Topics included: - Planning/administration: Meetings focused on procedures (attendance, material distribution, abstentions), review of May 10 minutes, staff involvement, and postponements due to the City Attorney; roles planned (e.g., Bill for public works) with Berge to testify; discussion of an 80-unit issue. - Signage and historic district emphasis: Signage dominated discussions (449 Broad Street leaf designs; debate over leaf as logo vs branding; preference for traditional motifs); related issues at Bank of America and 419 Broad Street; plan to use a master, non-logo branding approach and curb sign clutter. - Land-use actions: Lat-line/lot-line adjustment for 317 Broad Street and 320 Spring Street approved; public-comment periods with no speakers; deck-extension approvals; tree-removal concerns (308 Monroe area); ensure permit footprints align with use-permit modifications; ARC involvement. - Planning policy: Debates over subdivisions vs. clustered development; concerns about cookie-cutter homes; clarifications that only subdivisions were approved; training and an ARC meeting planned; forthcoming report on ordinance changes, general-plan amendments, inclusionary zoning, and potential EIR needs. - After-the-fact demolition ordinance and code debates: Discussion of proposed ordinance 2001-09 (Jim to present); aims for a clear, enforceable final action; issues include 25% wall-area/material limits, whether limits apply to demolition or reconstruction, sewer connections under old foundations, setbacks, and interaction with historic preservation; consideration of historic-building provisions and costs. - Historic-building code and discretionary rebuilds: Planning Commission discussed applying historic-building code citywide to pre-1942 structures, a 25% demolition threshold, preserving footprint/height/features; debate over strict enforcement vs discretionary rebuilds to match original; Stewart House height as a firefighting-related limit; aims to balance preservation with modern codes. - Discretionary exceptions/grandfather provisions: Key debate on creating grandfather rights to rebuild demolished buildings exactly as they were, potential ownership constraints, and language clarity to ensure consistency with existing sections. - Penalties and enforcement: Demolition currently a misdemeanor (~$2,000); discussion of civil penalties and bonds as deterrents; debates on enforceability and remedies; consideration of refining the ordinance with materials, 25% limits, and potential grandfather provisions. - Development item at 407 Winter Street: Variances for a rear/side detached garage, restoration of a 19th-century sun porch within the front setback, and a 300 sq ft second-story addition; fire-safety concerns addressed by staff; public hearing planned; porch restoration and second-floor addition approved within setbacks; garage variance denied or deferred; exact porch drawings required; review of whether changes constitute restructurings needing a variance. - Other items and next steps: A separate variance for a structure approved with a 15-day appeal period despite fire department input; next agenda includes landscaping ordinance discussion and notices for architectural review (direct notification to adjacent homes); concerns about PG&E vegetation near Providence Park and use-permit obligations; landscaping verification at 76 Station; permit-violations (trees removed) and replanting plans; ongoing sign-approvals questions and a master sign list; late-night adjournment around 1:00 a.m.

Full Transcript of the Video:

But it marks me down as absent.

How about present, absent, and staff present?
So you know you can make a notation of the commissioners that are absent and then also of the staff that's present.

But not necessarily staff absent.

Yeah, is that seem reasonable?
That's good.

Yeah, actually it's very different.

Then on page three, under the public hearings one the second paragraph that starts out Commissioner Stewart stated.

Somewhere in there it should be noted that a proposed ordinance was distributed to the commissioners at this time.

We're in the middle of this discussion and all of a sudden this ordinance was distributed to us.

That's all I have.

Okay, any, Lori do you have anything else?
No, you weren't there.

I have two things.

On page two under the lot line adjustment at 401 Nevada Street, I think you need to include the reason that I abstained and that is that I live within the 500 feet.

And on page four at the top, Commissioner Weaver stated that any new and I believe the word should be construction, but kindly see what you think.

First sentence up there.

We were talking about sewer connection.

Okay, we're talking, we're responding directly to I think Jenny's questions or concerns about sewer connections.

Right Jenny?
And there was somebody else who was talking about sewer connections.

My concern was more a deep rest from basement when there isn't a settlement.

Whatever.

There was somebody, but it was connections that we were talking about.

Okay, and I believe that's it.

Entertainment.

Let's see, I guess I'm the only one that can second that.

All those in favor?
Sure.

Aye.

Opposed?
Okay.

Okay, in all likelihood we will have the entire commission present for the next meeting and we will be doing this review of the minutes and also the process I guess that we went through.

Is there anybody from staff that we would like to have present?
Well, I mean I would like to have staff present quite frankly.

This is the meeting to discuss the May 10th minutes.

Yes.

And mainly we're going to discuss how we handle the 80 unit thing.

I think it would be, I mean as someone who was here for all those meetings even though I wasn't sitting on the commission at the time, I certainly would like to hear from staff because staff received a lot of heat at that meeting from commissioners about how they handled themselves and I think that that's part of what led to the general degradation of the whole process.

Well, Paul's always here.

Do we want Bill or the City Attorney also?
Bill, how do you feel about being available for the next one?
Well, I'd like to have this.

What was the question exactly?
I was kind of reading it.

Well, you know, we've had this agenda as a kind of a review of trying to figure out you know exactly what happened I guess with regard to the May 10th meeting and what I am suggesting is that I would like to have the staff present as well as the commissioners to go over this.

Specifically, I'd like to see Bill and Jim here.

I'd like to have the City Manager here.

What the uh, well, sure what the heck.

We never do it.

Okay, but let's really try to get them into the conversation so that absolutely sitting there.

No, you know, no, okay.

As far as that's all Bill and Berle.

And Jim.

Berge did a lot of testimony that night.

I think Bill can handle all the public works area.

There again, I think Bill could cover that.

I would like to put it that we asked Bill and Jim to be here and we invite Berle to be here if he still chooses.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't care how we word it.

With regard to tonight's agenda, apparently we want to move some things around.

The City Attorney apparently won't be here for a little while.

And so in case we get to the public hearing on after the fact demolitions or 407 Winter Street, if he's not here by the time those things come up, we'll just keep sliding those backwards.

Is that agreeable with everybody?
We need the Attorney for the ordinance.

We need the Fire Marshal.

Fire Marshal.

Okay.

Yeah, let's try that number again.

All right, then we'll begin then with continued items.

The first item is sign review within the historical district.

449 Broad Street, Cordula Lazarus applicant, Grand Mayor's Inn.

And I believe you're here.

Would you come up and?
Mr.
Chairman, I will again abstain from this.

Okay, I think the last time that this came up before you, there was a question about the artwork being a logo and we went ahead, we redesigned what we would have the sign look like.

I've got two different designs in front of you.

One has the artwork on each side of the bed and breakfast.

It's a leaf.

Let me pass it out.

There's, I guess that's this one and.

.

.

Yeah, I see it.

That's how they work.

That's a leaf apparently.

First page is a leaf.

What we did was buy a new couch down at Broad Street, scanned the leaf on the couch.

It's not a logo.

It's not a registered trademark.

I don't see a leaf anywhere.

It's this little smudge here on the side.

Oh, do you want to say something closer?
Just to, Annie, this was what the commission asked this leaf to be, the removed and so we've got two alternatives now.

One with a very small leaf, one without.

I brought the sign so that they can see full scale exactly what we're proposing.

Paul has the paint samples.

I've got more copies of the paint samples.

And that's the existing sign that you'll just repaint to the new design.

Background is the lighter color and.

.

.

Well, it's getting pretty small, but I think we ought to just be consistent and say no logo so we don't come back at us.

I like the old sign.

So I think we ought to go with page, you know, two.

Well, did they entertain a motion to that effect, I guess?
So moved.

I'll second it for the purpose of discussion.

Okay.

Since I was not here at the last meeting, if somebody could explain to me the controversy over the logo-like leaf versus not.

Well, we just don't allow logos on signs in the historic district.

And there were a couple times a few years ago when we started getting a little loose about it and then people would come in and say, well, wait a second, you know, that guy got a logo and and so we allow little pictures if they.

.

.

Which is what they did in the 1800s, which if you glance at it, it depicts what's happening in that building like.

.

.

something bed and breakfast like.

.

.

Like a book would be a bookstore or.

.

.

You know, there's some real typical symbols of those kinds of things.

The pottery symbols, things like that.

Right, the more traditional kinds of symbols.

And we do allow things that are just decorative but that don't look like the logo of the business.

So you're not feeling like you're being logoed.

So, the last time she had this, you know, this is kind of becoming their logo as evidence by the fact that it's on the business card.

A lot of times that's what we use as sort of the evidence.

So, you know, even though it's really small, it just seems to be consistent because it does come back at us if we don't stay consistent.

This is satisfactory to you, the one that I believe.

.

.

It's not preference, but we'll do it.

Any additional discussion?
Okay, I could just mention about this logo issue since it's a new one to you.

When Bank of America changed their signs, they wanted the new corporate logo and the commission turned them down and their attorneys got in touch with me.

And I was able to show that consistently the commission had turned down every logo over a few years and they just dropped the whole idea, so consistency has paid off.

Okay, any additional discussion?
All those in favor of the motion?
Aye.

Opposed?
You have approval on the second one.

You have the normal 15-day appeal period.

The next item, 419 Broad Street is continued at applicants request.

Is that correct?
Actually, Sheila Stein informed me this week that they are not going to modify the porch after all, that an arborist has said the tree is growing so slowly they can keep it there for a long time.

That's a good point, yeah.

Okay, so that one.

.

.

Oh, and we approved all the other stuff, didn't we?
So I think that's been withdrawn.

Okay, how about the lat-line adjustment?
Do we have anybody here?
Yes.

And I did get a letter from Terry Hillis at the request of the Commission.

Authorizing City engineer to represent his interests as well.

Okay, well then this is a lat-line adjustment, 317 Broad Street and 320 Spring Street, City of Nevada City and Terry Hillis, applicant.

Adjustment between City Hall and mountain pastimes involving 60 square feet.

Bill?
It's a very simple, straightforward thing.

Some of the original City Hall was built on Mr.
Hillis's property.

Slightly, okay.

It's a little sliver.

It means nothing to anybody and so when we surveyed the property, we want to file a record or survey which delineates his property and the City property and everybody agrees that the property line is the building wall.

And that's the whole story.

He's in agreement.

We're in agreement.

Okay.

I would recommend that the Commission approve it when we go ahead and file it.

Entertain a motion?
The architect should do it.

Yeah, this is something we've just been waiting for this convenient time to do it.

We had to do it to make sense out of all the lines going around the building so we get the job done.

So I'll make a motion that this outline adjustment be approved.

Okay, moved and seconded.

Do we have any additional discussion?
If not, all those in favor of the motion?
Aye.

Opposed?
None.

All right, we'll skip over those next two items.

Hearing from the public, comments on items not on the agenda are welcome at this time.

However, action or discussion by the Commission may not occur at this time.

Comments are limited to three minutes.

Is there anyone that wishes to address the Commission from the public?
Hearing none, I'll close that public hearing.

Staff approvals and determinations.

Paul.

I approved a city planner a extension of a deck at the Woodbridge Town Homes and Bill and I went out and took a look at the situation.

And it was, there are some open space areas there.

I didn't encroach in any of those.

And other than that there was a removal of trees at three, two addresses.

One on Nevada Street, one on Monroe Street and a re-routhed on Kissimmee Street.

Are these all still within the appeal period?
Yes, this time I if it was done correctly, I think so.

I try, I do the approvals the day I think this comes out.

So on the bridge way when I don't have a real big problem with it, but how can you, it's, I mean they're townhomes, isn't there a use permit that dictates the footprint of the whole thing?
There is a, there was a series of approvals.

It's quite lengthy at the It's not a single-family home.

Yes.

Or wouldn't the homeowners association need to okay it?
They did it okay it.

This is extending an existing deck out further and that was the first question I asked was have you gotten your approval?
And she said that that she already had done and the second step was to get city approval.

Well, I would just, I don't have any problem with it, but we do need to follow proper procedures and I'd appreciate if you'd look into the file and see if, if, if a change to the use permit was would be needed because of the change in the footprint.

I think we need to be fairly religious about use permits at least.

Okay.

Yeah, I think with Woodbridge there's, there are a lot of conditions, anything from Woodbridge in particularly.

I'll be, I'll review quite closely.

Does anybody have any issues with 308 Monroe?
There's a dead tree and a live tree that'll come down.

The one to the left of the boulder?
I think this is the one, the one dead tree.

Because it made it look like there were two trees on it.

That report looked like.

There were four.

On the sides of the, um, oh the Catalpa I missed.

I don't know what's the wrong script.

I understood it.

Let me see, there was one.

When I went out there I was assuming that there's a dead one to the right of the boulder and then to the left there's a cluster of, of locusts that I thought were being taken down too.

And I guess I would hope that those are not being taken down.

This was just the Catalpa tree.

No, that's a different house.

The shul.

This one here?
That's Glenice on the Catalpa.

And, uh, that's the one we went out.

Tree, here it is.

That's the locust.

Two.

The locust tree.

Number three.

If you look on the tree service report.

Tree three has locusts.

Not the big rock options removal or cable.

Page three?
No, number three on this.

Report from the river.

North of big rock.

Well that's the dead one.

Right.

No, then it says, below that it says small dead one.

Yeah, that one is obvious.

Just because this says, it doesn't mean that's what she's applying for.

What's it says?
Two.

Two trees.

Trees lean over the road towards opposite house.

Well.

Locust above rock has poor cross attachment.

I just figured.

I can't read what it says.

No, no.

I think what that two means is that it's the item number two on the tree service report.

That's a good one.

There's two item number two.

Clean out four trunks locust adjacent.

Okay.

That's probably the clump to the left.

Locust above rock.

Does anyone have that?
There is one dead one right there.

That's real obvious.

In my discussions with Mrs.

Shule, she said we just want to remove the one.

And that's what the picture shows.

I do notice that on the front they didn't fill it out completely.

Because I can't read what it says on the copy.

It says it can't be saved.

And then it says.

Tree is leaning over road towards.

Yeah, it's always a single tree she's talking about.

Tree is leaning over road towards opposite house.

Raised tree service says locust above rock has poor cross attachment.

I just figured lean hazard is out.

He said it can't be saved.

Hazardous locust north of big rock also leans over street.

So that it doesn't look like two.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, it does look like two trees.

[ Incidentally, this little off subject, but it's on subject, and I talked about 308 Monroe, Gloria and I, we reviewed the relocated stair and the new rail that they put up there.

And that's just fine.

The new location for the stair is twice as good a location as the proposed location was.

And the detailing on the rail is just marvelous.

Absolutely marvelous.

It does not detract from the statement that those old columns make it all.

It's just a fine job.

That's good.

Okay.

No new correspondence.

Let's do the new item then.

Architectural review 596 railroad avenue.

Steven and Joan DeSanna applicant.

Bud Newman representative.

New home with attached garage.

Is Bud Newman here?
I don't see Bud.

Steven and Joan DeSanna.

I have a question of Paul.

Is this the corner lot?
Yes, it is.

So it wasn't within the ones that we required that they only be 1700 square feet?
This is 1100 square feet.

1100, 1600.

Second story.

There is.

.

.

1100 square feet.

No, it's a 1619 on the ground floor.

Plus, if it doesn't matter if it's not within the.

.

.

It's not the 1700, yeah.

It's just the ones right from the original floor.

I guess it's just the same floor.

I think what it is, it's 1169 square feet are being requested at this time.

He may build it in such a way that a second floor would be built at another time.

But on your application, you'll see 1169 square feet are proposed.

But if he's not here, so I guess we'll just put this off to next time.

I'll get some clarification.

What I'd like people to think about is just.

.

.

I don't exactly know what I think about it.

The issue of the fact that this house looks exactly like a couple of the other houses in that little subdivision.

It's a nice house, but it's starting to look a little bit.

.

.

Maybe something we should think about that they all look alike.

Cookie cutter.

Yeah.

Nice cookie cutter, but.

.

.

When I was looking at them, I looked at all these houses and I looked at the lot and I says, "Wasn't this lot approved?"
They even had the driveway cut in and everything.

Was this approved as being clustered?
What they all supposed to look alike?
So why was it even in for review?
I would assume that the whole cluster had been approved.

No, we only approved the subdivisions.

They were supposed to come in individually on the houses.

Well, you knew that they were going to.

.

.

The whole house was built down.

I was called out and I was looking.

I don't know how it's built down further.

That's a nice look of new work.

The last one on railroad, it's a little different.

Yeah, the other one was all the way out front and kind of nice and nice looking front.

Okay.

I'm looking like a two engineer.

Well, it's just.

.

.

I feel like every once in a while I think it's good to bring up things that we screwed up.

We could also bring up good things we did, but.

.

.

I can't remember it.

You can't think of anything.

The thing that made me think about it was, you know, the two little yellow houses on Clark Street.

They look too much alike.

You know, I didn't think about it when we approved it because there were some differences in the detailing.

But now that they're there, they sort of look like, you know, they just look exactly the same.

Okay.

The last thing we have, I think then we'll take a little break and give the city attorney a chance to show up.

Training and discussion.

So have we scheduled this ARC meeting?
Well, I have made a report on the proposed ordinance changes, general plan amendments.

And I'm going to go over them tomorrow with city engineer, city manager.

On Tuesday, the rest of the staff will go over them.

And then as soon as possible, we'll set up the ARC meeting.

Can I get a copy of that report?
Yes.

The only thing is, I noticed in the minutes that you were talking about putting them on the same environmental document.

They're not anywhere close to the same thing.

And I know you've got a real problem with the inclusionary zoning.

So I hate to see the other one kind of get sucked down by.

.

.

Well, there's still separate policies.

I mean, they're all separate.

So they're not getting sucked into anything.

Everything will move along as one.

In fact, that was something the city staff decided.

It actually was something I believe either Bill or someone else proposed.

I can't remember that they'd be put together.

All right.

Well, we'll just see how it goes.

If somebody puts their foot down and wants an EIR on the inclusionary zoning line.

.

.

We can eliminate one.

You have to go through that process too.

There'll be no EIRs.

I don't think, unless so directed.

All right.

So do you need a committee?
No, we have a committee, a poll to an overholster for the ARC.

Okay.

We'll run around now so the date won't be a problem.

We'll get to it as soon as possible.

I'd like to get that there.

Maybe.

.

.

Yeah, go out and drop down to planning reports.

Before I plan a report on that, I want to put an item on the agenda for the next meeting.

Due to some of the changes in the makeup of the commission, we're going to have an item on the agenda for reorganization of the commission.

I'll be the first item on the agenda after the approval of the minutes.

Good.

Okay.

And then after we're done with 4A and B, I had a couple things that I wanted to maybe talk about, putting on the agenda also.

Just in time, so why don't you just.

.

.

Okay, quickly then on A and B.

On A, you were given a handout on the California Chapter of APA having their Sacramento conference in October.

If anybody is interested, these conferences are really great, and there is a price cutoff if we get applications in before August 1st.

So just let me know so we can fill out an application or whatever is required to get tickets.

On the second item, applying CEQA in Nevada City to pre-1942 single-family homes, I think there was a letter that I got a copy from Commissioner Stewart.

There was a letter that went out from Gus Devalle questioning this issue of.

.

.

CEQA clearly states, "A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

"
Since Gus brought up this issue, I thought it was worthy of discussion.

It's something that we haven't really discussed as an issue.

And I invited him to come and make a presentation of some of his ideas so that we could.

.

.

so I could get, as the City Planner, further direction on this issue.

That's why it's here.

You know what I think we should do, because I do think we need to start taking this more seriously, is put on the application for architectural review and whatever other applications we have that might relate to changes to single-family homes, we should put a little note on the bottom.

If it appears that substantial change may occur with this phrase in it, you may not get a categorical exemption or something.

So by having that on the application, it reminds us to think about it, and it also lets the applicant know that this may be an issue.

So in other words, in that way you would be alerted that Planning Commission could then refer it back to the ARC after it's been put on the agenda, do it project by project.

That might make good sense.

I think it would be very difficult to make objective criteria for when this is.

.

.

Without really doing a lot of studying.

But if you had it on the application, it would be good because a lot of time the applicant will say, "Well, nobody ever told me about that.

"
Let me be clear on this.

You don't want to set any sort of objective standards as to what a historical resource is.

It's impossible.

There's just too many.

.

.

We have an ordinance that certainly helps us along on that, but you don't really know what could come up, what percentage of change might occur.

I think we have enough adopted to back us up.

But there are situations where you really need to look at what percentage of the building is being changed, and that kind of thing.

Or it might be a rock.

It was a rock when we did this last time around.

Which isn't necessarily covered by our architectural review.

There's just so many things.

It could be an old billboard.

It could be a fence.

There's a lot of things.

Just further on that idea, CEQA itself does not give objective criteria, saying that you have to look at the circumstance and the situation and the local values and make that determination.

Well, it doesn't give objective criteria on almost any potential impact.

Geologic or anything.

There's really not perfect criteria for any kind of impact written down anywhere because there are so many different situations.

If you could write all of it down perfectly, we wouldn't need to be here.

Like the painted signs on the CEO barn.

Right.

How do you spell all that out?
Right.

You'd have to, exactly.

Have you heard from guests?
Well, I invited him to come tonight and give his opinion on this.

He might still show up.

I don't know.

He usually doesn't get on until about 11 o'clock at night, so he's probably figuring.

He hasn't been showing up for a while.

Okay.

Well, then we might as well.

I think we finished with everything then except the two items under public hearing.

Is that correct?
Well, after we're done with the public hearings, I had a couple things I wanted to bring up that won't take long, but we should go to the public hearings.

All right.

I'll go to Jim's one anyway.

First item is an ordinance regarding after-the-fact demolition permits.

Do you want me to read the whole thing or do we all know what we're talking about here?
Okay.

We have before us a proposed ordinance, 2001-09 regarding after-the-fact demolition permits.

This was put together after a meeting that finally took place between Commissioner Weaver and myself and the city attorney.

So Jim, maybe, I don't know, do you want to come up and go over this or at least make yourself available if anybody has questions?
I'm available for questions or if you want.

I think it's fairly self-explanatory.

Basically what's before you tonight is to make a recommendation to the council and they take the final action.

And so basically we need hopefully some sort of a decision tonight because personally I'm anxious to get something on the record here that gives us a little more teeth.

Our present ordinances are somewhat vague.

If we actually got challenged in court, it's hard to know what the result might be.

And so I would like to have something really spelled out more clearly so if we ever get in a court battle with someone, it'll be real clear what the rules are and we want to spend $20,000 in attorney's fees to find out what the answer is.

Well, it looks good to me.

The only thing I notice that's different from that first night we talked about it where we all kind of gave our ideas and then I put it in that draft that never got to Harry even though it was supposed to get to Harry is I guess that item five was added which makes sense to me.

And then under number four we talked a little bit about the idea of not only being an issue of wall area, like 25% of any existing wall area, but also materials, architectural materials.

We had actually talked about that at that meeting.

And the issue there being if somebody, but maybe wall area could be interpreted that what if somebody took all the window detailing off and all the curly cues off and I don't know why anybody would, but it could happen.

And it could add up to 25% of the materials even.

And certainly could destroy the integrity of the architecture.

So that's why I think in the original draft I had put 25% of any existing wall area or materials which I think we did discuss that night.

So what do you guys think?
I mean, I'm not going to push it, but.

Well, I think that's actually good to clarify.

We addressed it in item number two up there where we said that's including the use of the same type of building materials used in the original structure.

But this is more related to how much when you have to get a demolition permit, not the replacement.

Is this existing structure or material?
Existing wall area or material?
Just that those two words would be all that I would say to add.

That would make sense.

Remember I brought up the fact that in Pasadena some of the craftsmen bungalows, people have done that to sell the stuff and they make more money off of stuff than the houses were.

Item five, which Jim, after our discussion, very cleverly put down as she'll lose any grandfathering rights.

Assuming that covers all these things we were talking about, which is the reason we want a bill to be here because some major items came up in our last discussion actually triggered by some comments from the audience regarding what happens if they tear the building down and then they have to build it back again.

What happens to new connections to old sewer lines?
If there's no sewer line running underneath the old foundation, are they allowed to leave the old sewer line?
Are they going to be required to move the sewer line?
What happens if the building actually violates an existing setback?
Which a lot of them do.

In fact, one of the buildings we're talking about tonight would be a violation.

Would they be required or could they be required to build the old building exactly the way it was before but in a different location?
These are the real loose ends.

It's a real good incentive not to demolish something.

What's the answer?
That partly number five deals with the issue of setbacks and that sort of thing that you could not build in the setbacks where before you had the right to continue to leave it in the setback because you're a brand father.

That language does not deal with the issue of sewer lines running under houses and that sort of thing.

Anytime you build a new structure, even though you're replacing an old structure, you've got to essentially comply the current codes.

I'm not sure how the building code reads.

If the building code will require that you move any existing line then you would have to.

.

.

That's the type that says all new construction shall meet applicable codes.

That would cover that.

That's always the case anyway.

There's an existing sewer line and there's not a building there.

And Vern Taylor and myself are going to go over there and start.

.

.

There's a sewer line.

There's talking to somebody about moving.

Does the building code give you that kind of discretion to require people to move?
It does.

What happens Bill?
Say.

.

.

We've addressed that on City Hall right here.

What's his name?
Sewer coming into our property.

We moved it.

We moved it?
Yeah.

But take an example, say an old house would tear it down.

They would make them build it back the way exactly it was before.

Say it had an interior stairway that was only two feet wide.

And present day code says the stairway has to be 32 inches wide.

Well, we don't.

.

.

It's only a historic structure and a historical district, frankly.

We've been interpreting the exterior stuff.

If it's a historic building, we even adopted a little thing one time that said we consider any old building in the city historic so that anybody could use, like my house, I could invoke the historic building code if I want to take my old porch railing off and put a new one up at 32 inches instead of 42 inches or whatever it is.

But if you tear the house completely down, there's no way you could invoke the historic building code.

There's no historic house left.

That would be very difficult.

Also something in the building code.

It says, Connelly, if you go beyond a certain percentage of torn down building, you've got a.

.

.

That's roughly 25 percent.

That's kind of where.

.

.

Connelly picked the 25 percent really because of that too.

Let's take, for instance, an example of your house.

Your house sits on Nevada Street.

You're not in a historical district.

It's not designated a historical structure.

Therefore, it doesn't fall under a lot of things that, for instance, this building would fall under because it's in a pound down historical district.

Well, not as far as our stuff, but as far as the building code, the city has said the historic building code is good all over the city.

We think all this stuff is historic enough for the historic building code.

That's why I have a 32 inch railing as a matter of fact.

Well, I'll have to get it down your house.

No, but I had to get a building permit to do whatever little renovations I did.

But you didn't tear your house down without a permit.

I never would either.

We hope not.

You say that now.

So what happens the way I understand it, you're going beyond that 25 percent, all rules change.

Because you no longer have that structure.

All right.

Well, just to clarify this, and then we need to.

.

.

If anybody has any additional comments, I'll ask you to go ahead and get your questions.

Then we need to.

.

.

if anybody has any additional comments, then we'll open it up to the public.

But suppose.

.

.

I mean, according to the ordinances, anything built before 1942 is historic by definition.

So we now are outside the historic district.

And suppose we have a building, and I don't know whether this exists or not, but suppose there's something out there that's 37 feet tall instead of 35, and it gets torn down.

Now what?
Well, we would have a problem under this language in the sense that it says you lose your grandfather to rice, or it'd have to be 35 feet high.

But it also says have the same footprint floor area and height.

To me, it says we have the discretion to kind of go either way, unless you interpret number one as being a real.

.

.

same footprint.

There's someone in conflict.

There's somebody in conflict.

But I would say no, because we want the exact.

.

.

the point here is we really want the exact same house.

I understand what you're trying to.

.

.

I concur.

I'm on that same wavelength.

I'm saying that when you take the same.

.

.

I'm saying that when you tear down a building, or you're starting from scratch from the building code, from the building code point of view, you're back to go.

Well, I get that.

It's just that the 37 feet has nothing to do with the building code.

That's our sewing ordinance.

That's.

.

.

Well, it does, because it's a fire department restriction for their ability to fight fire.

That's really good.

Yeah, but not within a two and a half story house.

I mean, it's probably not going to be.

.

.

Maybe that's not a great example.

Well, I'm saying.

.

.

Take a good example.

Take the Stewart house over on the.

.

.

on the other side of the creek.

Science Street.

That's well over 35 feet now.

What if they tore that down?
We'd want them to build it back exactly.

Whatever it is, whether it's 45 feet or 50 feet, we'd want them to build it.

So does this allow us to do that, Jim?
Well, that's the concern.

Number five is problematic because it does seem to say the way it's written that you've got to meet existing rules.

Well, you could say, you know, we're consistent with the above or something, or we're not inconsistent with the above.

As long as it's not inconsistent with items one through four or whatever.

Yeah, just solve that.

Because that would be awful if we had to start building track houses.

Let's take this, what I consider to be two problems.

I guess that's why I'm here tonight.

The Stewart house.

If you tore down the Stewart house, what's the Stewart house?
Bird now.

Let's say it.

Bird now.

Okay.

You'd have trouble with the code.

Trying to rebuild that building.

I don't care what we're about.

I understand.

You're trying to say.

.

.

You have trouble with that.

But the exterior, except for the railing height, probably could look almost essentially the same.

The height has nothing to do with the building code.

I think you could get some good take on yourself.

But I think you try and replicate it like it was.

It'd be tough, yeah.

The Stewart house is a designated landmark, isn't it?
Yeah.

So now it's got exemptions from the code.

Now it's under the historic building code.

Once it's gone, is it now?
If it burns down.

No, I don't think if it burns down, the historic building code applies.

But please remember that this city has said.

.

.

This always happens.

Remember, please remember, and please remember to tell every building inspector that comes and goes up there that we consider the historic building code usable on any pre-1942 structure anywhere in this city.

And it saves all of us money and hassle to do that.

So I mean, I don't want to hear this, you know, if it doesn't have a plaque in front of it, we're not using the historic building code.

Well, the proposed ordinance doesn't mention the 342.

342, what do you mean?
Pre-1942.

No.

You know, on.

.

.

No.

I think that's good, because.

.

.

I know what you guys.

.

.

I want to say something, because I just feel like I have to say this.

I think what everybody wants, and I don't think it's unique to this table, I think everybody.

.

.

I know where we're all coming from, basically, most people in the city believe that our infrastructure and our older buildings and everything we have.

.

.

And I'm serious, whether it be Connie Weaver's Red Castle or Harry Stewart's House up on Mercy Street has its own uniqueness to Nevada City.

So what this is saying is they don't want any buildings torn down.

Okay.

It's going to be possible to tear down the building and go through the.

.

.

You know, have more oil holes from yellow, and to rebuild the building, they're still going to be cheaper than trying to restore the building.

We just labor under that all the time.

I mean, that's all I'm saying to you.

There's no perfect world, though.

We're doing the best we can to try to discourage him, but obviously we.

.

.

That was going to be a huge.

.

.

Jim Anderson kind of took my part of it.

I was going to say, we ought to endeavor to be as.

.

.

to try and protect as much as we can with the walls that we have.

Yeah, what Jim has always said, you know, most people will follow the rules and just make sure the rules are good.

And I don't particularly agree with the 1942 now, because I think there's other structures in this town.

Well, that's what I like about this ordinance.

It actually says.

.

.

We have a contribution to the town.

It doesn't mean 1942 is added to the house.

But see, this expands on that, so that's good.

It's not just pre-1942, because it's mother lode or just architectural significance.

That could be this building, you know.

Yeah, there could be anything that was built that has.

.

.

It was built in 1949, maybe, or something.

I can't give you a good example now, but there are buildings around that have their own character.

So what we need is, Jim, some kind of a.

.

.

I won't say a hedge factor, but some way of allowing the Planning Commission to approve what might be a deviation from the zoning ordinance that would allow them to rebuild it exactly the way it was before, even though it may be not in compliance with the present zoning.

Not building code, not zoning.

Right.

How about if we add.

.

.

Well, number five, we could add the.

.

.

As long as it's not inconsistent with items one through four, but we could add an item number six, or else we could put it in the intent somewhere.

We could add an item six that the historic building code will apply to any, you know, building codes, or if you think it would be better, we could just put this issue in the intent.

You know, it is our intent.

I think about it in the issue, because the historic building code speaks for itself on any project.

Yeah.

Well, except.

.

.

Yeah.

So, it may be in the intent, so we could put some wording.

You know, we could still pass this and ask you to add some intent.

Right.

I'd rather add something as a number six.

And I'm not sure of the language right now, but basically the language would say that if needed in order to actually build it back the way it was, if we need to change the land use rules for this particular building, then you have that discretion.

Okay.

That's.

.

.

So, the guy that cares about building it doesn't want to.

.

.

Well, this isn't forcing to build it back.

It just says, "If you want to build it back, you've got to.

.

.

"
Now, most people don't want raw land sitting in the middle of the city.

They want a building.

So, eventually someone will come along and want to put a building, and we'll say, "Fine.

This is the building you're going to put in.

"
How do you apply that to a subsequent owner?
It's difficult, because we can't force the present owner to put anything on the record.

But the fact is, we'd be sitting here, and our intent is to get the building back.

Right.

And supposedly the owner's supposed to disclose to buyers all we could do is send a letter to the person who tore it down saying, "You realize that you're going to be subject to ordinance such and such, and if you build anything back again and you need to divulge that to anybody you sell the building to, it's best we're going to be able to do at that point.

"
What's the maximum fine?
The maximum fine on a misdemeanor, the last I knew.

.

.

1,500s?
It's around $1,000 plus penalties.

Probably going to be around $2,000 when they add the penalty on it.

But the big penalty here is this bond.

Oh, right.

This is a different.

.

.

As far as the current law that we have on the books is, it's a misdemeanor to tear down your home.

The problem with that is if you have no criminal record and you tear down your home, you can go in and plead guilty to a misdemeanor, you'll get about a $2,000 fine in probation.

So if it's valuable enough, it's easy just to go ahead, plead guilty, pay your fine and go home and sit in your nice new house.

Yeah.

The stick really has always been, "We have to approve your final architecture.

"
Right.

So this makes it crystal clear that you get to build the same home you had before, so maybe you don't want to tear it down.

There's nothing to be gained.

For the most part, except as Bill points out, it may be cheaper to build a new home than the renovate the existing one.

Okay.

Unless there's any further comment from the commissioners, I want to open the public hearing.

Is there anyone from public that wishes to speak on this issue?
Abigail Givens from 11-650 Banner Mountain Trail.

Just occurred to be, just toward the end of your discussion, that someone might buy a home and eventually buy the house next door, or a small structure of some kind next door, and demolish it with the intent to never rebuild it.

And that would change the character of that site quite a bit.

And maybe there ought to be an extremely stiff upfront penalty so that it just comes to the city in a very large amount of money before anybody takes down even a little tiny cabin or an old garage or an old barn or anything, especially if they don't intend to rebuild it.

Thank you.

Anyone else?
Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing.

Jim, my memory is that we're not able to do anything other than call it a misdemeanor.

Well, you could, we've never done this before, but you could set a civil penalty, adopt something that requires a civil penalty, and the only problem with that is you have to, in effect, create our own court system.

We can send out a penalty that you've always based on the ordinance so much money, even if the person says, "I think that's outrageous," then you have to provide a judge and set a trial date, in effect, and have a hearing.

And we've always avoided that, but we could certainly consider that.

You could recommend to the council that we go one step further and do that for this small type of issue rather than citywide, but just for demolition.

But that's the only other thing we could do.

Well, that's what we've always talked about in the past, was just that the fine wasn't high enough and maybe we should increase the fine and then we just never really did anything about it.

Right.

Well, we've done it in a sense we've done a misdemeanor, so technically you have a higher fine, which almost likely would be probably a $2,000 fine or in that area with the penalty assessment.

So we've gone way up from the $100 to the $2,000, but it's still minimal if you've got no criminal record.

If they won't give you any more than a fine, if you have a criminal record, then you're going to spend some jail time.

But I think this is really a major step.

Well, it cleans it up.

The reality is, in the past, the stick has, and still is, that they have to go through us for our particular review on the new house.

We have the tear downs that we've had, we've been really tough on them.

Everything had to look exactly the same and they had to mill stuff specially.

Those were conditions on granting demolition permits.

That's just when they're asking for a permit.

So they're in a sense asking for something?
No, because there have been a couple where they went ahead and did it.

So the Stacer House was not?
And had to come back in.

Oh, no, not the first one.

And so what's happened in those cases?
That's what I'm curious about.

Well, there was one on North Pine and I think there was one on Bridge.

And so those two houses, for example, when they were rebuilt without having this ordinance in place?
Yes.

They got red tagged because they took down more than they were supposed to.

They essentially did a demolition without our permission.

They were required to rebuild the same basic thing.

The problem was when you go ahead and look at our rules, you could argue that there's nothing in our rules that says that.

So in a sense, if somebody then wanted to take it a step further.

To the court system, then it's not clear where we stand.

That's why I was doing this.

The Institute's our existing system, really.

Right.

But it makes it crystal clear if we don't have to argue in court.

I don't know.

Whether we do or don't have that power, here it is.

I'm not going to say that one's specifically victor, but there has been in the last 25 years and I don't know what to say.

Where people do any number of things, they either tear the house down so that there's so little left that they play a little game that way.

Or they keep taking this piece off and putting it in the room.

Right.

I understand.

Those games are related.

And I can honestly tell them why I'm going through half a dozen of these.

No, I was simply asking what has replaced them.

That's all.

I was aware that this has happened for me.

What's replaced?
The more hard people have, like Jim said, they've replaced the whole thing.

The more specific things have.

And they got a lot of scrutiny and they lost building time.

Yeah.

It wasn't a fun thing, but it's not ending new.

Yeah.

Well, I kind of like the idea of a civil penalty on top of this, personally.

Well, I think then you could recommend that to the council.

It would have to be a new ordinance.

This is really.

Yeah, I know.

It would have to start with another additional ordinance to do that.

Okay.

Well, I'll move that we are.

Are we doing the discussion?
Is it still open to public comment?
No.

Close.

I'll move that we adopt this ordinance with the following changes.

That we add the word materials.

That'll read 25% of any existing wall area or materials or more than 25% of the existing structures to be removed to item four.

That item five have added to the end of it as long.

I have put language in saying, except where the grandfather right is needed to comply with items one and two above.

Okay, so it should say that.

And that Jim will add an item six, which will include an intent, the intent that our intent is to get back essentially the same structure.

Right.

I had put language.

The replacement home need not comply with the land use regulations if necessary to comply or excuse me, if necessary to meet the requirements of sections one and two above.

So that you could say at our discretion, so we could go either way.

Okay, so that's motion.

Second.

Been moved in second.

Is there any discussion?
Okay, well then I would like to say that I do not think that this makes it crystal clear and I don't think that it clarifies it and I think that we're just digging a deeper hole.

My objections are noted in my memo of July 5th, which I would like to have included as part of these minutes.

And I don't think that I will be voting for the motion, but I'll call for the question.

All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
No.

So I would like to make a motion that we do a second ordinance that sets a civil penalty for demolitions without a permit.

Come on, somebody second it.

I would like that put a different way.

Okay.

Not that that'd be motioned for a new ordinance, but maybe that'd be recommended or suggested that the City Council consider addressing a civil penalty ordinance.

I really think, I mean we've talked about it for years and we did increase it a little bit and I do think, isn't it $100 a day up to $2,000 for other kinds of zoning violations also?
All of our zoning violations for the most part with a couple of minor exceptions, for the first violation is $100 fine, for the second it's $150, and for the third time it's $250.

Does that mean per day or?
Well, if you had a sign and you keep it up after we notify you, that's per day.

But if you knock a house down, it's one day because it's gone.

You haven't, you can't, I've tried that in the past and the court would not buy.

So, you know.

Three days.

I'd address that another time because I do think that, you know, I think $2,000 would be, or $100 a day or whatever until you fix it.

Right, I tried that.

It would be a good penalty.

It would be a good penalty, but I argued that in front of the court probably five years ago and the judge just shook his head and said, not in my court, so.

Right, I remember something about that.

Okay, well I like that, ask them to consider it.

Because I think that's, you know, I think this will help, but I think that's been one of the big issues.

For the people that just, you know, are just really resistive and just want to tear that house down, you know.

So then the motion is.

You make, you want to make the motion since.

Are you withdrawing your motion?
Actually can you do this?
We're not talking.

This is part of the, I think part of the recommendation, I think under the recommendation you could recommend that you think the council needs to go further and do this.

But obviously no other action other than recommending it.

Jim, since this only involves a penalty, does the Planning Commission need to make any more recommendations that we don't need to?
Well I think under this, guys, because we're.

Your recommendation.

I think under this, guys, we're looking at, they want your recommendations.

You're saying we don't think this went far enough, we ought to go further.

So I think that's fair.

As far as the ordinance for a fine, we probably would not need to come back to the Planning Commission because there's no land use issue there really, it's just a penalty issue.

Okay, the motion is that the commission recommends that the City Council consider what did you call it?
Civil penalty.

Civil penalty in addition to these other penalties.

Second.

Okay, moving seconded.

Any discussion?
I think it's a good suggestion that at future meetings and future dinners, I'd actually like us to see.

I understand that demolition of a structure without a permit is significant, but I'd like to see us begin to look at less egregious violations.

And so, I mean, things that come to mind since I've moved to town are the gables that were put on the houses down, what is that, Factory Street, the Stein House, that house, the 301 Monroe Street.

My understanding is that the renovations that took place on that house went beyond what was approved in the plans.

The Philliponi House across the street in the 301 Monroe House where there was a structure demolished and after the fact demolition permit is my understanding.

And I don't know how to, what other kind of hammer there is in a sense.

I've always wondered why builders when they engage in things like this are permitted to build again.

To me, if you knew that you couldn't build again, if you violate the Planning Commission unless you fix those, that seems to me that that would prevent people from doing that.

So I'd like us to look at things in the future other than just wholesale demolition of structures.

Okay, well Paul maybe you could have that put on the next agenda or something.

So we could discuss a little bit.

I know where you're all coming from and I've said it, I just want to say it one more time.

I know what Jim Anderson's doing, he's trying to get some teeth into something so that he can get something to work with and I have no problem with that.

And Mr.
Stewart and I have had our differences in the past, so we don't always agree.

But there's a number of things that he wrote in this thing which I brought up and also he brought up that are very important for us to look at if we wanted to refine something later on or whatever.

There's a lot of this kind of stuff that's really pertinent to what we're talking about.

I don't know whether that means, he kind of leaves it open too.

Does that mean we do another ordinance?
Does it mean we amend some of the others?
But there's the things in here that I don't like, that he doesn't like, like the 1942 date.

I've never liked that and I know what you're saying, Laurie.

The other thing is, not all buildings in the historical district are of historical significance.

Some of them are not classed as historical, but does that mean we're going to tear them down?
So those are things, there's some really good points in here that we don't have any teeth and you know what I mean?
The minute we put the hammer down on somebody, they challenge us and find all the little holes.

So that's all.

I don't have anything else to say.

The best we can do is we try and cover what we can and every time they give us a new hole, we try and plug it.

But I guess that the bottom line is that this won't solve at all.

Okay, well we have a motion and a second to recommend the action to the City Council.

Is there any additional discussion?
I would like to say that without some clarification to the underlying ordinances, much as I would like to see a stiff penalty for somebody that does something against the rules, I just can't bring myself to vote for it without clearing up the problems that are leading up to it.

So all those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
No.

Okay, you have your marching orders to take to City Council?
We'll rewrite it and get it to them as soon as we can.

Okay.

That's marching request.

We need to -- Marching request, yes.

Marching recommendation.

Wait a minute, Jim, before you leave, we may need you still.

Still busy?
All right.

The next item then is variants to the yard setback standards and architecture review, 407 Winter Street, AJ and Irene Fratus applicant, Paul Kasterson, representative of a new single family, a single vehicle detached garage to be within the rear and side yard setbacks, also restoration of sun porch of 19th century home, within front yard setback, also architectural review of second story, 300 square foot expansion of home.

You are?
I'm Paul Kasterson.

Okay.

And your address?
I'm Greg Smalley.

Well, I'll introduce the project.

It's one of the smaller lots with a 19th century home.

And historically there was a single car garage at this location that is being proposed.

However, it fell in disrepair and it was removed.

And by removing it, the previous owners gave up any legal rights to have a nonconforming building at that site.

The -- it is an undersized lot.

The addition of the single car garage would not exceed the 50% coverage.

And there is no other place to put a garage without a variance because of its small size.

However, in addition to being located in the setback, this building would be well within 10 feet of other existing buildings, which are also nonconforming buildings in the corners of the lots on adjacent properties.

And the fire chief has written a memo that is in your packet in which he called that situation a bad situation.

Now from the city staff's point of view, we simply do not think a building should be approved unless it meets the approval of the fire chief.

And as I mentioned in my staff report that Mr.
Wasse agreed he would be here tonight.

He did agree to be here tonight.

I had been trying to reach him all evening even while we were sitting here on a cell phone at his home address.

And he's not here and we don't seem to be able to reach him.

So that's where the situation stands right now.

And I don't know what your pleasure would be at this point without the fire chief here.

Well, why don't we let the applicant make his presentation, we'll open it to the public and then that'll give us a sense of maybe where we're going.

Okay.

That sounds great.

I'm confident we can satisfy any fire concerns on that structure.

What I'd like to do without the fire marshal here is to get approval for the variance at least tonight on that structure.

Paul mentioned that doesn't, Mr.
Cogley mentioned that it does not exceed lot coverage.

It is the only location for it.

There was a pre-existing structure there.

The fire issues themselves are very easy to remedy.

Either to just sprinkle the building or to build it out of non-combustible materials.

Last, it must have been two years ago I did the property behind it where we changed out the siding on that building which will be against this one to a non-combustible.

It's not fire rated, but it is a non-combustible siding on it.

It's a hardy plank.

The only other structure that's adjacent to that is a non-conforming structure that went up during that same time period.

It's a garden shed that somebody built without permit.

The only other structure that is adjacent to that property is one that I refer to or actually on North Pine Street when you're talking about demolition.

That one is far enough away from it.

It doesn't really interfere with the fire codes.

It's just a fence in between.

The rest of the proposal deals with two separate issues.

One is the front porch that the owners would like to restore to original.

It's been enclosed as a screened in porch and a tile floor.

We'd like to return it to the natural one by three type wood decking that was prevalent in that area and to open it up to a railing style that matches either of the two sister buildings.

There's three homes that are very similar in design right there.

The front porch is very straightforward.

That's really the only view that will be affected from the street side is that front porch.

Basically what we're doing is just cleaning it up.

The third part of this proposal deals with the second story addition.

It's a 300 square foot addition.

As you can see by the elevations, it's taking that rear gable and just pushing it out 10 feet towards the rear property line.

The rear elevation will not change.

In fact, it'll be 10 foot relocated.

We're not adding any other new windows onto that addition.

Part of the purpose of this addition is there's been remodel after remodel after remodel done on this structure.

You can tell by looking at the siding of the building, the siding jumps on different breaks and whatnot.

Part of this remodel would be to repair the lines of the siding, get rid of all these breaks and jogs and jumps and make the structure look more continuous and more back to a non-remodeled state.

Part of the purpose of this remodel is to straighten out those flaws in the siding.

Does the addition require marians or just the garage?
Just the garage.

The addition is conforming.

I could clarify also that there originally was a sun porch in the front of the building that at some point someone turned into part of the living space.

That's what happened.

A covered deck and turn it into living space.

Part of this application is to convert that to a sun porch.

To a covered deck.

To a covered deck, back to what it originally was.

That's in the front yard.

Remove all those windows that they put in the door and everything.

That's not what the drawing shows.

I apologize for that.

It looks like it doesn't change at all.

That occurs in the front.

How does the appearance, it appears that it still has the big glass door here in the front is that?
That door will remain.

We're trying to re-emphasize the front door.

Right now with that enclosure on there, it's really to determine where the front of the building is, where the front entry is.

By opening that screen porch back up to a covered deck, it'll put the focus back on the front door.

But you're still leaving that new door that was put in, the glass door?
I don't know if that is new or not.

My intention is solely to remove the siding, which are glass panels, from that put a rail system back into it and to change out the flooring.

Right now they're tiled over the floor.

But you're going to leave the door?
Correct.

The door has little narrow side panels, glass side panels.

Lights on the side?
Yeah.

Lights on each side?
Leaving those as well?
No, not the side panels.

They just have a door?
Pardon me?
We need an accurate drawing for the bottom.

We'll get to that later.

All right.

I just want to understand what it is here.

Thank you.

So while you're opening it up, exposing the original horizontal siding that's inside?
Correct.

I believe I have some actual photographs of that that might help clarify things.

Oh, I know what it looked like.

I just -- okay.

We'll pass the photos around.

I was like, "Sure.

"
See if they're in this file.

Well, I'm okay with talking about the structure of the building and all of that, but I'm not okay with talking about the variance without Wasley being here.

Okay.

Well, couldn't the variance be conditional on satisfying his requirements?
No.

Because the issue is where is the fact that it -- where it's placed.

You can't fix that.

Well, I'm going to discuss it.

We need to open this to the public.

Does anybody have anything else that they want to clear up before we do that, or should we see the question?
Oh, I have a question.

I was trying to guess.

How wide is that driveway at its narrowest point?
It's about 12 feet.

12 feet.

Yes, to answer your question, those side lights would be removed.

Those side lights are on the exterior -- the current exterior wall, and that door would be removed also.

The door would be removed?
Correct.

So it would just be an open porch?
Yes.

But nothing but a rail going around it.

Correct.

With access from the front porch, the part that goes off to the left of the front door?
Is that -- You'd still be able to walk up the front steps onto the porch, yes.

And then into -- through an opening of some sort onto the -- There's an existing interior door that goes from that currently enclosed porch into the main structure.

Right.

I understand that.

I'm talking about the one that we're all kind of questioning, this door that appears to be like a duplex door.

That's this one here?
Yes.

It's coming out.

And is the railing going to be solid across there, or will you be able to enter that from this porch?
You'll still be able to enter it.

So there'll be an opening, a half door or something there?
Yes.

So you'll be able to come up the front steps and on the porch if you want to.

If you chose to.

Right.

We're trying to get rid of this, the look.

We're having two front doors.

Exactly.

Well, the drawing doesn't show that.

Okay.

This time I will open it for public comment with regard to this item.

Is there anyone from the public that wishes to address this item?
Step forward, state your name and address.

Jodana Bishop, 404 North Pine.

And I'm the house directly behind this house.

And it's my garage that this new garage would be backing up against.

When we did our remodel, as Paul said, we used the hardy plank so that it was a non-combustible, I believe, or a safety for fire.

And obviously I would be interested in what the fire marshal has to say.

However, I wanted to state that we are not necessarily, as the neighbors right behind, opposed to a garage going in.

When we purchased our house, there was a garage there and it was a wreck.

And so we were really glad when they took it down.

However, surprised that something else wasn't rebuilt.

And so architecturally, we're confident in what we've seen, that it would be nice and that they would do it as safely as possible and that we don't feel that that garage would have an impact on our property because we were used to one being there before.

And I think that's the only thing we're talking about.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?
Candace Hanson, 437 Zion Street.

Recently I was talking to Paul Cogley and he said he wouldn't believe the number of variances that are coming up.

And I'm sure we'd like to have a figure on that after all that we've been through in the last six, seven months.

And recently he asked me what I would do about a house that's applied for a variance, a house up on Main Street.

So what are you going to do?
There's something like this over there and there's something like that down the street a little bit.

And you know, how are we going to say no to variances?
And especially when they're not really necessary.

There's one variance on Winter Street presently at 415 Winter Street.

I used to own the house at 415 Winter Street.

In 1885 we were in the process of totally reconstructing it and it burned to the ground and about, well, you'd have to talk to David Ray, but I think in less than 60 minutes.

And it took the side of the house right next door to us out.

Anyway, to make a long story short, when the fire marshal came from Sacramento, he went, "Boy, are you lucky.

"
If there had been just a little bit of wind, because this is so densely packed in here, the further we can keep buildings away from each other in this particular block, the better off we're going to be.

Pretty tightly packed up there.

I guess maybe, you know, if I had my druthers where a variance was concerned here, you know, to make some sort of a compromise.

I think the house certainly could use some putting back together and looking a lot better than it does.

I haven't looked at the architectural drawings, but to go on, it's already got a front yard setback, sitting in a front yard setback.

The garage, because there are, I think, the woman that just spoke, there's so few garages in that block at all.

The garage that existed there, I'd like to see a photograph of.

I mean, I owned that property for four years on Winter Street, and I remember it being more like a shack rather than a garage.

I would just really say that there's a driveway that exists there.

There's off-street parking.

I don't know how necessary a garage is.

To add two more variances, then we've got four variances on Winter Street.

So the house at 415, when they got a variance for the deck, it brought it right to the property line.

So it's pretty tight up there.

I would say fix the house up.

It sounds like a great idea, but no variances on the garage.

Anyone else?
Okay, then I'm going to close the public portion of the item.

Well, Paul, what is the front yard setback right now?
Is it 25 feet?
It's 30 feet.

So it is 30 feet.

So it's not sitting within the front yard setback.

It is.

The house is currently in the front yard setback.

So then why doesn't the addition need a variance?
It does.

Well, you said it didn't.

Yeah, but if the building is currently nonconforming in that it's closer to the street than our usual requirements, then a variance is required for the addition also.

The addition is within the building envelope, not the setback.

No, I know that.

But you're saying because it's a nonconforming building and it's expanding.

Yeah, doesn't that require a variance?
No.

The way it's been interpreted and the way it was explained to me was that only if the addition is going to encroach into the setback area.

I do think that I noticed it as a variance to yard setback standard because the work was being done in the front yard with the returning it to a deck because that's a restructuring.

In a way that's making it more conforming than it used to be.

So I noticed it kind of in a way that it would cover that.

Well, the only thing I would have to say just because Candice just spoke so I don't forget, relative to Candice's comment about variances, and I guess she had a conversation with you about variances in general is keep in mind Paul, you don't have to approve the variances we do.

So don't worry about it.

Just give us the applications and we'll deal with it.

I don't worry about it.

It sounded like you were worried about it.

I didn't say anything.

How are we going to tell people no?
You don't have to tell them no.

Just send it to us and we'll deal with it.

We're the ones that get in trouble for it, not you.

Anyway, that's all I have to say for now.

Back on your staff report here in your first line, historically there was a single car garage at this location.

However, it fell into disrepair and was removed by removing it.

The previous owners gave up the legal rights for a non-conforming building at this site.

Well, I'm kind of familiar with that because I was on the planning commission when the previous owner asked to tear it down.

And we gave them permission to tear it down on the basis that if you want to bill it again sometimes you're going to have to bill it within the existing setbacks.

Would you consider that you have to conform?
That was part of the demolition approval?
That they were giving up.

That they were giving up.

Yeah.

Well, okay.

They were advised that if they come back sometime when they rebuild it again they're going to have to.

.

.

It wasn't a condition.

Well, that's why this is a variance application.

Yeah.

So I wish there was a location for it, but it is the only place it can go exactly where it was.

Well, the reason I asked you how wide that driveway is, 12 feet, it would be possible to relocate it in back of the house since it's only a single car garage.

We would still be in a rear setback.

We'd still be within a rear setback.

The rear setback is 30 feet required.

All right.

20 foot feet.

Oh, excuse me.

I really wish it was a location.

As far as the fire, I think Greg Wosley is pretty clear in his letter what his concerns are and how he feels about it.

My feeling about it is regardless of how the fire department feels, I would have no desire whatsoever to come back and put 10 pounds back into that five pound bag again that was there.

There's so very little open space available to these little houses back there that you almost fight to get the little sunlight and a little place to go out and enjoy it.

So even though the neighbor in the rear at this time may have no objections to it, well, there may be some other neighbor in the future or on the other side would like to have a little real space available.

So I'd just be totally against the variance to build a new garage there.

As far as the addition on the second floor, I think that's fine.

My interpretation agrees with Paul that while you're not changing the footprint, you're not expanding any floor area that doesn't apply to that setback.

I'm really happy to see you take that little deck area and put it back the way it used to be.

I still understand what it's going to look like though.

Is it completely going away and then you're pushing the door back to the -- It's eliminating the door.

It's eliminating the door completely.

See, there was an alcove there before.

This is all going away?
The deck was there before, then they came out.

I know what it used to be before, but I thought he was saying he was going to keep the door for some reason.

No, that's gone.

He clarified that.

Well, I do think we need to get -- Yeah, we need a drawing of exactly what you're going to do on that.

Yeah, on the architectural drawings that has been corrected.

Would you like to see it to help you?
Please.

Oh, you have it?
Please.

Yeah, these are the drawing there.

Let's see if it shows it on here.

That's nice to have.

Here we go again.

Then I have to say that the idea of a carport wouldn't do anything more for me.

It would still require the variances.

It's real hard to make them look architecturally okay.

Okay.

But what we're going to think about is a garage.

It's easier to fire control a garage.

Car fire is a little bit of a pain.

If you turn it around, it's going to be great.

This is taking that front wall totally out.

This is the existing wall of the site.

And you just take it to the inside.

Oh, I see.

So there must be posts there.

Yeah, just one.

That's a post.

Okay.

There's a way to look at the historic orders and the historical site.

Next to the, I can't get rid of that.

The issue of open space was brought up by Mr.
Weaver and how it affects the neighbors, et cetera.

Obviously, we have no objections to the rear lot or to the property next to hers.

And I don't see anybody else here who owns property that is concerned with it.

My basic thing is that there was an existing structure there.

And part of what's your, my outlook rather is what you're trying to achieve here in town is to keep things historic.

When you have the opportunity to put things back closer where they were, can you take advantage of that?
And I think this is an opportunity or another way of looking at it rather, of having fewer cars on the street.

There's plenty on the street parking.

Yeah.

Well, yeah.

Go ahead, Tom.

Just because the garage, doesn't mean you can't park the car there.

But as I'll reiterate, they were given permission to tear that thing down a while back.

And they were told very definitely that if you want to build it in the future, you're going to have to build it in the form of-- This is a case in point of what you brought up earlier where it would have been nice to mail the previous owner a letter saying they had to disclose that to the current owners.

Well, that's not our responsibility.

No, I understand that.

I'm just saying that's-- Everybody knows the zoning requirements.

That's all I have.

Clearly not.

Everybody knows it except the real estate agents.

Well, actually wasn't Commissioner Poulter the agent on that house?
I believe she was.

Well, they've applied for a variance.

They clearly-- No, I'm just saying about the question of being uninformed.

I believe she was involved in the transaction, yes.

She knows all the rules.

So she knows.

I mean, having just recently come from that side of the table, often the commission and city council has the same thing refers to department reports that are written, but never-- They just say, "Oh, well, obviously he agrees or disagrees," but doesn't give the public any information on it.

So I just want to read it what the fire chief said.

The fire department has concerns with the building of a garage on the above addressed property.

The lot is small and the access narrow.

There's a dwelling on all sides.

Even with looking at such measures of a totally fire restrictive-- resistive construction, sprinklers and other mitigating measures, the fire department feels that we'd be creating a bad situation.

It's pretty clear.

I mean, that's-- and to me, the way I see my role as a planning commissioner is that I'm a volunteer to service that I'm doing to the community.

I'm not an expert on planning issues.

But the city has a well-paid and educated staff that advises us.

And we better have good reasons to go against our paid staff.

And I don't see one here.

I'll respect that.

We may readdress this later, but I would like to go ahead and deal with the other issues then.

We have approval for that.

Yeah.

I just want to say that, yeah, I think that it would be appropriate for him to give him his approvals less the garage.

And on the subject of the garage, this is the, well, third time that I've been involved in a situation like this.

And I don't believe we have yet to have a satisfactory outcome when I say we, the various-- either the commissioner or the city council that I was involved in.

This side-- this five-foot setback, which in fact is 10 feet.

And I think that's more-- probably more the appropriate-- What, 10?
10.

Five for each property.

But when you can't get it on one property, then there's got to be at least 10.

And that distance is more than just one building catching another building.

That means that at some point, you may have to put a firefighter into that space.

And when it gets too narrow, then they really can't go and you can't do the things that they need to do.

That's a bit significant.

And it puts them at risk.

That's a real safety issue.

That's not like having your front yard be 30 feet as opposed to 35 feet or 20 feet or some other thing.

There's a very good reason for that.

And so far, we've always-- we-- the results-- Nevada Street, for example, I brought this up.

And yet, nobody was too interested in Nevada Street.

I don't know what made Nevada Street different than Mr.
Casterson's problem on Winter Street.

But I think that we are making a mistake, even if they're fireproof buildings or whatever.

When they get to be less than 10 feet apart, that we're really endangering the firefighters and probably the structures.

So-- I agree.

--if-- you know, in these cases-- and this is one that, in fact, kind of goes to the heart of the issue that we're talking about in our proposed ordinance is that, you know, are you going to insist that somebody build one back in that kind of space?
I don't think you're going to.

Anyway, that's that.

So if someone wants to make a motion on the-- I'll move that we approve the architecture review and variance that are required for the porch improvements and the addition to the upstairs of the house with the condition that accurate drawings of the porch renovations be submitted to the city planner and that we deny the request for the garage.

Question.

Variance, the setback on the front?
I thought the porch needed a variance.

Yes, I think it does.

I think what you can give as special circumstances is that the-- this is a restructuring of the front, which requires a variance.

However, it brings it closer to conformity than the current situation.

With that-- Well, when you say restructuring the front, all you're doing is removing some windows in the door.

Sounds like a restructure.

What does that have to do with restructuring?
Well, because it's within the-- Any-- Candace, you're very familiar now with the language.

Restructuring, extension-- Changing, altering-- I think the existing said that it's already within, and so the way Lauren stated it sounded like a variance.

It sounded like a what?
An additional variance.

She said-- Well-- But-- This-- I-- You have to apply-- The reason-- yeah, the reason, you know, I was thinking variance was because the-- I considered it restructuring.

You may kindly maybe-- if it is not restructuring, maybe a variance is not required.

I'm going to be removing some windows in the door.

Correct.

Well, let's see that that's restructuring a bit of a variance.

Well-- To me, restructuring a variance is you're going to-- OK, you're going to move the foundation.

You're going to add on five feet over here, or whatever.

I don't-- Well, I don't-- I don't think it's a big deal.

It probably could be approved without the variance based on the interpretation you're just giving, that it is not a restructuring because it's just removing some of the-- some of the materials that are there.

So then-- If we're not original to the building to start with, which we're-- So then what you're saying, Paul, then-- and Connie, what you're saying then is if all-- if all the builder was coming here-- if all the builder was going to do to the house was the porch, he wouldn't even need to come to us then?
Well, he wouldn't need an architectural-- Architectural-- But he wouldn't need to come before the Planning Commission.

Yeah.

Well, he would come to the city-- actually, he would come to the city planner if it would-- Another question, if he came with that, he would come to the city planner and I would approve it unless I felt it was a variance issue and then it would go to the Planning Commission.

And in this case, because it is within the setback, would you refer it to this body?
I probably would have, but I hadn't had this conversation with Connie.

That's where-- because that-- because we need to be careful because people do see things that we do as precedent.

And so if we're sort of saying, oh, well, you don't need to come-- It's a bit of a good call of variance, I think.

But the addition is over the 25%-- is it 25% or 20% that makes-- kicks in coming to us?
25%.

Oh, so that wouldn't be-- if it was just the porch.

In other words, that would not mean up 25%.

Square feet.

So I'll just leave my motion the way it was then.

If you prefer, you could have its-- I mean, you could add the caveat, you know, subject to review of the city attorney.

If the city attorney felt the approval didn't require variance, then he could make the adjustment to the approval.

Well, it just doesn't matter.

That type of thing.

Because we're approving it.

OK.

I'll second the motion.

OK.

Any additional discussion?
Yes.

OK.

Yes.

I intend to vote for approval of this, but not-- I do not intend to approve approval of a variance, because I do not think its variance is required.

I think it's nothing but a matter of replacing or removing some windows and door.

Well, let's see if it passes.

Change the motion.

Well, a question then, Conley, what if they were doing it the other way around?
What if what existed?
I mean, obviously, someone's not going to take something which doesn't look-- that looks good and replace it with what's there now.

But what if they wanted to do that?
You'd have no problem with that, because they don't need a variance for that.

No, they don't need a variance, but they need architectural approval.

Well, no.

It's minor enough that it would just go to Paul.

It wouldn't go to us.

Well, I'm now confused.

Well, I'm now confused.

The city attorney left a little too early.

He could solve this for us.

But I have no problem with what Conley is saying.

I understand what he's saying, and I may-- and if the motion was changed to make it just an architectural approval, I think that would be fine too.

I think it is interpretive.

It could carry either way.

Is this a restructuring or not?
There seems to be a disagreement.

Maybe the commission could make a motion on whether it's a restructuring or not.

What's your-- I mean, you think it can go either way?
Yeah.

Well, I agree with Conley in that it does not appear to me that the items other than the garage require a variance.

So you want-- shall I-- you want me to remove the motion?
Will you be OK, or should we-- I would be fine with that.

OK.

I'll remove the motion then.

I'll make a motion that we rule here that the porch changes are not considered restructuring and therefore a variance is not required for that action.

You better second it, Conley.

I'll second it.

And approval of the addition.

Is that correct?
Well, I'll do that next.

Let's make our own-- Oh, I'll start.

I got something for-- We're adjusting that piece.

That's Conley.

All right.

You second it.

I'll second that sucker.

All right.

Anybody-- anybody discuss this to be able to do some more?
All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
None.

OK.

I will now move that we approve the changes to the porch and the addition to the house with the requirement that the porch drawings be submitted to Paul consistent with our discussion tonight and that we deny the-- Separate item.

No, make it separate?
So we're just approving the house to-- I second that motion.

Any discussion?
All those-- sorry.

That's the only thing I would say because Mrs.

Bishop left and I don't know if she left because she thought we were just discussing the fire, the garage at that point or what.

But when I was over at the house late this afternoon, she and her husband said that Paul, who's worked on their garage, assured them that there would be repairs done or even replacement of the fence at the back of that property and also good screening with foliage.

And they'd be assured that that would happen.

Relative to the house?
Well, because the addition actually is pulling out 10-- it's taking what's probably a bedroom, pulling it 10 feet closer.

Well, I'll add that in as a condition that the back fence be repaired and additional vegetative-- I don't know how you want to word it.

I know that you talked to them about it.

You guys agreed to.

It's something the neighbors have talked about and are going to work out.

I don't really think it needs a motion, but if you care to put one in there, it would be that we're going to repair and add vegetation back there to ensure the privacy between the structures.

You didn't have to seem to have any upset neighbors.

No.

All right.

No, it was just a concern that they-- there wasn't a concern.

They felt that they weren't concerned about having this structure coming out an additional 10 feet because the fencing and the vegetation piece was going to be done.

I was just surprised she didn't mention that.

Yeah.

Of course, this also is someone who worked with her.

She and I discussed it.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, then we'll just leave it alone.

Sounds like you worked it out.

OK.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

And I presume we have no additional discussion.

All those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
None.

Denial of the-- Can we continue that instead?
I'd rather not.

I think-- Does this mean I'm going to have to reapply in anything?
We know how we feel about it.

You can-- you can appeal it to the City Council.

I think that it would only be fair that we continue it until we can get a representative of the Fire Department here to clarify their position on this.

I just think that the letter is-- I agree that we have a real issue here.

But I think that in fairness, the Fire Department should be allowed to-- All right.

Well, that's fine.

Do you want to continue?
It's also based on President-- I don't want to continue it.

All right.

OK.

My mind isn't going to be changed because I feel it's a very small lot.

It's a very constrained area.

So it would be more of a courtesy.

But I really don't think that my mind is going to be changed on the issue.

I doubt that-- I doubt that mine will be too.

But I'd like to hear-- No, that's just not it.

I would like to hear from the Fire Department.

And I would like us to agree that this doesn't happen in these other instances in the future where we get the neighbors coming in and saying, "Ah, gee, I don't care.

Let them build it whatever they want.

Put up a one-hour firewall or whatever.

"
We're not talking about doing this here.

And he wrote, "As opposed to the situation up on American Hill, we have a very clear letter.

"
So it's not a wimpy letter.

Nothing wimpy about it.

So I'll put the motion back on the floor.

I'll move that we deny the garage variance in architectural review.

Second.

That moved and seconded.

Any discussion?
What does a 2-2 vote do to this?
It does pass.

It fails.

Any other?
It doesn't pass, but it doesn't get approved either.

It doesn't fail.

It does fail.

The motion fails unless it has a majority.

I also have a question.

Sorry.

Again, being new at this, having the Chief here, these are part of his regular duties to be called to this or is this something?
We asked him to.

Right, but as opposed to is there a monetary cost to the city of that?
I suppose.

He has a comp time salary.

We've all agreed that that's okay.

Well, no, I understand that.

I think that's okay.

But I mean, this letter is so clear.

I don't see.

It is a cost to the city.

He did his job.

He was real clear.

That's too bad he's not here.

But as Laurie said, yeah, there's no wiggle room in this.

Well, I would like a chance for him to respond to my comments personally.

As well as I'd like to have you re-examine a structure you did approve that is exactly in the same circumstances on 412 North Pine Street where we gave, we only had one location for a garage.

We built the garage exactly where it was.

We had to apply for variances.

You approved it.

And it's a very, very similar structure that I want to put back in there.

I mean, I should let you know, because maybe this will then save you some trouble.

I don't know whether the other commissioners stand on this, but even separate from what the Fire Chief is saying, the fact that this is not something that's grandfathered inofficially.

It's gone.

It was gone for a while.

People bought the property knowing it was gone.

There was plenty of opportunity to find out if, in fact, it could get rebuilt.

I'd just be voting against it anyway.

It's fine.

No, I respect that.

But I'm saying, though, so even if he comes in and says fire safety is great, I'm going to say from an architectural standpoint, et cetera, there's plenty of parking there.

A garage is not a requirement as far as the issue you brought up about returning things to the historic center of cars when the house was built.

So plus there's plenty of historic things we do that are mistakes.

I mean, we used to mine with Mercury.

We don't do that anymore.

So it's fine.

I'm just trying to save a filing fee, but that's what it takes is our problem.

No, I understand that.

Well, I agree with it.

So that's why that's-- But I'm saying, though, even if the fire thing-- even if you work that out, I would be denying it.

Sure.

And my sense is that other commissioners would too.

Yeah, the Fire Chief isn't going to change my mind.

It's also going to be up to the owners when I tell them what you've decided as whether or not they want to continue with the subject or not.

I would just like that opportunity.

OK, we have a motion.

We have a second.

Any additional?
Well, still under discussion, I just want to reiterate the statements I made at the beginning that Victor says we have a very clear statement from the fire department.

I don't know what he could add even if he was here, but it wouldn't affect my thoughts on granting the variance for the structure even if it was fire safe.

OK, all those in favor?
Aye.

Opposed?
No, for the reasons I stated previously.

OK.

15 days.

15 day appeal.

Thank you.

OK, I think even though we've wandered through this, are we done?
Well, I had a couple of things I just wanted to bring up.

First of all, I had asked a couple of meetings ago that we agendize a discussion of our landscaping ordinance.

Oh, OK.

If you could put that on the next one.

And also the issue of noticing architectural review.

And then what?
Refresh me.

Just, we've talked about talking about some way to get at least just directly adjacent homes notified when there's an architectural review coming up.

Because now they don't hear about it at all now.

So those two things.

And then-- You only hear now if it involves a variance or-- Right, a public hearing item.

Yeah, architectural review isn't a public hearing.

And then there were just a few things that I just wanted to have looked into.

And I just keep forgetting to call you.

OK.

One of them is the PG&E box that was put in at Providence Park right at the corner of Zion and whatever street it is, Champion Mine.

The big PG&E box that put it-- you might not have noticed it, but it's huge.

Zion and Champion Mine, again Providence-- By Providence Park.

Oh, I think I've seen it there, yeah.

It's huge.

It is big.

And it cut down a whole bunch of vegetation that was part of the use permit that had to remain.

And I think what we need to do is get them to paint a darker color and put a bunch of bushes in front of it.

So, and this will probably happen again.

I mean, they've already torn down half the trees in our city.

They could at least put a bush in front of their big electrical box.

PG&E box, paint-- Well, it needs to be-- It needs to be hidden completely with vegetation completely.

And there's no reason why they couldn't do that.

I mean, that whole thing was a use permit.

Saving the vegetation there was a big, hairy deal that, you know, we got that 75 foot setback with no trimming ever supposed to be allowed in there.

And it really makes the entrance to Providence Park look awful.

It just really-- Are they out of-- are they out of compliance, is what you're telling me?
Well, Providence Park, I'm sure, didn't have anything to do with that.

But-- PG&E, I'm wondering if I write them and what-- I'm going to write them to PG&E.

They're going to be pissy, I'm sure.

But it's worth a try.

They broke.

They can't even afford it.

I know.

I'm surprised they had the money to put the box in.

They have more money for tree pruning.

So, I don't know.

Or maybe it's the Providence Park asked for the box.

So maybe Providence Park could put the bushes in.

I don't know what the deal is, but-- I'll write them a letter.

Looks horrible.

OK.

And then the 76 station on Highway 49 is under a use permit.

Part of the use permit required landscaping in the front of it.

They have-- and we required-- we asked the county actually to prove that thing.

But we had the county require the trees, the maples and the cedars and the shrubs on a little berm in the front there.

And I would guess that the assumption when we say shrubs is that they would be allowed to look like shrubs.

And the way they're maintaining them is they cut them flat.

They look like plates.

They're like this high and flat.

They're lavender.

But I think they're allowed to float.

They're pushing.

Well, anyway, the point was they were supposed to hide the parking area and the cars and shapes like plates.

They aren't able to do that.

And so I think it would be a good thing to give them a call and call the gardeners off on the shrubs.

And then the other one was at this corner of Nevada and Grove, I noticed that that house is for sale.

The one where they cut the two trees, big trees down without a permit.

And we said, well, you've got to come back in and plant a couple of trees.

I think it'd be good if we could get them to plant those trees before they sell the house and there's a new owner.

Oh, OK.

Well, can we make sure that letter then again, whoever's listing that house, that letter gets disclosed and-- Well, I don't know that that's-- Because they're going to be responsible as well then, aren't they?
It wouldn't be that hard to carbon copy the realtor.

A great deal of resistance to that sort of thing.

Well, just sending it to the realtors.

To what?
Just putting the realtors on notice that they have to disclose these things.

I write lots of letters to realtors.

Well, in this case, it's actually for sale.

Oh, OK.

But I mean a lot.

Anyway, I do write a lot of letters.

Everybody has-- when you own a file at the county, want you to send it to the county and have them put it in the file for that property in the county.

That way when you go to pull it, it's there, like a lien or something.

Well, all that stuff pops up.

They're required to plant two trees and they haven't planted them.

Yeah, and two big trees.

You come to dangerous situations.

OK, I'll write to the realtor if we can find out who that is.

There's a sign out front.

I can't remember who it is, but-- Lisa, do you remember who's listing that?
I'm sending out a staff member.

And then I would just like a-- what's the deal with the Caldwell Banker sign?
It looks like Nevada City is for sale when you drive down-- How long does that stay up there for?
Well, I understand there's some kind of a hubbub in there suing us or we're suing them or I don't know what's happening.

Only as a complaint, no.

Oh, because I brought it up at a previous meeting and you said-- I didn't say anything.

There's something-- The residents on Broad and American Hill who drive by that every day, we've always just assumed that the city let them put that banner up in the state.

You mean it's not illegal?
I said it is illegal.

Oh, they-- I brought it up at a previous meeting and you said we're dealing with that.

And it made it sound like they were hassling the city and you were dealing with it-- Oh, I-- --by closed doors or something.

I did talk to Caldwell Banker and say it needed to come down or an application needed to come in.

Maybe I didn't-- maybe it was at that point, but nothing ever happened.

That's been a couple of months.

Well, you made-- you-- I assume what you said was true that you were dealing with.

Well, I did mention it.

OK.

I did mention it to them and they were supposed to come in with an application and I've never heard from them.

All right, well, take this as an official complaint because it's-- Caldwell Banker.

It's like major logo.

In fact, I can make another one.

You know, Citro-- Citro-- Oh, it's a vinyl.

Citro-- Sittrenay.

Put up a sign that was denied.

It's temporary.

It's the wrong color.

By the planning commission.

Oh, really?
Have you-- have they been through that?
Well, the one that's sticking out from the-- And then they put it-- yeah, they put it in an illegal-- and they didn't put it on the front either.

But that was the sign that the commission had denied.

The total number was too moderate.

OK.

So that's all I had.

Tell me to get on that one too.

Which one?
The Citro-- Would you get on that Citroney sign right away, please?
That's true.

That's what I was going to bring up.

I feel like I'm going to bang my head on that one.

But I'll pass that one by because I-- Global Banker Citroney.

Sierra Spa, by the way, I did talk to her again.

I mean, we get-- she has her 90 days and we're dealing with that.

We're getting that signed together.

OK.

I have some more questions on signs.

Got more?
How many signs are they going to allow the hang on the consignment's place other than the one sign that we approved?
I agree.

And who approved that sign and began with it?
You weren't here.

I lost the date.

Gee, they said you would love it.

But we did.

But we approved one sign.

And they keep having signs.

Also, the same thing has happened to-- But all the other signs?
Yes.

All non-approved signs.

Permanent signs.

I think the same thing has happened on the shop in between the old Vlado's and the Parsonage.

What is that shop now?
It used to be Straycuts and all that?
Is it a bookstore?
No.

It's an antique-- Three rows or something.

Whatever that is, they've got signs-- Oh, it was the candle shop.

We used to have candles.

Yeah, now it's antique.

They got new signs?
Mm-hmm.

Sure.

Then the one on the corner of commercial land, New York.

The new place.

The new place used to be-- Oh, Charlotte's place.

It used to be Charlotte's.

Spring-- It used to be Charlotte's.

Spirit House.

Spirit House, yeah.

Spirit House.

How many of these banners and flags and flags?
It's actually a visual hazard when you drive up there.

I'm not complaining about the banners that Spirit House.

Yeah.

As well as the wrong way sign of front.

I agree.

You know-- Why?
Which way is wrong way?
[LAUGHTER] Is it down or-- So I complained to Herb Taylor about that one.

Bill's the one that got all those signs.

I'd like to have somebody up there with white gloves.

Yeah.

[LAUGHTER] Any other signs?
This is good.

I should have just a big master list of signs and do it all one day.

Yeah.

I'd be happy to do something about that Caldwell Banker sign.

Well, those are the major ones that I've been kind of bugged about, especially that one over at the consignments.

Well, I personally think-- Especially the signs.

I can't believe that you really approved the quality of what got put up.

I feel like probably what they put up isn't what you approved.

I mean, they probably gave you a sketch and it probably-- No.

Very tight.

Did they bring the sign in with you?
No.

The sign was already hanging up there.

It was an after-fact approval.

You guys screwed up.

Well, we had a larger project than we were-- I only heard it before because they said you'd love it, Lori.

Oh, God.

I just went to the board and checked when I first saw this.

I'm really getting the heat from all these people in the audience.

I know.

It's hard on those kind of knives.

We done?
I'm done.

I was done.

Do you have anything to add?
No.

Nothing more.

I need a motion to adjourn.

I move-- so I move that we adjourn.

I need a second and we're out of here.

I second that motion.

We're adjourned.

It was 1 o'clock in the morning that that sign was approved.

Remember they-- They stay into the--