Lighthouse Cinema apartments

Supports adding residential units downtown to make it livelier, and asked the board to consider enticing the developer to include one affordable unit.

Lives directly across the street; objects to the added height, sight lines into his apartment, roof decks, parking exemption, short-term rental use of the existing unit, and construction/height compliance.

Lives across from the city parking lot facing the theater's back; says this is the third major project impacting her block and will block views, hurt property value, and erode Pacific Grove's character.

Project engineer for the development; says the theater is losing money and the team worked hard to design the addition without touching the historic exterior 'gingerbread,' asking for a financial chance to keep the theater alive.

The 11-year-old son of the owner, who helps at the cinema, said some days only $100–$300 come in and asked the board to approve the project so the cinema survives.

Cinema employee supporting the apartments; says the theater barely earns anything and staffing has dropped to two people, and argued the project balances preservation with progress and housing needs.

Also of 520 Lighthouse; wants the theater repainted in Victorian style to restore charm, and raised serious noise concerns about the proposed balconies facing Lighthouse Avenue.

The 12-year-old daughter of the owner asked the board to support the project so Lighthouse Cinema can stay part of the community.

Submitted a letter and questioned why off-street parking isn't required, noting the owner bought the theater and filed for apartments within about six weeks, and said a prior project of his on Grand/Laurel leased city parking but tenants park on the street.

The theater owner thanked supporters and critics, stressed parking exemption is state law, said the units are long-term rentals, and insisted the theater will stay open with the added income — calling it a business plan.