Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board continues Pine Terrace appeal after hours of testimony and debate over notice, integrity and standards
Loading...
Summary
Owners and residents clashed at the Historic Resources Board hearing over whether Pine Terrace should remain on Carmel’s historic inventory; after extensive public comment and debate about process and character‑defining elements, the Board voted to continue the appeal to a date uncertain to allow staff follow‑up and potential peer review.
The Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Resources Board continued an appeal by the Pine Terrace Homeowners Association (HE 25065) after more than an hour of public testimony both for and against removing the property from the city’s historic inventory.
Staff told the Board that Pine Terrace — a multi‑building complex at the southwest corner of Mission and Third designed by George Willocks and added to the inventory in 2025 — was found eligible under Criterion 3 as a post‑war modern multifamily residential example. Staff summarized permit history (including reroofs, foundation and dry‑rot repairs, added bay windows, and a Carmel stone veneer installed in 2006) and noted that, under the local process, the intensive survey that led to the listing was initiated and completed before the property was added to the inventory. Staff presented two paths: deny the removal request or retain a consultant to peer‑review the applicant’s report.
David Bowie, speaking for the Pine Terrace board of directors, said the listing came as a surprise and framed the HOA’s petition as a due‑process and substantive objection: "To me, that's sort of a procedural and substantive denial of due process," Bowie said. Several other owners and residents told the board the complex has been substantially altered over decades and that the designation would impose burdens on owners seeking routine repairs or upgrades.
Opposing the HOA’s appeal, residents including Chuck Najarian, Jim Stevenson and others said Pine Terrace retains sufficient integrity in siting, circulation and a defining facade to remain on the inventory. Najarian argued the burden of proof lies with the appellant and that staff consultant Meg Clovis’s findings support retaining the listing.
Board members discussed both the substantive merits and the practical burdens of an inventory listing for a multi‑owner complex. Several members urged exploration of an administrative or objective‑standards path — similar to a model used for the Carmel Plaza — that could allow routine, like‑for‑like changes to be handled without full board review while still preserving character‑defining elements.
Staff confirmed that owners listed as the contact on the application receive notification when an intensive survey leads to a proposed listing; several speakers nevertheless said many owners felt they had not received timely notice. Staff also noted that any decision to remove a property from the inventory is appealable to the City Council.
Given the scope of concerns and the request for potential peer review (Meg Clovis reviewing the HOA consultant Kent Seabee’s report), a board member moved to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow follow‑up and to explore options such as a peer review and development of objective design standards; the motion passed on a roll call vote of Board Member Dyer, Board Member Galtieri, Board Member Villarris and Chair Kromen (yes); Board Member Goodhue was absent.
The continuance gives staff and stakeholders time to consider a peer‑review scope and any fee implications for a third‑party review, and to explore whether an objective‑standards approach might reduce repetitive review burdens for condominium associations while retaining local protections for character‑defining elements. The Board asked staff to report back on possible paths before the next substantive hearing.
