Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco Members Absent: Abma, Rogers Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Urban Forester Morton, Principal Engineer Harary, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimzey called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. August 3, 2016 Action: Approved as amended. 2. August 17, 2016 Action: Continued to the September 21, 2016 ARC meeting. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Placco, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the August 3, 2016 Minutes as amended and continued the August 17, 2016 Minutes to the September 21, 2016 ARC meeting. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Rogers ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 3. Consider 584 Munras Avenue; Sign Permit Application P-16-299 for an Externally- Illuminated Wall Sign; Applicant Wendy and Ryan Wong; Owner Jacob Lo; PC-D Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) (Continued from August 17, 2016 meeting) ACTION: Approved the application with Conditions of Approval incorporating staff’s recommendations to reduce the wall sign to 50 square feet, eliminate the upper window sign, and to allow for a sign to be on the right hand window and to return to staff with lighting specifications that are within Downtown Specific Plan Guidelines. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Silva asked how the sign areas were calculated. Ms. Roveri explained the process by which sign areas are calculated. Vice Chair Silva asked if the ARC should deny the project because the applicant did not meet many of the Citywide Sign Guidelines within the application. Ms. Roveri suggested that the ARC continue the application for redesign instead. Vice Chair Silva asked if Ms. Roveri had discussed the recommendations with the applicant. Ms. Roveri said that she had spoken with the applicant about wall signs and lighting. She noted that window signs were not included in the original application, but that when staff visited site they found unpermitted window signage that was later included in the application. Committee Member Freeman asked if the applicant would meet the guidelines if they chose to remove the two door signs altogether and reduce the size of the window sign and the wall sign. Ms. Roveri said yes. Applicant Shawn Adams, owner of Monterey Signs, asked the ARC to consider the proposed larger square footage of the wall sign because the wall is so large and he did not want too much negative space in contrast to the sign. He said that he would be amenable to reducing the sign area to 50 square feet as a special condition of approval and that the window sign located above the doors was intended to be temporary, so it could be removed. He said that keeping the lighting below 3,500 degrees Kelvin and removal of the larger, vinyl window sign would be acceptable to him as well. Ms. Roveri said since the project’s submittal two months ago, the standard to locate signs less than 16 feet above grade had been eliminated from the sign guidelines. She said that the sign could be installed more than 16 feet above grade and asked what signage Mr. Adams was referring to as temporary. 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Mr. Adams said that the vinyl lettering was temporary and he would remove it. Chair Kimzey asked if the applicant agreed to the Conditions of Approval set forth by staff would it be possible to approve the project at the current meeting rather than continuing it for redesign. Ms. Roveri said yes. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Silva said that he agreed with the applicant in terms of the wall sign, despite that it was not in compliance with the Citywide Sign Guidelines. He asked if the Citywide Sign Guidelines were appropriate for making qualitative judgments, but said that he wanted to make this process as simple as possible for the applicant. Chair Kimzey asked how the process could be expedited. Ms. Roveri explained the process and suggested that the ARC direct staff to resolve sizes, rather than continuing the application for redesign. Ms. Hopper further clarified that the ARC would need to approve the application with direction to staff in order to incorporate staff recommendations included in the agenda report, which would put the project in full compliance with the Citywide Sign Guidelines. On a motion by Committee Member Placco, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with Conditions of Approval incorporating staff’s recommendations to reduce the wall sign to 50 square feet, eliminate the upper window sign, and to allow for a sign to be on the right hand window, and to return to staff with lighting specifications that are within Downtown Specific Plan Guidelines. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Rogers ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 414 Belden Street; AR Permit 16-225 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second Story Addition to a Single Family Residence; Applicant Erick Meyenberg for Bayview Construction and Development, Inc.; Property Owner Eric Smith; R-3-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303 (Continued from July 6 and August 17, 2016 meetings) ACTION: Approved as submitted, without the incorporation of a faux bay window as suggested in the staff Agenda Report. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Vice Chair Silva asked what the balcony would be comprised of. Ms. Hopper said that the board and batten siding would continue up to the balcony. Chair Kimzey asked why a cross gable roof had been suggested rather than a simple gable roof. Ms. Hopper explained that the intention was to simplify the overall roofline and make the design compatible with the existing roofing. She said that the applicant did not want to remove all existing roofing, and this was determined to be the best option. Applicant Eric Smith said that he appreciated the work that Ms. Hopper and staff put in with them during this process. He said that he and his wife were in support of staff recommendations and asked for ARC approval. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Freeman said that the combination of the City, architect and owner’s work on the project turned out well, and that the frontage also looked great. Committee Member Placco agreed. Vice Chair Silva said that he believed vast improvements had been made over the plans that had been submitted prior and that the project underscored the importance of capable City staff. Chair Kimzey said that he believed that the aesthetics of the house were much improved, but that the opinion of City staff regarding the attractiveness of the property should not prevail over the homeowners’, even if the homeowner had peculiar or particular taste. He noted that the homeowner should have a right to meet the recommendations of the City within their preferences. Vice Chair Silva said that he believed a faux bay window should not be included in the new design. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the project as submitted, without the incorporation of a faux bay window as suggested in the Staff Agenda Report. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Rogers ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 5. Consider 751 Dry Creek Road; Tree Removal Permit 16-175 for the Removal of Three Monterey pine trees; Applicant/Owner Debby Majors-Degnan; R-1-10-D-1 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Section 15304 (Continued from July 6 and August 17, 2016 meetings). ACTION: Denied tree removal Permit 16-175 for the removal of three Monterey pine trees. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Urban Forester Stephen Morton explained that these situations are not absolute and that trees are organic beings. He said that he cannot know every way that they fail and cannot always predict their failures. He said that if the whole tree failed, it would do damage to the house. If only branches fell, it would not severely damage the property. He noted that the entire tree failing was an unlikely event. He explained the process by which arborists evaluate trees and their qualifications process, noting that it is a rigorous and serious one. Vice Chair Silva asked Mr. Morton why there were contradicting reports from arborists regarding the same tree. He said that it put the ARC in a precarious situation because they are not tree experts, yet they must make a decision regarding these trees relying on testimony brought before them. He asked if Mr. Ono’s standards were outdated. Mr. Morton said that some of Mr. Ono’s standards were valid, but more information had been updated since his report. He said that as for a more objective review of the tree, he believed it would not fall on the house. Committee Member Placco asked if Mr. Ono was qualified in the field of risk assessment. Mr. Morton said that there was a qualification process and that Mr. Ono had not gone through that specific process. Committee Member Freeman asked which type of trees Mr. Morton would suggest if the ARC gave the applicant permission to remove the larger of the two trees and replace it with four trees. Mr. Morton said that replacement trees should be large with evergreen tendencies such as magnolia grandiflora or cedar. He recommended planting three 36” box tree replacements. Chair Kimzey asked Mr. Morton to elaborate on pitch canker and this tree’s potential to transfer its good genetics of resistance to the disease to future generations of trees. Mr. Morton explained pitch canker and said that this particular tree’s resistance to pitch canker made it a genetically desirable to pass on through the natural pollination process to future pine generations. Applicant Debbie Degnan expressed concern regarding a number of trees in her neighborhood that caused extensive damage to homes and caused people to move. She said that she was 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 concerned that if the tree failed, it would negatively impact her business because she worked from home. She explained that she did not want to remove the tree for visual reasons, but for safety reasons—noting the tree’s proximity to the house’s gas line. She said that they would replace the tree with a large shade tree. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Silva said that despite the two conflicting arborist reports, he was inclined to concur with Mr. Morton’s report because of his qualifications. He mentioned Mr. Morton’s note that the tree was not failing and said that he believed this was the sensible report to follow. Committee Member Freeman agreed. Chair Kimzey agreed, noting that Mr. Ono had said in his report that the only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees was to eliminate all trees. He said that the tree appeared strong with no risk of damaging the house. Committee Member Placco agreed and said that the tree contributes quite a bit aesthetically to the neighborhood as well. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee denied tree removal Permit 16-175 for the removal of three Monterey pine trees. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Rogers ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 6. Consider Portola Plaza (Plaza Design); AR Permit 15-202 for Final Architectural Review of Portola Plaza Fountain and Revised Landscape Plan; Property Owner/Applicant City of Monterey; Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) Zoning District; (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) (Continued from August 17, 2016 meeting) ACTION: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Casey Starks with BFS Landscape Architects mentioned the notoriety of the chosen location in Downtown Monterey and said that it was exciting to create this unique design that alluded to kelp or schools of fish swimming through the water. She gave an overview of the project and why the location and materials had been chosen. She said that her firm had teamed up with John Dotto of Metal Specialties to complete the project. Committee Member Placco asked what the finished metal would look like. 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Mr. Dotto said that the finish would be something easy to maintain and that it would consist of silver, stainless steel metal pieces—some of which would be reflective and some that would be matte. Vice Chair Silva asked Ms. Starks if a more kinetic aspect had been explored for the treatment of the metal pieces, such as placing them on pivots to allow them to move freely with wind. Ms. Starks said that the pieces would appear to move and twinkle in the light and water, but that adding a kinetic aspect may also create additional maintenance concerns over time. Vice Chair Silva asked about lighting and jets for the fountain. Ms. Starks explained that when the water was not in use, there would be a separate lighting system that would consist of white LED lighting and would glow from within to create shadows and highlights on the sculpted metal pieces. She said that depending on budgetary restrictions, colored LED lighting may be a consideration. She noted that the jet shape and form would be more subtle. Chair Kimzey said that he would like more detailed renderings and asked for details regarding the specific operation of the fountain. Mike Bellinger with BFS Landscape Architects explained that the design presented to the ARC was conceptual and that Mr. Dotto, the metal fabricator would create the final design that would consist of both matte and high-shine pieces. He said that natural light as well as LED light would refract from the pieces and the openness of the sculpture would allow water to shoot up from the 23 programmable jets within the fountain. He explained that the fountain is a completely re-circulating design with no pool in the center, but rather water would drop down through center cobbles for reuse. He noted that there was a screen filter in the basin as well as a pump, to serve as a well-filtrated process to prevent leaves, pine needles, and other debris from entering the system. He also said that the minimum amount of water required by the State Health Department for a fountain such as this is 1,000 gallons. He said that the fountain would have a six inch, rolled curb to soften the look of the design and prevent vehicular traffic from entering the fountain area. Chair Kimzey expressed concern regarding large trucks and buses maneuvering the turnaround in the fountain area. Ms. Hopper and Principal Engineer Bob Harary explained that there was a dedicated delivery bay marked off with bollards for trucks and that corner landscaping had been evaluated to accommodate for vehicles with wide-turning angles. Chair Kimzey asked how much energy would be consumed by the fountain. John Hill of Ausonio Construction, Inc. said that once filled, the fountain would recycle water. He explained that the same amount of evaporation would occur as that used for landscaping. He noted that he was not sure how much energy would be used to power the fountain. Mr. Harary said that the grass and plantings around fountain were part of construction 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 package currently under way. He said that the interior portion of the fountain was pre- manufactured, whereas the outer portion was unique and designed specifically for this project. Chair Kimzey asked if the City would pay for the maintenance of the fountain. Mr. Bellinger said yes, that was his understanding. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Freeman complimented the design of the fountain said that the ARC had seen a number of concepts for the fountain that were not quite right for the area, but she believed this design was very fitting. She noted that the materials being used for planting were inexpensive and that the City should be able to plant two varieties of grasses and replace them at low cost if and when they failed. Committee Member Placco said that despite missing the first fountain proposals, he found this design very intriguing. He said that the proposed design was elegant and well- thought-out. Vice Chair Silva said that the design was wonderful in every aspect and he liked the natural influence, rather than a palatial look. He said that this was very appropriate to Monterey and its culture, but asked that the design team consider colored LED lighting. Chair Kimzey expressed concern regarding the overall completeness of the design and said that he would like to know the estimated cost to operate the fountain. He said he felt that information should be made available prior to a decision being made on the fountain. He noted that the night and day renderings did not appear similar to one another and that he did not see relevant symbolism to Monterey in the design, and that it did not comply with the Downtown Specific Plan or the design of Old Monterey. He noted that the materials used were not characteristic the materials seen and used in Old Monterey. He said that he would vote to deny the fountain based on the goals outlined in the Downtown Specific Plan. Committee Member Placco said that he respectfully disagreed and that he felt this was a highly appropriate design for the area and that it was referential to the history of Monterey. He said that he felt the fountain was a very soft-spoken and handsome piece. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Placco, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted. AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva, Placco NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Rogers ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Recess at 6:01 p.m. 8  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Reconvene at 7:00 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 7. Consider 836 Terry Street; Tree Removal Permit 16-282 for the Removal of One 43- inch Monterey Pine Tree; Applicant/Owner Marc Wilemon; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Section 15304 ACTION: Denied tree removal Permit 16-282 for the removal of one 43-inch Monterey Pine Tree. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Mr. Morton thanked the ARC for their consideration and keeping the best interest of the City at heart. He noted that in this situation, while the tree was in close proximity to the house, it would not need to be removed because it was not in danger of failing. He said that this tree was near the end of its ultimate lifespan, but that it had the potential to live another full generation. He said that he had inspected the tree thoroughly and saw that limbs had been removed, and that Cobra Tree Bracing had been installed in an effort to stabilize the two codominant stems. He expressed confidence in his decision and said that he had been working in Forestry with the City for 24 years and that because of the risk involved with his decisions, he always ensured the utmost meticulousness with his assessments. Committee Members asked about the roots of this tree impacting the foundation of the home, as well as general rooting habits of trees that grow near foundations. Mr. Morton said that the deck of the house indicated some movement, but that it could be adjusted by either shaving roots or cutting the wood around the deck. He said that the deck could be adjusted without harming the tree. He explained that roots are opportunistic and they follow various tropisms. He said that they will readjust to find water and noted that large trees that tend to be more root-invasive can sometimes live next to a building without disturbing the foundation, but it that each case was unique. Vice Chair Silva asked if a second tree had been located on the property at one point. Mr. Morton said that he could not find enough detailed evidence to indicate a second tree on the property. Chair Kimzey asked how important the Cobra Bracing System was to this particular tree and if it would be advisable to remove one of the codominant stems. Mr. Morton said that he would need to observe the tree in the wind to make that determination. He said that the device looked to be improperly-installed, but more importantly, dead branches would need to be removed. He explained that removing one of the codominant stems would most likely kill the tree. 9  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Applicant Marc Wilemon, a structural engineer and resident of Monterey for 14 months, said that he and his family were anxious about the placement of the tree in proximity to their home as well as its bifurcated structure. He said that he believed the Cobra Bracing System would ultimately fail and asked to replace the tree threefold with more beautiful trees that would improve the property value. He said that he and his family love the house as well as the city and that he gave credence to both Mr. Ono and Mr. Thompson for their reports. Public Comment Robert Ingram, the adjacent neighbor at 814 Terry Street for nearly 20 years, said that the tree was situated directly outside of his master bedroom window and expressed anxiety regarding its proximity to his home. He noted that while the tree had fared well during the previous year’s drought and winter storms, it was taking longer to rebound and more limbs were dying. He said that he believed the tree was actively declining in health and that he would like to plant new trees to prepare for the upcoming winter season. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Silva said that it was impossible not to sympathize with the homeowner, having a large and perhaps hazardous tree in such close proximity to their house. He noted that he would like to establish a baseline, and said that based on the testimony received by Mr. Morton, he would ultimately deny the application. Committee Member Freeman agreed and asked if this tree would be kept on a watch list. Committee Member Placco agreed and said that a precedent must be set, noting that Mr. Morton was an expert in this matter. Mr. Morton said that the City would not be able to monitor this tree unless a separate permit was applied for. Chair Kimzey said that he was in support of staff’s recommendation, but that he was sympathetic to the homeowner. He noted that neither Mr. Ono nor Mr. Thompson had come to the conclusion that this was a high risk tree and said that no living being is perfect. He said that if he saw evidence that the tree was destined to fail, he would support its removal, but he saw no evidence to support that cause in this particular case. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Placco, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee denied tree removal Permit 16-282 for the removal of one 43-inch Monterey Pine Tree. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Rogers ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 8. Consider 2 Upper Ragsdale Drive; AR Permit 16-344 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of New Core and Shell Medical Office Building (Building A) and Tree Permit 16-358 for Removal of 99 Oak Trees; Applicant and Owner Community Hospital Properties; I-R-150-D-2 Zoning District (CEQA Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration Previously Circulated and Certified) 10 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 ACTION: Approved the application with revisions to Special Conditions of Approval: 1) That the City Forester shall review and approve the planting and spacing on-site before the landscape planting phase of the project begins and 2) That the property owner shall maintain the replacement trees in a healthy condition for five years after planting and replace any diseased or dying tree(s) within that five year period. Also, that the City Forester will monitor this maintenance for compliance. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Silva asked if Mr. Morton agreed with the 1:1 tree replacement ratio given by the applicant or if he preferred a higher replacement ratio. Mr. Morton said that he was originally conflicted with the 1:1 replacement ratio, but the applicant had agreed to replace trees with larger box sizes so they will be sufficient for the re-vegetation of the landscape. Chair Kimzey asked Mr. Morton what role he had in the tree replacement schedule. Mr. Morton said that the original proposal had called for all five-gallon trees, but that point was negotiated on. He explained that the goal of planting a variety of tree sizes was to promote a high survival rate despite a difficult location with poor soil. He noted that larger, more mature trees sometimes do more poorly than younger trees because they have adapted to a particular climate for a longer period of time; whereas smaller, younger trees are more adaptable and have a higher chance of survival. Chair Kimzey noted that the resolution read that Mr. Morton would review all tree planting. He asked if it would be more appropriate for the wording to read that Mr. Morton would approve all tree planting. Mr. Morton said that after speaking with Mr. Bellinger, they had agreed to work together and approve siting for future trees at the location. He noted that the applicant had been cooperative regarding tree placement and that they had their own arborist on staff, so they would continue to collaborate. Chair Kimzey asked Mr. Morton about his role in the tree maintenance over time as outlined in the second Condition of Approval. Mr. Morton said that the City would inspect the trees each year, but after the initial planting, inspections would occur approximately every six months. He noted that he thought it was appropriate for the applicant’s arborist to take responsibility for tree maintenance while the City would monitor for compliance. Applicant Don Myers of Boulder Associates Architects presented the proposed project on behalf of Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP). He gave an overview of the proposed materials for the project as well as how the building would integrate with the remainder of the campus as an updated version of the other buildings on site. Mike Bellinger of BFS Landscape Architects said that 52% of the space would be retained as open space and that there were over 1,600 trees spanning the location. He 11 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 gave an overview of his discussion and agreement with the City to plant a variety of tree sizes and maintain the area, as well as monitor tree mortality. He noted that his organization was open to reconsideration of replacement trees if the tree mortality rate was particularly high after the first year of planting. Committee Member Silva asked Mr. Myers if he could discuss exterior lighting for the project. Mr. Myers said that the parking lot already had existing lighting from poles and bollards. He said that they were planning to add code-compliant exit lighting, but they did not plan to add any further outdoor lighting because of the proximity to the airport. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Placco said that he noted nothing controversial about the project, as it was already planned in an adopted master plan. Committee Member Silva concurred and said that the findings were easy to establish and complimented staff on the report. He advised that revisions to the resolution with respect to the City Forester and arborist monitoring of newly-planted trees be added. Chair Kimzey and Committee Member Freeman agreed. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Placco, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with revisions to Special Conditions of Approval: 1) That the City Forester shall review and approve the planting and spacing on-site before the landscape planting phase of the project begins and 2) That the property owner shall maintain the replacement trees in a healthy condition for five years after planting and replace any diseased or dying tree(s) within that five year period. Also, that the City Forester will monitor for this maintenance for compliance. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Rogers ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Silva said that he would like to work on the resolution honoring former ARC Member Terry Latasa’s service on the Committee. Ms. Hopper asked ARC Members to forward their thoughts to her for compilation. Committee Member Freeman complimented staff on their presentations. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Hopper said congratulations to the ARC, as the Lighthouse Specific Plan had been 12 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2016 approved by the City Council at their September 6, 2016 meeting. Chair Kimzey asked Ms. Hopper how to ensure the ARC would have a quorum at future meetings. Ms. Hopper asked that ARC members let staff know as soon as possible if they were aware of a possible absence and then explained the legal noticing process. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 13