED, WE ARE TAKING THAT SUBSTITUTE, SUBSTITUTE MOTION FIRST.
UM, I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THE SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS IN THE CONTOURS OF IT, SO THERE SHOULD BE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING.
IF THERE'S NOT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I'M HAPPY TO RESTATE.
BUT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMES FIRST, AND IF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILS, THEN WE MOVE TO VOTING ON THE INITIAL MOTION.
[01:30:23]
MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE A FINAL VOTE? DALLY? YES.DO WE NOW PROCEED TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION? NO, AS THAT MOTION CARRIED, THE ITEM IS COMPLETE AND WE MOVE FORWARD IN OUR AGENDA.
[PUBLIC COMMENT Opportunity to address the Cultural Heritage Commission on non-agenda items. Each speaker is limited to three minutes to make their comments unless extended by the Chair.]
TO PUBLIC COMMENT.AT THIS TIME, WE'LL TAKE NON AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA? PLEASE LINE UP AT THE PODIUM IF THERE ARE NONE VIRTUALLY.
IF YOU ARE JOINING VIRTUALLY AND WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON AGENDAS ITEMS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
IF JOINING TELEPHONICALLY, PRESS STAR NINE NOW.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK, WE'LL, NOW CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS.
[ANNOUNCEMENTS]
FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER BODAK.COMMISSIONER BODAK, I JUST HAVE ONE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT I WILL NOT BE PRESENT AT THE JUNE MEETING JUST TO LET, UH, THE CITY CLERK KNOW.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY THE COMMISSIONERS? IF THERE ARE NONE,
[ADJOURNMENT]
I WOULD LIKE TO ADJOURN OUR MEETING.