I will now call the role. It's a short group tonight. Um, Commissioner Stump
» here. >> Commissioner Sordy
» here. >> Commissioner Bernett
» here. >> Commissioner Mayor
» here. >> I'm here as well. and Vice Chair Barnett
and Commissioner Thomas are absent this evening. Please stand if you can and
join as Commissioner Stump leads us in the pledge.
» I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
As the planning commission conducts the meeting this evening, we encourage
active participation by the public, which is essential to democracy and the
important work of the planning commission.
Public input is very much welcomed and always considered. The public can
participate in a couple ways. Prior to a meeting, written comments about agenda
items may be submitted to staff. And during the meeting, there are two
opportunities for members of the public to participate. First, during the verbal
communications period, an individual may speak on a topic that is not on
tonight's agenda. Second, during the public hearing portion of tonight's
meeting, any member of the public may speak about an agenda item. If you wish
to address the commission tonight during verbal communications or on a public
hearing item, uh if you are on Zoom, please raise your hand. But if you are
here, could you please fill out one of these cards and get them to staff? That
way, I can call your name out properly. When you are called to speak, please
come up to the podium, speak directly into the microphone, and you will have
three minutes. We now will begin with the verbal communications portion of the
meeting during which members of the public are invited to address the
commission on any issue not on tonight's agenda.
Uh, I would like to add that we take no action on items discussed during the
verbal communications portion. And I have I have one card, George of the
Jungle.
Door to the jungle.
Birch tree. Okay. Um
the uh two two things that I want to kind of bring up. Um one is the what's
going on with uh Farley and WV VMA. It's in the town and everybody's talking
about the um um the fire, you know, the the difference between over 1,200 going
in under, you know, 600. And it's, you know, it's really not good news for the
town. And I just want you guys to plan for just in case they're planning on
something like a lot of people showing up and stuff like that. We we need to
plan for that stuff. Other thing is I I I gave you this soccer I mean uh the the
field. I don't know you do you guys got this? It's a the GMAX test and it's you
know I I just received this. I'm doing trying to do a real thorough job of
what's going on and I just want to point this out that 259 is incredibly high and
it it's just, you know, I'm I'm going to still look at it, but it's it's just
something that I want to point that out and uh you know, that's another thing
that might come back to haunt us if certain things are, you know, going
sideways on us. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for
the speaker? No, thank you. Um, it looks like I do have a second one. Linda
Swinberg.
Hi, I'm Linda Swenberg. Um, I guess this is somewhat related to the last speaker.
Um, I wanted to talk about trust between the town and the residents. I do trust
this town and I trust your process, but I'll be honest, my trust is wearing
quite thin. We've been through five planning commission hearings on a multih
hall assembly item. As public, we get three minutes and then you deliberate
and if we hear something that sounds kind of odd or that we have experience
on, obviously we don't have an opportunity to interject at that time
and that's just how the process works. But um it's really too bad when I heard
the numbers come up um at a previous meeting. It just didn't jive because I
had previous experience as a volunteer in the community as a house manager for
school plays. And when we have when we run those plays and set up the house,
you have to lock the chairs together, the folding chairs into groups of three.
I don't know if any of you have done that before, but that's in order to
ensure that there's an orderly exit process should an emergency happen. You
can't just have people out on the floor. You wouldn't be allowed to put as many
people in the room if you did not lock those chairs together. Um, so
unfortunately, you got the wrong information. That's
what it turns out. And it's not that the numbers changed. You got numbers from
earlier in the process. I do have a handout if you want. It might help you
understand. But the thing is that um basically you got information from the
beginning of a process that was supposed to happen uh and the beginning of
numbers that the building department was supposed to really have and to be able
to verify. I don't know where that disconnect happened, but it did. Um
anyway, My last concern of my my concern is
these probably people have been in an unsafe overpacked uh situation for quite
a while now. Um but my last concern is forward thinking forward looking
assuming this were a theater or any other assembly project. If seating has
changed from fixed or strapped chairs or anything like that to standing in which
is what happened. How will we know that in the future it will be handled
properly? We shouldn't have to wait for complaints.
If an inspector sees a situation that is not like it was before, they should be
asking questions. They should be entitled to do that. So, what I ask you
is um I respectfully ask you that you direct staff to create a simple
checklist for any assembly use change fixed to floor or to standing or sitting
on the floor. um requiring seating plans and all of that. Um like a simple
checklist. Okay.
» Yeah. >> Would you like
» Don't leave questions. Are there questions for the speaker?
» Okay. I do. You you've said different numbers a couple times, but I would like
you to clarify for our notes exactly which numbers you're referencing.
» Well, it's in the planning department's file for the particular project. I don't
have the numbers right here, but there are actually letters on um record now.
Are you referencing allowable occupancy of the space?
» Yes. >> Okay.
» Yeah. So, the different numbers, one of them is how many fish can you fit in a
can and the the final number is how many can actually get out in time,
» right? >> Okay.
» Yes. And feel free if you want to give the handouts to staff, they will share
them with us if you'd like. >> Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any other
questions? All right. Are there any hands raised on Zoom?
I'm going to assume no.
» There are no hands raised. >> Okay. Thanks. I wasn't really sure which
one of you I should be looking at for that question right now. So, all right.
We will move on to the consent calendar tonight. We have five items on our
consent calendar. Approving the draft minutes of the May 21st, 2026 planning
commission meeting. Special meeting. Approving the draft minutes of the June
11th planning commission special meeting. Approve the draft minutes of
the June 24th, 2026 planning commission meeting.
Approve the draft minutes of the August 12th, 2026 planning commission meeting.
and forward a recommendation to the town council on an ordinance amending chapter
29, the zoning regulations of the town code for Senate Bill 9 SB9 regarding
urban lot splits and two-unit housing developments in response to changes in
state laws. The proposed amendment to the town code are not considered a
project under section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality
Act and in accordance with the government code section 66411.7N
and 66452.21G 21G
Senate Bill 9 ordinance are not a project subject to California
Environmental Quality Act. Town Code amendment application A-26-00004.
Are there any speaker cards from the members of the public that may wish to
pull or is there anyone on Zoom with their hand raised?
» You do have a card for verbal. >> That's it. Okay.
» Or sorry for for the minutes. >> Oh, that's sorry. Yeah, you're right.
Okay. So, I do have a a card. Is this just to speak or to
» to speak on the consent calendar? >> Just to speak. Okay. Um Brown,
this is where the Brown Act started. I think you guys all know the minutes are
I think very important to at least document uh just a little little uh
phrases and stuff like that and you know at one point all all but Rob Stump uh
you know redid it. So, I'm I'm just saying, hey, uh the like the the May
21st one is is, you know, I I basically uh uh put it in the email and I, you
know, transcript it, you know, so it's it's it's part of what the last speaker
is, you know, I I'm just trying to put out the truth and it should, you know, I
I kind of filed the class action. I'd hope that maybe we get a I'm I'm to
suggest that we all sign a document. Hey, get one uh US district court judge
that's a senior that I've talked before. She actually let me speak. I'm I'm not
terrible speaker and I had a lawyer and but I was having problems with lawyer.
So, it's one of those things where, you know, if somebody that's that knows law
because my my this Brown Act was between, you know, town attorney and me
and uh it's it just ballooned. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? No.
» Any questions? >> Thank you.
Um do any commissioners wish to pull any item from the consent calendar?
Commissioner stop. It's not pull, but I was not present at the uh June 11th
special meeting, but I did watch every moment of it on YouTube.
» All right, Commissioner Bernett. >> Yes, I as well was not uh present for
the August 2026
planning commission meeting. Um I did watch it, however, so I feel good about
item number five and item one through three.
» All right. Thank you. Any further discussion or does anyone want to make a
motion? Commissioner Stomp. >> I move to approve the consent calendar.
» Second. >> Second.
» Commissioner Sordy. Is there any discussion? All right. Uh call the
question. All in favor? Passes unanimously.
All right. We will now move on to our public hearings starting with item
number six.
Okay, hold on. I want to make sure I just did
this right on my notes. I did. Okay. Consider a request for approval to
construct a new second story addition to an existing single family reference
residence on a non-conforming property zoned R18 located at 1 193 House Drive,
APN527-43-021,
architecture and site application S-26-007.
categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
section 15301 existing facilities property owner Nira
Goyell and applicant is Laura Cuda the project planner is Siri Nathan before
the staff report may I have a show of hands of those that have seen the
property I think we did this previously so all right and Mr. Nathan, you'll be
presenting the staff report this evening.
» I will. Thank you, chair. Um, good evening, commissioners. Before is an
architectural site application for a project located at 193 House Drive,
zoned R18 on June 10th of this year. The planning commission continued the item
to today's hearing with specific direction for applicant to scale down
the overall building mashing and increase the setback of the second floor
great room wall to break up the rear twotory vertical plane. The applicant
states in the letter of justification that they have met the commission's
directions by removing the second floor open space above the great room and
thereby reducing the structures overall massing by 22% and eliminating the need
for the second story wall setback. Additionally, the applicant revised the
plans to feature frosted glass garage door. While the town consulting I has
not evaluated the specific material change, staff notes that the town's
residential design guideline encourages this encourages the use of wood garage
doors. This concludes staff's presentation and staff will be happy to
answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you, Mr. Nathan. Are there any
questions for staff? Commissioner Stump,
» can I um ask about this garage door because it's
a little bit unique. Our residential guidelines call for wood or is it
woodlike wood simulated or is it truly they call for wood garage doors?
» Uh the res design guideline just states that it encourages the use of wood. It
also says it encourages the use of windows in the garage. Um that's it
doesn't go any further than that. >> Do we have experience with this type of
garage door in the neighborhood or um what's been the reaction or the response
to these kinds of garage doors in other locations?
» Um there have been doors of similar material that has been approved in the
past. uh usually in the building permit stage. Uh I'm not sure about this type
of garage within the immediate neighborhood or in the neighborhood.
» And through the chair, I can add also that um we see these types of garage
doors come up fairly regularly. Um often the consulting architect may express
some concern with it. Um when we are outside of a discretionary application,
we often work with applicants to ensure that one of the concerns that the
architect typically brings up, which is uh light bleed through um is that they
can put solid panels behind the glass. So from the exterior, it still looks
like you still get that look of that contemporary garage door, but it
eliminates the light bleed. That's one of the characteristics of these doors
that can be challenging. The other is that um whether the contemporary look of
that door is compatible with the neighborhood
» and other than it still doesn't comply with our residential guidelines, has
that been an acceptable fix for light bleed that we're at least aware of?
» Yes, we haven't I to my knowledge we don't get a whole lot of complaints
about these. >> Thank you.
» Right. Any further questions to staff? All right. And I will call up the
applicant to speak. I believe James Woodard or Oh, no. You okay? Sorry. Just
please state your name when you come up and if you get a chance later, just fill
out a card. >> Oh, there's two. Did I just grab the
wrong one? I did. Just go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead and state your name.
» Uh hello everyone. My name is Tika Ger. Uh and thank you for your time today. So
today I'll talk a little bit about our project. uh why it's important to us and
the changes in the design we've made to meet the recommendations and we're
looking forward to get an approval today. So why this project is important
to us. If you go to the next slide uh one more uh a little bit context
actually one less a little bit first context about our family. We are a
family of four me my husband and two kids. Uh one just started sixth grade uh
and the other one is in kindergarten. Uh going to the next slide.
The reason we live here is we love this neighborhood. We have been living here
since 2018. Our kids attend public school here. They have their closest
friends. We have built our strong relationships with neighbors. It's just
simply home for us. This the next one that's a picture of my daughter with her
friends in the neighborhood. And then the next one slide is the picture of our
little one. Uh if you go to the next slide that's them in the play lot next
to our house. And then the next slide has a picture of me with our community
in our backyard. And then the next one is a picture of needed with his friends
and family in our backyard. Going to the next slide. We believe in
peaceful neighborly living and community service. We both currently serve and
have served on several nonprofit boards. This is going to the next slide. This is
the list of those nonprofit boards. And today I'm not mentioning this to just
gain any advantage but just to share our principles that we believe in giving
back to this community. Now going to the next slide. What has prompted this
remodel? The context has changed a lot since we
bought the house in 2018. When we bought, we were a family of three and
now we are four. And then since Nero's dad passed away last year, his mom comes
to stay with us more often. So, we just simply need more space. Now going to the
next slide. We have I want to walk through the changes in the design we
have made to address the recommendations.
We believe we have addressed the massing and sizing concern raised by staff and
planning commission. Going to the next slide, the recommendation was to scale
down the overall massing to better match the neighborhood context. In the first
iteration itself, we reduce the overall size from 2600 ft² to 2,300 ft² to meet
the objective guideline. And today in our latest uh redesign uh it was uh
established in the last hearing that it's not a problem of twotory or floor
area ratio but the massing and as staff mentioned in this new redesign we have
removed the open space on top of great room reducing the massing by 22%.
Going to the new uh next slide you can see this was the old design and if you
go to the next slide you'll see the reduction in the mass is coming from the
illumination of that space. uh you going to the next slide you'll be
able to see also this was the old design from the front and then if you go to the
next slide you'll see the reduction significant reduction in massing from
the front as well we believe we have also met all the
consulting architects recommendations so uh the first recommendation if you go to
the next slide what uh one more please uh the first recommendation was to
extend the first floor eve and roof across the twotory wall and to set the
second floor uh great room wall back so in the first iteration itself we had
extended the eve and now that since we have eliminated the space above great
room so that a setback condition is met and if you go to the slides you can see
the old design and the new design uh where the eve and uh the set uh space is
that wall itself is gone. The second recommendation if you go uh was to get
more uniformity in the windows. Now in the first iteration itself we had done
that actually for all the windows except for one which was in the stairways and
that two we had left just for additional light light in the stairways. But now in
the second iteration we have addressed that window itself. So if you go to the
next slide this was the old design and going to the next slide you see a new
design with much uniformity across all the windows.
Quick uh uh quickly going to the next uh there were two more recommendations from
the consulting architect which were actually addressed in the first
iteration itself. So we can skip over the next two slides in interest of time
and get to the neighborhood context. Uh going to one more slide actually. So we
believe we are being a responsible neighbor. We have been constantly
communicating with all our neighbors on the design. We have shared design
printouts and today we have letter of supports from seven of our neighbors who
support this design and remodel for us. Some other quick uh points uh to
consider the house. Uh if you go a few more slides uh we can skip over the
letters I think. Um and one more slide. The house behind us with which we share
a fence is twotory. So we can go to the next slide and there are many more such
two-story houses just few uh houses down from us on our street. So, we have
attached all of those pictures and uh quickly with I know two seconds,
but if you go to the last slide uh or I can skip it because I know I'm out
of time. >> Does anyone have a question for this?
» I have a question. >> Well, Commissioner Bernett just raised
faster than you, so now you got to wait. >> Thank you. So would you have any
problems actually not putting uh keeping with the same kind of garage door that
is prominent in the neighborhood? >> Yes. So did you want to address the
garage door question >> to the question for the immediate
neighborhood in the neighborhood the glass door that we've put in the garage
it's like quite prominent and I think in our uh submission we have shared the
many houses sh having the same garage door but if it becomes uh a pertinent
question or the blocker we would be open to considering it but we have already
submitted few houses which have similar in the uh neighborhood. So, you're
saying you would not be interested in keeping it in the same look that it is
now? >> So, to rephrase what he just said, uh we
would uh respectfully ask for permission to keep the glass door design we have
offered, but if that's becoming a condition for approval, we'd be happy to
reconsider it. >> Thank you,
Commissioner Sordy. >> I was just going to ask the applicant to
go ahead and explain that last slide. >> Uh thank you. I really appreciate it. I
believe this was also a point brought up by Commissioner Saudi last time. So, um
we our house has a lot of natural shading. So, uh if Oh, I are you
referring to this slide or the slide after this? Sorry.
» I think it was that slide. It's your last slide. The one you didn't get to
present. >> Oh, yes. The one we didn't get. So, it's
one more slide down actually. Yes. Uh so going one more down.
Okay. Yes. So the house has a lot of natural shade and uh as you can see uh
this one we have the story poles up but you can hardly see them from the play
lot and actually there's one more slide where you can see even from the front
view. Uh going to one more slide the and there also the story poles are up but
they're hardly visible from the street. So the natural shade protects that view.
Any further questions for the speaker? No. All right. Thank you.
» Okay. So, I do then have a second card from James Woodard.
» So, James Woodard with Sego Designs. I'm the principal designer of the project
and I have a um comment card there just for answering any questions that may
come. >> Ah, okay. Thank you very much. Um I
don't have any other cards. normally you get, you know, time to come back and
make a closing statement. If you would like to, please go right ahead.
» I do appreciate that time. So, yes. Um, I just want to really summarize what I
already walked through. We love this neighborhood. We have built our home
here and our requirements and context have changed. We believe we have
followed all the recommendations of the staff, the consulting architect and the
planning commission. So, we're respectfully uh asking for an approval
today so we can continue to be a part of this community.
» Okay. >> Thank you. Are there any final
questions? No. And as I always do, I forgot to ask if there was anybody with
their hand raised on Zoom. I'm so sorry. >> No, there were no raised no hands raised
on Zoom. >> Okay. I will like put it bold and red.
Um, all right. We will close the public portion for this um particular item and
I will then ask my fellow commissioners, do you have any questions of staff or
would anyone like to make a motion before we can begin discussion?
» Sorty. >> Uh, I'll go ahead and make a motion to
approve the project. Um, I think the applicants made some considerable
changes. Uh most significantly, I think they have they um specifically requested
what we asked them to, which was to quote scale down the massing to improve
neighborhood compatibility and increase the setback of the second floor great
room wall to break up the two-story vertical plane. Um I think they've done
a significant amount of reduction in that massing. So I'll just um recommend
uh make a motion um to approve the project subject to the findings that the
project is categorically exempt. uh subject to the finding that the
objective standards of chapter 29 of town code have been met.
Um number three that the finding that the project is in compliance with the
residential design guidelines. Number four um considerations as required under
29.20.150 of the town code relating to
architecture and site application. And finally to approve the architecture and
site application S260007 with the conditions contained in exhibit
3 and revised development plans in exhibit 11.
» Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Mayor
» I'll second. >> All right. Thank you. Is there any
discussion? Commissioner Stump.
» And I I don't know if this question is really appropriate. I guess it's to the
fellow commissioners. Um, obviously with our residential design guidelines, it
talks about this frosted glass garage door and that it really is not a fit
with our residential design guidelines. I realize they're just guidelines. Uh,
but at the same time, uh, the the owners actually indicated a willingness to
consider something other than the frosted glass door if that would allow
for obviously approval. Um, and so I'm just trying to get a sense from other
commissioners, you know, and how [clears throat] they kind of feel about
the whole garage door issue because I'm not set on it. It's just something that
when you we look at our residential design guidelines and try and take them
seriously. >> I I will actually speak up on this um
because I will say um a few years ago I remodeled my home. My home has lights in
the garage and we worked with staff to make sure that they are frosted to a
point with shades that there is no light bleed. So I would trust
staff to work with them on a solution because they did with us. That would be
my personal opinion. Yes. Does anyone else have any Commissioner Bernett?
» Yes, I tend to agree with Commissioner Stump. Um, I think going through the
neighborhood, I think it was uh predominantly a a more of a condition a
traditional garage door. And I think that they I congratulate them for making
the changes. And I think it'd be a small request to keep with the uh the keeping
of the neighborhood and the keeping of our residential design guidelines which
is uh clearly outlined that uh is we encourage to use wood garage doors and I
think this um would have a much better uh effect with overall look of the home
and the neighborhood. So, I would support a friendly amendment to uh the
maker of the motion, but um that that would be my suggestion.
» To the maker of the motion, is that an amendment you wish to make?
» Well, not quite ready to make it. I guess I want to understand what design
guideline we're um addressing because maybe I missed it
in the staff report.
The residency design guideline is 3.4.3. It states that uh to integrate garage
door into the design with appropriate details, wood doors are encouraged and
windows in garage doors are encouraged and it doesn't really go beyond that in
terms of describing. >> So the second part was specifically wood
door. >> Wood doors.
» It calls out the material. >> Yeah.
» Okay. Um, well, I think the applicant
expressed uh a willingness to do that and since
it's a residential design guideline, I guess I'm happy to make the friendly
amendment. >> Does the seconder agree?
» Yes. >> Yes.
» Second. [laughter] >> All right. Um, quite honestly, for
discussion, I I don't agree. Um, I also think that that is one of our guidelines
that needs to be updated. I think that there are a lot of situations where wood
is not appropriate. Um, and more modern styles are coming out, but it's just one
part of the motion. So, I will be supporting the motion. Is there any
further discussion? Sure. >> Commissioner Mayor?
» Yeah. On that uh design guideline, did you say that uh it's encouraged to use
wood garage doors with uh windows in the in the door itself or
in the garage? What's what is it specifically?
» Right. Thank you. Yes, it says u windows in garage doors are encouraged. It's
another bullet point. >> So, can that be part of the motion uh to
the maker of the motion that is wood door with windows in in the door f?
» Yes, I would definitely want a wood door with windows. Okay. [laughter] So, I
kind of think of that as coming standard these days, but uh let's clarify it for
that. Sure. >> Through the chair. I mean, I think so.
The wood is encouraged. we other rather or other than in
historic districts hardly ever see wood. They're typically metal rollups that
have um windows in them. Um but just just for the commission's information.
Um obviously wood's encouraged, so you can feel free to do that, but just want
to make sure that you understand that as well.
» That's a good point. Um,
I mean, as we talk through this, I do acknowledge the fact that
very often nowadays, um, garage doors have a wood appearance, but they're
metal, right? And so, that just kind of leave it open-ended as to the material.
And I do feel now a little bit like I'm being a little too ownorous by requiring
wood. So, um, is it too late to I'll go back to my original motion. I
think that I I I do now that we discuss it and we kind of work through it, I
think it's important to give the applicant the opportunity to have design
freedom and be able to um do what they want with the garage door. So, I'll
stick with my original motion. >> Is this acceptable to the seconder?
» Uh no, I you are not the seconder. [laughter]
» I want to be the second. >> I know, but you're not. So,
» uh yeah, I'm okay with that. as long as uh there's language uh in the motion to
um you know implement a design to prevent the light bleed from through
through the through the glass. >> Yeah. Yes.
» Okay. And then that I think they can work with staff on that the light bleed,
right? >> Yes.
» Okay. >> Is there any Okay.
» Okay. Thank you. Is there any further discussion?
» So my issue is that it's a frosted glass garage door. Now, it can it doesn't need
to be wood, but it needs to be similar to the other garage doors in the
neighborhood and with windows at the top. My issue is that of a a frosted
glass garage door and with our design guidelines are is not appropriate. And
right now, that's what we're following is our design guidelines. They haven't
been updated yet. So that I would continue to want to uh you know further
explain what my issue would be and I don't know if the maker of the motion
and the second maker of the motion uh would go along with that or not. Um
» no I don't agree. Sorry. Commissioner Sto.
» And I I certainly don't see this as a black and white issue, unfortunately,
because even as I saw that our recommendation is for a wood garage
door. My reaction was, "Wow, that's so yesterday." Uh because wood garage doors
are very heavy. Uh you typically never see them in a rollup door any longer.
But there are garage doors that are made to look woodlike. I'll put it that way.
They certainly can't replace Well, some of them do. Some of them are really
really good and have windows etc in them. And so um I'm just going to go
with the technicality kind of nothing personal but I'm going to stick with you
know the idea that it should be woodlike even though it's not wood you know and
they certainly have the right to put windows in it but I I won't vote for the
motion as it is. >> All right.
» But I understand. >> Okay. Okay. Any further discussion?
» All right. I will call the question. All in favor?
Right. Opposed? Motion passes two to three. Are there
any appeal rights on this item? >> Yes. The decision of the planning
commission can be appealed to the town council by any interested person as
defined by town code section 29.10.020 within 10 days on forms available online
with fees paid. The appeal is due by 100 p.m. on the final day if it is a Friday.
» All right. Thank you. We will move on to item number seven. Consider an appeal of
the community development director decision to approve a request to
construct a second story addition exceeding 100 square feet to an existing
single family resident on property zoned R-120
PD located at 695 Bnel Road APN 40703006
minor residential application MR-26-001
categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
guidelines section 15301 existing facilities. Property owners
Ronald C. Eddington Jr. and Marjgery Eddington. The applicant is James Hec.
The appellant is is Dale Drum and the project planner is Sean Mullen.
Can I get a show of hands of who have
Okay, sorry. It's getting instructions. All who have visited the property. There
we go. Is there any are there any disclosures? All right. Seeing none,
you like threw me for a curve by handing me cards in the roll that um Mr. Mullen,
will you be giving us a staff report on this?
» Yes, and thank you. Uh before you this evening is an appeal of the community
development director's decision um approving the second story addition on
the Biknel residence. The minor residential development application was
reviewed by the town, including the town's consulting architect. The
applicant responded to all the consulting architect's recommendations.
In the course of the application review, the neighbor also expressed some privacy
and massing concerns to which the applicant responded by revising the
project um including eliminating the exterior staircase, incorporating a
privacy wall on the balcony, and incorporating trelluses to break up the
two-story mass on the side elevation. Uh the application was deemed complete and
given uh the applicant's response to the recommendations and the neighbor
feedback, the director approved the minor residential development
application on June 26th. Um that decision was appealed to the planning
commission by the neighbor on July 1st. In their documentation, the appellant
contends that the proposed second story addition would adversely affect the
privacy of their rear yard and pool area and result in visual impacts to their
property. Uh following the filing of the appeal, the applicant submitted a
written response addressing the issues which is included um with your staff
report and to that an additional letter from the appellant uh responding to the
applicant's letter is also included with your staff report. Um this was a brief
discussion but the complete discussion of the appeal is also included in your
staff report. So based on the reasons provided in your report, it is
recommended that the planning commission deny the appeal of the community
development director's decision approving uh the minor residential
development application. Uh this concludes staff's presentation and we
are available to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Mullen. Are there any
questions of staff? Right. None. Commissioner Sordy,
» I just had a couple questions about setbacks. I think this is an R120 zoning
district, right? Which is larger lots and um I didn't see it in the staff
report. Um what is the minimum sideyard setback in R120?
» But believe that's 15 ft. I'd have to double check, but if you give me one
second, I'll check for you. >> Okay. Um
does it apply to pools and decks? >> Um that's a good question. No, it
doesn't apply to pools. Pools have their own um setbacks and pool equipment have
their own setbacks. Those can definitely project into a 15t setback on the rear
and and then decks. It really depends on the height. Um it's I won't it gets a
little bit complicated. Um but typically decks can project a certain distance
into required side and rear setbacks depending on the height. So a deck
that's close to the ground can go anywhere. Um once you get above I think
two feet it starts to pull back from the side setbacks and above the above six
feet it's it pulls back more from the setback
» and so the uh there's no setback that pertains to the pool itself the the
water line it's the same in other words >> yeah there is a setback for pools um I
can look that up as well I believe it's well I won't quote it um but and it's
measured from the coping line >> okay but it's not the pool water line.
The pool itself wouldn't be need to be outside the 15t setback. It could be it
could extend into it. >> It could extend into it. It has um and
it's not zone specific. Uh it's just a static distance from a property line.
» Right. Okay. Thank you. >> Are there any further questions to
staff? >> I'm going to ask a clarifying question
because I feel like this goes back and forth. Appellant then applicant.
Correct. Okay. and then closing with a applicant then appellant.
» Thank you. All right. So then I will call um Dale Drum.
» Uh good evening. My address is 697 Bnell Road. Um I know you've seen all the
documentation. Hopefully you've read it there. Um, my biggest concern is the
second story. Um, although it's 15 feet, maybe a little bit more back with a
setback, it's still towering over our backyard. And I've met with them and I
thought the best thing to be um would have the second story set back a minimum
of five feet. I was a real estate developer. I've built homes in Lascatus,
Saratoga, um Campbell. Um it was very typical even
here in Lascatus and it's even your design guidelines when you're building
next to a residential neighbor. The best thing on a second story uh addition to
break up the mass would be to set it back 5 ft. So that's what I'm
requesting. I'm not having any hassles with how large their building is or
anything um that they are building there. Um but my biggest concern is that
when we come out of our backyard is going to be towering over everything we
have. It doesn't just affect me down from me because the road curves. My
other neighbors are affected. And I believe you got a letter also from my
adjacent neighbor at 100 Smith Creek that also was concerned about looking
over and see the big flat stuckle wall. So what I'd like to see the commission
do was follow the guidelines and see if you can't have the second story set back
5T. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for
the speaker? Commissioner Stump. So then it's no longer a privacy issue
for you. It's more of a sight issue. >> It's both. Um it's privacy in that it
would be towering over the top of us. When we're in our pool, we're going to
be looking up, if you can imagine, 22 feet in the air to their structure. Um
there's a photo that I brought you. If you look at that where you see the red
line right now, that's where the setback is. So that's where the current single
story is. That whole entire second story portion is going to move forward to that
red line and go up straight up. So, it's going to be towering over my
property.
» Commissioners had a chance to take a look at what we were given.
» Okay. Mr. Stump, you had a follow-up. >> Yeah. on the privacy aspect as I recall
in here that they were proposing to put up a trellis that would
» they have a large deck across the back and they were proposing to put a trellis
on the front of it so that we couldn't see people walking on the deck. That was
nothing I asked for, something that they decided to do.
» Originally, originally they had the deck all the way to the setback line and the
stairs going down in the setback. So after some discussions, they removed the
stairs, they pushed the uh deck back a little bit, and then now they've added
the trellis. There is a trellis on the structure. We'll never see it because of
the neighbor fence that's between us. It's too low.
» So then the trellis from your perspective provides no benefit to you.
Privacy, >> nothing at all.
» Any other questions, Mr. Sordy? So in that handout that you
gave us, I think there's a red line. >> That red line shows where the current
single story comes down. That's at the setback line. And then if you envision
that back section of the twotory is all going to move forward to that red line.
» Well, when you say move forward to the red line, it's not really in plan view.
It's move. Yeah, >> I'm still confused about what it's
showing us. Well, if you envision that picture, just take that back portion and
bring it all the way forward. I'm not an architect, so I can draw that up.
» I guess I see what you're saying now. Just
» But that's where it's going to be. >> Yeah.
» And then it's going to look like the pages attached.
So, there's my version of what it would look like. I drew up a design uh what I
would love to see it look like, >> and then they have their design. Another
question in my notes. I I thought I had written down that you had asked in pre u
prior correspondence with the applicant that it be moved back three feet and
then now you're asking for five foot. >> Well, that's what you're the if we go by
the town's guideline it's five. In my past everything has been five and then
originally I talked to them I said it could be two to three but the farther
back it is the better.
» Okay. Thanks. Any further questions? Um, so I would
like to ask you a little bit about the engagement.
Were you notified earlier on? Were you at any meeting or did somebody come and
speak to you about the project or in reading your letters, I was just trying
to come up with that sort of the timeline?
» Yes. When they put the sign up on their property, that was the first time I knew
that they were going to build this addition. So then I went online and was
able to look at the drawings that the city had online.
And following that, were you able to have
» Following that, we got together and talked to them and that's when we got
the first email that I sent to them after looking at the plans asking them,
these are the things that I don't like. >> Were there any follow-ups after that or?
» Yeah, we've talked several times about what changes we could make and that's
how it came into uh the deck being pushed back and the stairs and a few
things, but nothing on the massing of the structure. So they have have they
seen this proposed? >> I sent that to them as an email. So I
attached the email on one of my letters. It's exactly what I sent him was a quick
sketch I did in five minutes and said this is what I'd like to see it look
like. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. That helps.
Any further questions? All right. Thank you.
So I will now call the applicant Marjorie Eddington
or Mr. Edington. Oh,
» I'm the Hi, good evening. I'm the designer of the project. I've been
working with the homeowners and with all of the the decisions to make all of the
support changes possible to supply anything we can do to supply for the
neighbors. Worked extensively with Sean. I'm in my 21st year of doing
architectural designs. I've had several council meetings as well. In my 21 years
of doing this in service, I have never had a client so apt to try to please
their neighborhood ever. So, I just really want you to understand that we
have been trying. We've had five different design changes. We've uh one
of the things that they have, as you mentioned, being a 20 lot um zone, it is
a very large lot. The rear yard does have a tennis court. They do have a
swimming pool on the opposite side of Dale. They do have a trampoline. It is a
sloped hill. To be accurate, the addition is 17 1/2 ft away from the
property line. In addition, we did a light study. We showed that in two
different seasons of time and two different times, the shade from this
addition will not encroach on the neighborhood and the neighbor for Dale.
We have then immediately tried to accommodate by having trees put in. We
hired an arborist to rely to look into a possible tree to give more shade and
more support for privacy. In doing so, we found that there's a tremendous
amount of aqueduct and drainage that goes right down the middle of that side
and the fence for the hillside and water drainage. So, no trees are really
applicable. However, we also then moved windows higher. That bedroom that's
going to be moved is a bedroom. It is not a playroom or an an access room.
that would be something that would be looking down during the day of the play.
It is a bedroom. So in in in helping them, we also raised and minimized the
windows so we could have light and ventilation in the bedroom, but we made
them so that they were higher than height level so view in from that room
would not encroach on the neighbor as well. We then looked into moving the
addition further back. What happens is is due to the construction of making
that addition, we need to extensively spend more money to reassure the house
because because there is already a second addition already. There's already
a second story there, but making it all the way to the perimeter helps cost for
the down to the foundation. So, we're we're looking at trying to tell the
neighborhood as well as you that we have done almost everything possible. We do
meet the guidelines. One of the things that Dale talks about not meeting the
guidelines is regarding to the front and our front elevation meets all the
guidelines. We meet all of your architectural reviews. We meet all of
the FRA zonings and limitations and square footage maximums for this
project. We kindly hope that you'll decide to let this do this project.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for
the speaker?
» Did you have a question? Sorry. Okay. Okay. Um, I don't think they do. I I do.
So, I want to clarify. Um, just so I'm clear, I'm looking on sheet A4
» where it has the second story, >> the floor plan.
» Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Um, so if I was measuring off the edge of the addition
off the bedroom to your property line, you I think you said 17 and 1/2 ft, but
I want to make sure I got that right. >> Yeah, you could look on sheet A1, the
site plan. It'll have the actual dimension.
» I just have to make it really big. Yeah.
» Okay. Thank you. That actually answers what I
needed. There any further questions? >> Okay,
Commissioner Shorty. >> 17 foot 7 in.
» I had a question. may end up being for staff. But um so what was the impetus
behind engaging Jeremy Khan um who I think is listed as the town
arborist, but then at in the email it says
um fire department planner 5, something like that. I was just curious to know
who engaged that person and was that part of town review or is it the
applicant or >> So I can answer part of that question.
Um the town arborist, the acting town arborist is a consultant firm um that
has a number of arborists and different professionals on staff. Um Jeremy is I
think I got his name right. Um that's his title, but he's a certified arborist
is my understanding. And the applicant or yeah the applicant may be able to
answer why they engaged them, why they initiated that.
» You want do you want to hear >> this is so wait just to clarify from
staff. So that that is an employee of a consulting firm that serves as a town
arborist. >> Currently they serve as the town
arborist. Yes. >> Okay. Got it.
Okay. Thanks. >> So we called the town arborist because
we wanted to because of the privacy issue and to try to break up a flat
wall. We wanted to put the um trees there and they wanted us to put it
closer to our property to the new addition but we have a drainage system
there. So, we contacted Jeremy and he said, "Oh, well, you can't put it
there." And he said, "Because of the other trees and there's no room." So,
then I said, "Well, we could go ahead and put vines. I'm happy to do whatever
we can in that 4ft planter." I suggested tall trees and they said, "Well, we
don't want the trees to be too tall." So, I don't know how then to break that
up. So, then we there was a thing. There was trelluses. We have a trellis that
provides um privacy on the balcony and then we have trelluses on the first
story above the sliding glass door in the window to break up the flat wall
which was in the town guideline. So I asked if they would be able to see them
and he said yes we would be able to see them because they have a raised living
room. Otherwise we would not have put in the trelluses on the lower story. I
would have been happy to put in um some of those ornamental like Juliet
balconies or whatever they might be up there as well. Um so I'd be happy to put
in those, but we did ask Jeremy for advice because we wanted to do what was
appropriate for the town and to try to help the neighbor and we don't want
anything that will fall into his pool. >> Okay. Do you have any further questions?
I do. Um Oh, sorry. Do you have one, Commissioner Mayor? Yeah, I just sorry a
clarifying question uh for the applicant and the designer. Um can you uh repeat
again how far is the second story wall away from the property line?
» 17' 7 in. >> 17 foot 7 in. Thank you.
» So, um I I just want to clarify some of the conversations then that you've had
to sort of understand, you know, there's a concern about privacy. Sounds like
you've guys have been, you know, making concessions where you have. Sounds like
you spoke to an arborist about potential trees or vines. Have you been able to
land on a solution that you you think will help provide that screening on his
side while you are able to maintain your design?
I would have to take one more step with the arborist because he said there were
no trees. He just thought vines could go in the forefoot. I was so no because he
said the flat the drum said the the trees were not a concern. It was the
flat wall. So, I'm not I'm at a I'm stuck as to I'm happy to do trees that
we can plant in a 4 foot raised bed next to the fence. I'm happy to do that. I
don't know if there's trees that will run into the drainage system. I'm happy
to put in vines that can climb as tall as possible.
» Okay. All right. Great. Thank you very much. Any further questions? All right.
Thank you.
So at this time, do we have any speakers on Zoom?
» There are no hands raised on Zoom. >> Okay. I don't have any further cards,
which usually means now the appellent can No. God knew I was
going to do that. You get an opportunity to say anything further if you would
like. I know. I tried. I'm sorry.
We have wanted to do this project since we first bought the house and life
happens and now we have the funds and so asking us to pull it back another 5T
would be difficult to do because of the structural concerns. Um I did just as
far as talking with them as soon as the town said that we needed to talk to them
we went out of our way to talk with them. Um I did not know that in a
backyard edition I would have to do that. So, please forgive my naivity, but
I have done everything, my husband and I have done everything that we can short
of bringing that wall back. We also had
another option that we tried, which was, well, what if we attach, you know, make
it look Dale suggested we could keep the first story roof line coming down and we
talked to our architect and our contractor and they said that would be
cost prohibitive as well. So, we tried both designs to do that. Um, I don't
want to look over their yard, which is why we have their privacy trellis up
there. I I don't want to do that at all. Um,
and the neighbor next to them, we can't see them from our yard, so I'm not quite
sure how they can see us, but that's okay. um the one on 100 Smith Creek who
also has a flat wall and a lot of people have flat walls. So we really would love
to go forward with the project. We have our contractor been waiting for a long
time. We have been waiting for a long time and we feel we have gone out of our
way to do almost everything while still maintaining the integrity of what we
would like for our home and our family. >> Thank you. Any final questions? All
right. Thank you. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Sordy did. Sorry.
» Um, so just in reading the correspondence, I think I I ended up in
my notes listing five things I think that you've done, and I just want to
make sure they're still part of the project. It says, number one, remove the
entire set of exterior stairs from the balcony to the ground.
» Yep. >> Number two, shortened the rear balcony
by 4T on both sides of the house to decreasing the overall length and moving
it away from their yard. >> Yes. Um the third one was put in a
privacy lattice on the end side of the balcony facing their property so we
cannot look down on their yard. >> Yes.
» Fourth is we reduced the width of the rear facing window closest to them um
which does not look toward them by 2 feet. So it is now on our side of the
privacy lattice. And then finally, um, the fifth one made the windows on the
southside facing them smaller, raising them to be above head and eye level so
that they would not overlook their property, but still have light and cross
breeze. Those are all still. I just want to make sure those are all
» and we put in the those lower lower trelluses. We don't need the lower
trelluses if they're not going to affect them. Um, but we did put them in to help
break up that look. >> Okay. Thank you.
Right. Any further questions? No. Thank you very much. And now the appellant can
come back up.
Uh just want to say that one of the reasons we're pushing for the second
story setback is also because you just heard from them. They cannot ever plant
a tree next to this thing. So, it's going to always be one big flat stuckle
wall that I look at in planting anything. Since we have a pool next to
the fence, I really don't want something someone planting a tree in that little
4ft area because all the roots are going to end up damaging our pool. So, that's
one of the things the easiest way is to set the building back resolves the
massing makes it look better. You see a little bit of roof line. It's always
been done in the past by me and by a lot of the projects even in this city that
we did in the past and I'm not sure why it doesn't happen here. This is my wife.
She wants to add a few comments. >> Hi Monique Drum. I just wanted to I
don't know if anybody realizes that um Could you move a little bit closer to
the microphone so we know they pick you up? Thank you.
» Sorry I'm not used to public speaking. Um that the property in question is
relatively flat. it does raise up a little bit. Our property, however, has a
very large hill that begins um I don't know what is it like 20 ft 20 ft from
our um back door. And so we don't have as much usable property. I mean that's
why our pools on the side of the house. We didn't put it there, but we bought it
that way and that's where the only place it could really be. So, our gathering
area is directly outside our back door and it's about 15 feet to the where the
hill starts and then, you know, not even the width of the property. I just want
to point that out because it's it's though the properties look really large,
we don't have um as much accessibility um to entertain or or use because of the
giant hill in the backyard. >> Our property is also 24,000
» be closer. Yeah, our property is also 24,000 square feet. It's just most of
our property is not usable. Halfway up our property, we have a fence so our dog
can be in there. The rest of it, just like all of our neighbors, they're all
halfacre lots. They're all open so the deer and everything can roam through and
not be hindered. Um, theirs is one of the few properties that's flat and
theirs is fully fenced. >> Thank you.
» Are there any questions? >> No. Thank you very much.
All right. I will now close the public portion of the hearing for this item um
and invite my fellow commissioners to ask questions of staff or make a motion
so we can begin discussion.
Okay, Commissioner, >> I'll make a motion. Uh, I'll make a
motion to uh deny the appeal of the community development director's
decision to approve a request for approval uh to construct a second story
addition exceeding 100 square ft uh to an existing single family residence on
property zoned R-120 PD APN 40703006
categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
section 15301 existing facilities ities. Uh, property
owners Ronald Eddington Jr. and Marjgerie Eddington, applicant James
Hec, appellent Dale Drum, project planner Sean Mullen. I can make the
findings required finding for SQA. The project is categorically exempt pursuant
to the adopted guidelines for the implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act section 15301 existing facilities. Uh, required
compliance with the zoning regulations. The project meets the objective
standards of chapter 29 of the town code and I can make the finding required
compliance with the residential design guidelines. The project is in compliance
with the residential design guidelines for single family residences not located
in hillside areas. >> Thank you commissioner. Is there a
second? Commissioner Bernett second that.
» All right. Thank you. Is there any discussion or does anyone want to make
an alternative motion?
I'll begin discussion. I'm going to support the motion. I do think that the
applicants have done a lot of work to address issues um that have come up
particularly around privacy. Sounds like there's been a number of changes made.
Um I'm sure that they could work on something like Ivy to break up a a wall
or something like that, but um I feel ultimately it's a nice design. um lines
up well with interest of the neighborhood. Any other comments or
Mr. Sorty? >> I'll just make a quick comment. I do
think that the um the applicant has made considerable effort. Um one of the
things that's compelling to me is that there's the difference in grade and I
think the subject property is above um and I understand that. But given the
proximity of the addition and um the addition of privacy lattice, I do see
that as potentially screening the view um it certainly isn't going to remove
visibility of the whole addition in the entire bulk and mass. But I think it it
definitely given the lower grade to upper grade and the proximity of the
pool area to the addition. I think it is going to go part of the way toward
screening the view. So I think that um that helps a lot and I'm going to
support the motion. >> All right. Thank you. There are no
further commissioner Mayor. >> Yeah, I'll just make a couple comments.
I agree it's a I think it's a tasteful addition. Uh well executed. Um it's
beyond the setback by a couple feet. Uh you did everything right with regard to
being considerate about privacy with the clear story windows and the lattice on
the deck. So um usually when there are privacy issues, those are the sort of
strategies that we recommend and you've already implemented them. So, thank you.
» Right. There's no further discussion. I will call the question. All in favor?
Passes unanimously. Are there any appeal rights for this
item? >> Yes. Thank you. The decision of the
planning commission can be appealed to the town council by any interested
person as defined by section 29.10.020 within 10 days on forms available online
with fees paid. The appeal is due by 100 p.m. on the final day if it is a Friday.
All right. Thank you. Um, if it's okay with you guys, can we take a three
minute break? All right. We're going to take a very
quick break. Thank you.
Step
All right. Thank you everybody. Call the uh meeting back to order. So we are now
going to move on to other business. Discuss the town council's direction on
the work plan for the historic preservation committee and the
evaluation process used to determine the significance of pre-1941 residences. The
planning commission's discussion is not considered a project under the adopted
guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
And Mr. Mullen, will you be giving us the report on this?
Yes, thank you. On December 2nd, 2025, the uh town council provided direction
to staff to evaluate the level of effort and feasibility of the following items
related to historic preservation in the town. preserving small homes, reviewing
the boundaries of the historic districts, refreshing the Bloomfield
survey, considering replacement structures, um historically relevant,
adopting pre41, uh to 70-year rolling, uh dates, and
updating and clarifying definitions and required findings for determining
historic status. The council asked staff to return after the objective design
standards update for multifamily and mixeduse residential projects was sub
substantially completed. Um this process is still going on and going to the
council on September 1st um for consideration.
As such, staff has not begun to evaluate council's direction regarding historic
preservation. On February 25th of this year, the planning commission chair
requested that an item be added to an agenda for a discussion of the council's
direction and evaluation process used to determine the historic significance of
pre-41 structures. For the benefit of the public, I'll remind folks that this
is a discussion and uh item only and no action will be taken this evening, nor
direction provided to staff as we're waiting for council's direction. But
your discussion this evening, the minutes of this uh and the video will be
ava made available to the council when staff returns to council um with our
evaluation of these uh the the work needs for these items. Um staff's
available to support your discussion and we'll try and have some uh visual
presentations to help guide that. >> All right. Thank you. Are there any
questions of staff at this time? All right.
And I have two cards. David Zikovich. Did I say that right? I didn't think I
would. I'm sorry. I know. You know, by now you should know to put the phonetic
for me every time. >> By now you should know me.
» It's good. That was a great comeback. Thank you.
» Okay. I I'm just here to hear what you guys have to say tonight and kind of
curious why you guys don't sit down here with a whole bunch of architects and
builders and review the feasibility of the things that you're trying to come up
with. Any questions?
I don't Anyone have any questions? No. Okay. Sorry. Commissioner Sto.
» Well, I think you anticipated one of the things I was going to be talking about
tonight, which is including that group of people. And you know, I we do include
um people in those conversations. But in my from my standpoint, it is critically
important that we include voices like we got something from um Bess Weisma uh
back in June. And I thought what was written was, you know, incredibly
important and things that we need to make sure we're taking into account. And
so I believe that, you know, that is absolutely got to be a part of the
process. >> A majority [clears throat]
» there wasn't a question in there, but you can just say hooray. Yay. Well done.
Uh, the majority of the work, architecture and construction, is done
by maybe 10 builders and 10 architects that work in town all the time. Probably
check in with Sean on that one. Um, so I just don't know why you wouldn't get
their input on on what it is you guys are trying to achieve.
» Right. Any further questions of the speaker? No.
» Thank you. >> Thank you.
» And the next card is Vesma.
Um, good evening, commissioners. I know I know several of you from many years of
doing houses um, in town and I appreciate the opportunity to kind of
just speak on this subject. Um, again, as a local residential architect that
does a lot of projects in historical districts and immediately adjacent
historical districts, um, this is a really passionate topic for me and, uh,
I know that some of you know how passionate I am about it. Um, part of it
is a personal passion. Um, I love what I do and I love working in this town and
part of it is my job as an architect to advocate for my clients. And sometimes
that means I have to get passionate about what I present and do. Um, I
wanted to just reiterate some of the things that I said in the letter and I'm
not going to kind of go into it, but I I do really want uh there to be very
specific um guidelines for you guys to tell the town on how to incorporate um
local architects and builders. I think we all talk about that we want to be
included. I think that often we hear, "Hey, we reached out or you should be
included or we said we would include you, but the way in which we're included
or participate is not always um creating anything that facilitates positive uh
conversation nor results. Um it's very hard for us when we are noticed at a
last minute. We all run businesses, um, small businesses, um, and so we'd like a
little more notice and we'd like a little more time and we'd like some,
we'd like some opportunity to maybe talk about it in several different, uh,
meeting times, maybe not just one. Um the recent thing that a lot of us
participated in related to uh some of the new housing mandates where there was
a a company that was hired to facilitate these uh Zoombased things was um frankly
very impersonal and a lot of the questions uh were not really appropriate
necessarily for single family residents compared to uh multif family. However,
there's been a lot of chatter about uh infiltrating of some design guidelines
kind of getting cherrypicked and put in maybe new or future design guidelines. I
think you even heard tonight um there are design guidelines that uh
frankly aren't great or updated design guidelines, not just uh aesthetically um
but also neighbor neighborhood specific. Um and and then most recently uh we now
have fire uh that is weighing in with new rules. Half of what you guys talked
about tonight I couldn't get set I couldn't get through on a set of plans
and that's a code that's not a guideline. So we can talk about things
that are aesthetic and pretty and nice to haves but if they don't work with how
we actually have to build things today either with materials or distances and
I'm not just talking fire. I'm talking about best practices in building then
the guidelines are impossible and we're we're we're mincing words. Um, I would
like to say there are some resources that I would like you guys to ask me
about that I think the town could take advantage of and I'm happy to help with
any grants to make those resources available to the town
because I didn't get to say everything. [laughter]
» I Well, I I have a question. I would like for you to talk about some of those
resources that you referenced in your >> Okay. Um I think when we go about uh
making new guidelines and new standards especially for historical things some of
the things that I put in my letter referencing um both national and state
standards are uh are certainly guide are certainly guidelines and yes indeed some
of that language that we have built into our own uh historic um code uh or or um
definitions. What we haven't built into them and what we haven't done is we have
not educated our historic committee that makes decisions on how to interpret
those and we have a bunch of laymen doing it. So things become subjective.
Uh there are training programs out there, seminars, workshops etc. Um there
is a uh company called the or an organization called the California
Preservation Foundation which specifically deals with educating towns,
people, foundations, etc. um with um opportunities around how to
uh write guidelines, how to um set up uh best practices in their town. In fact,
um, some of their workshops that they just have going on, uh, are things like
historic review ordinance and districts, a three-part public practitioner and
local government training, historic districts explained, understanding
designations, diversity in current challenging times, preservation boot
camp, objective design standards in historic context, balancing housing and
preservation, policies, case studies, and strategies. These are just some of
the simple workshops that are out there that are that are taught by people who
are professionals that might help to create a platform for less subjective
understanding and interpretation of of our um of our our guidelines. Um there
is so that's California Preservation Foundation. There's also the um
California State Office of Historic Preservation or OP
whose entire program is to offer assistance in grant-based education
to integrate historic preservation into the broader context of overall community
planning and development activities by adopting a comprehensive approach to
preservation planning which combines identification, evaluation, and
registration of true historical resources with strong local planning
powers, economic incentive ives and informed policy. These are things that
are just available in our own state. Available in our own town is an entire
collection of architects and builders who know about all this, who want to
help these kinds of things. And having guidelines and interpretations and
definitions that are consistent and and actually have integrity in how
they are made actually makes my job better. a large part of and makes better
projects. I mean, I I think you you can see the difference
in projects that we saw tonight that might actually check the box on they've
met a design guideline. In my opinion, they're not good design,
but they've checked a box on it because we've decided that we've interpreted
literally a guideline. We haven't actually made an educated
um understanding of the intent of it. >> Okay. I need to see if anyone else has
any questions. Commissioner Shorty, >> I was just going to ask if you could
submit that list of resources to staff and they could disseminate it to us.
That would be great. Thank you. >> And I I mean I would like to say I'm
happy to help get this integrated into how we do it. I I mean and I know there
are several other architects that would too. I'm really
» I have to let everybody ask their questions. Don't go anywhere. There's
more. >> Yes, sir.
» Bernett. >> So, just to put your mind at ease, I've
been on the historic preservation committee for 13 years and I've attended
many, many uh seminars down in Pasadena and all over. I've been very involved
with it. So, just to put your mind at ease that there are probably some people
on the historic preservation committee that aren't just layman. I think the
biggest issue with our uh what we're having now the issues we're having is
with our findings and I think the reason and we do follow chapter 15 of the
national uh you know the preservation it we just
have gone about it in a different way. Our issue and I think either Joel or
Sean can speak to it is that it's not in code and that is where we get into
trouble because I think we actually do follow what you want us to follow but
Lascatus does it in a different way and what has hindered us is that it's not in
a code form and I think that's what we're probably working on. I've
discussed it with Sean and Joel. So, that might put your mind at ease that we
are um addressing what your concerns are. And there's just um you know, I
think that's what this whole thing is about. And as far as you've mentioned
many times, the windshield drivebys, well, that was actually done by
historians was an initial look and then just tonight at the historic
preservation committee, there was a home on Magnus Loop that had driveby
initially, but it was given a double plus rating by Bloomfield herself. And
then you followed through then with a much more indepth
uh survey of the home, ratings of the home, and and how it eventually ended up
that it would appear it was for the National Register. So, we just didn't do
drivebys, though that was in general. And then we went into more depth if it
looked like that home did have qualities that should be looked into more deeply.
So my question is I hope that that might give you some uh
uh strength or some uh feeling that you
that the historic preservation committee has some history and knowledge of what I
think I find offense when you always say layman but I don't think you do your
your due diligence into looking into who really is on the historic preservation
committee and the years of experience they've had and assuming that. Um, so I
just needed to put that out there. All right. Are there any other questions? I
I actually do have one. Um, I know other communities, particularly the smaller
ones, also deal with some of this. Have you been involved in any other
communities and maybe how they did maybe workshop this with architects or
something? Is there a brief description that you could give me
of what perhaps you have seen because council is going to hear all of this and
it might be nice to hear hey this has been successful in another community.
Um I think what is successful in other communities um Campbell, Carmemell, uh
even San Jose and Santa Clara County and their historical or their heritage uh
commission is what the county calls theirs, not historical.
um is there are people who are um and I I
Commissioner Bernett, I use the term layman because I mean people who do not
have a degree or certification as I do or as the people who wrote the Pasadena
first 30 pages of their 280 page guideline document. doesn't relate to my
question >> but okay but I think what it is is you
you have to have a round table with people who understand how the guidelines
and regulations are written and can help people make the best interpretation of
those for the specific project >> and in those communities did that
opportunity get to happen that's kind of what I'm trying to understand right like
seems like we're moving down a process >> so there's often a historian that is on
the um or on the committee.
» Uh I would say that that's just like the way we have Canon uh do um design
guideline uh looks. There are um but there's someone who's actually on the
committee. It's not just another sendout because typically we all will get our
own historian if it's a project of significance or something like that.
Anyway, um I would say that uh there's also there's also a conversation about
if it is not meeting different um it the same way the national register looks at
it. If if things are not slotted in different uh categories, if they're not
meeting all of these different pieces, it's no longer open for discussion.
these other parts and we as a community have everything wide open for discussion
whether it checks a box has has two pluses or narrows it down.
» Correct. So you start getting on to tracks that then if you want to contest
the track um for instance Santa Clara County
» you have to talk into the microphone. >> Sorry if you want to contest the track.
they have a twopart application that is separate that gets
looked at then by um by historians. One is identification of properties for
potential historical significance. So if it's an inquest or questionable thing,
it goes through a different process. After it passes that, it goes through a
deeper part two application that's also looked at not just by planners but by
someone like Canon etc. and requires a significant body of work to be presented
for that. And that's that's okay. >> Yeah. So,
» that's helpful. That's very very helpful. Thank you,
» Commissioner. Mayor, >> sorry I missed that. Did you What
jurisdiction was that? Santa CL County. >> That's Santa CL County.
» Santa Clair County. Okay. I think San Francisco, the city of San Francisco has
something similar to that process. Yeah, >> I think that would be nice to
understand. Commissioner, mayor, if we talk about that later.
» Okay. >> I think if you want to look at a a
keynote one in California, it would be Pasadena.
» Okay. Thank you. Um, hold on. Commissioner Bernett, then Commissioner
stop. >> I just want to I want to ask one
question. Were you here when uh Bloomfield did the survey? Were you
familiar with all her like the survey methodology and all the all the issues
that were gone through at that time and how Lascat has arrived at
what we have now. Are you aware? Have you ever looked at her? I mean, if you
go to our historic section in the library and even in our planning
department, there's a whole history of everything that she presented and
followed through on. And that's Have you looked at that? I mean, can you're
talking about your side now. Why I think you should also, and again, my question
is, have you done that? Have you looked at the Bloomfield study and what that
really means and how we really do our survey and what it was based on our
criteria, the four major criteria and the breakdown of that and how we arrive
at our findings. Have you done that? >> Yes.
» Oh, good. Thank you, Commissioner Stump.
» This is just a followup. You know, you were talking about communities that you
were saying Carmemell, Campbell, maybe Santa Clara County, Pasadena. Um, as you
think about our town, the character of our town, who would you say you'd really
chase after from best practices to go take a look at what they are doing and
learn from what they're doing?
» Um, I'd probably put us uh in a in actually an outofstate town. Um, and I I
think if we were to look out of state at how historicals handled, I would I would
probably pick something like um Park City, Utah. Uh, and I say that because
they have a small core downtown. They have an expanded uh urban element that
is not designated truly historical, but clearly um is integrated into the fabric
of what we all know. Then they have random
uh more p more planned developments like the way we have the manor etc. And so
the way that their designations are written and done um they really are
reflective by neighborhood and typology. We don't have as big a core as Pasadena
does. We don't have famous architects yet like Pasadena does did. We don't you
know there's we don't have that that type of core. we have a little bit more
of a hodge podge around a very tight core in in my opinion.
» Thank you for that. And chair, I will volunteer to sacrifice to go to Park
City on behalf of the planning commission.
» No, no, I'm the chair. I already took that spot, so sorry. All right. Do we
have any further questions? No. Thank you very much. Um, and Lee, I did get
another card.
» Again, speaking as a 31-year resident of Losatis, I am very encouraged by the
conversation that I hear, the the dialogue back and forth in a sense of
trying to find ways to learn from each other and work together. Um, clearly
it's needed. Um my wife and I moved here with our family because of the sense of
character in this town. Um, we've lived in seven other, my wife and I lived in
seven other cities in four countries. And when we came here to to to look, we
fell in love. And we want to preserve the character, preserve the character
that's here so that the next generation can also see this uh this sense of
welcoming community but still preserving the the values and and that sense of of
history. Um, and the uh the priority I think that this
community needs to be doing is to work to preserve that sense of history and
and relevance while still welcoming new residents in into our town. Um, and I
also think it's interesting to think of, you know, not just pre-1941 housing to
be preserved. Maybe now we ought to look at pre-1961
because there's a lot of that type of character that that defines certain
neighborhoods. Uh where I live, the 25 houses on the street that I live on, um
they they they are being preserved. U we had one neighbor who wanted to build a
second story and the neighbors came together and said absolutely not. So,
they moved a couple of blocks away and uh they're in the uh the unincorporated
area called Blossom Hill. And uh that's fine. Um, and the other thing that I'm
concerned with, um, well, before I get to that, I I think the suggestion that
was made by the the previous, uh, uh, guest up here, um, she made some very
good points about looking at other areas that have found very good ways of
putting that sense of preservation into the municipal code. And that's what I
think is missing here is uh we need to put some of this into the code. So I I
think that should be the mission that is undertaken uh as quickly as possible.
And I like the workshop that's going to be done uh the next couple of weeks to
to deal with a lot of this. And um the last thing is we need to find ways to
protect ourselves from the threats coming from Ringling Brothers up in
Sacramento with a legislation that they're passing down about their new
mandates, ignoring local sense of community, but rather they want to
standardize everything, make it less expensive, allegedly less expensive, so
that developers can put in all kinds of things that have no bearing on the
quality of life here. Uh, and I'll end with that. It's
» a good spot to end. Hold on. Commissioner Bernett.
» Yes. So, thank you for speaking tonight. Do you think we've done a pretty good
job at preserving and maintaining the character of our town?
» I believe so. I uh I I'm encouraged to see the commitment from a lot of people
who are not just in the audience, but up at the DAS and and that is is good.
The thing is now keep it up and and find ways to be even more engaging with the
rest of the community and other legislators because that's where the
changes have to occur. >> Thank you. It sounds like we are doing
something right. >> Passing grade.
» All right. Are there any other questions for the speaker?
» Right. No. Thank you. So, Mr. Mullen, like we talked a little
bit before we started this, there were some objectives from council for this
discussion. Could you pull that up? >> Let me get those on the screen for you.
» So to my fellow commissioners, in anticipation of this, I thought to keep
this organized, we will simply go through those.
» Yeah. Can I finish? What does it say? >> Just wanted to ask kind of a process
question. and one of my fellow commissioners handed out something to us
at the deis that's an eight-page um it's entitled survey methodology and um I
think she was a little concerned that I didn't want to accept it in advance of
the meeting. She did tell me that it was it was disseminated to director Pollson
and that it would be handed out to everybody equally. I just wanted to make
sure everybody got it. >> Yeah, it's not this evening. We're just
having a discussion. There's no action. We still have to get direction from
council on these items as to what we're actually going to work on. Um, but you
know, that's something that we can definitely make sure that the other two
commissioners that aren't here. >> Yeah, just to clarify my question, I
it's actually a historical document. It's entitled survey methodology. I
think it was done by somebody, some Bloomfield and um back in the '9s and
it's eight pages long. I just didn't have a chance to read it and it's really
more of a procedural question. Should a planning commissioner be handing out
information right before the hearing that the public doesn't have access to?
It should come to staff and then staff will disseminate it to the um officials
and to the public. And so if you give it to me, I can run some copies because we
should have it available for the public as well.
» Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. >> No, that's fine because I I actually
don't I don't have a copy of it either. So that'd be fine.
» But that's okay. >> Can I just
» Commissioner Bernett? >> Yes. Actually, it was I I gave it to uh
Commissioner Sordy because there were questions in the past on the the drive
by uh windshield thing and I thought this would be a nice little summary for
him. I wasn't like meant to it was more like a reading something. It
it wasn't coming up tonight, but it was just
» So, was it only for Commissioner Sordy? >> I gave it to Commissioner. Okay, then I
I'll make copies because it should go to the public as well.
» Okay. Thank you. >> All right.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mullins. So, there were a few key things that you can
obviously fill in since I wasn't at that meeting that came up that were more
specific and how that they would like to maybe guide this conversation. So, I
would like as much as possible to stick to these bullet points. Obviously,
there's some other um supplemental information that was in our packet that
has a little bit more of a deep dive on some things if we need to reference
that. Um so I but I would try to like to try to stick to this just for the sake
of people that are going to listen to this video later and take in that
information. So the first one is preserving smaller homes.
Are there any thoughts that you guys would like to share around preserving
obviously historic homes I think is what we're trying to say or in a historic
neighborhood specifically Commissioner Stump.
» Yeah, I I attended a um [clears throat] housing boot camp in San Jose this past
weekend and um I don't know that it's new. In fact, either Mr. Mullen or Mr.
Pollson can correct me, but there's more discussion going about trying to
preserve affordable housing. Um, which means ideally finding funding that, for
example, if a a place is going to sell, and it's going to get turned into market
rate housing that a group steps up, buys it, it gets refurbished, and the same
people live there. This idea of having smaller homes in Loscatos, again, what's
affordable? Even a smaller historic home in Los Gatos is going to be beyond the
reach of a family of four, $150,000 a year. But I do think it's a good thought
because I don't know that a historic home because there may be more value to
that home is considered a starter home. But if you've got a 1,200 foot home
versus a 4,000 ft home, it might give people an opportunity. Like I said,
historic homes is not my area of expertise and what the overall value is.
We just know that uh property values in Los are really really difficult and how
do we give young families when we came back to this area we ended up in a
12,200 ft² home with a family of four that's what we could afford at that
point in time um and and yet we could afford it 1,200 foot home so I do think
there is something to this idea of trying to preserve smaller homes um
potentially for the benefit of allowing somebody an entry point into the
community potentially uninformed opinion.
» Yeah, the potentially lies with the historic part. Are there any other
comments anybody wants to make? Commissioner Mayor?
» Yeah, I think Commissioner Stump uh touches on something interesting about
um you know, smaller homes traditionally being starter homes, more affordable
homes. Um, that's sort of a housing affordability
conversation, preserving smaller homes. I, so when I
see that bullet point, uh, we're talking about affordability,
but this is about historic preservation. So,
I don't necessarily think that just because something is small, it's it's
historic. There's probably historic homes that are very large as well. So,
I'm just trying to understand what that bullet point
means exactly and maybe maybe Sean Mr. And you can uh is is it about housing
affordability an entry point? Uh is that what it's is that the primary objective?
» I think partially I think it has a foot in both worlds. I think it has a far uh
the foot in the affordability world in that um a smaller home is and I'll use
the term naturally affordable with commissioner Stump's point taken that
affordability even a small home in Lascatus is out of reach for most folks.
Um so I think that's the affordability component. The other component is that
older homes tend to be smaller and from a historic preservation perspective,
there's some value in preserving that context in the town.
» And I'll just add, I mean, I think that most of these come from a list that was
prepared and I think reviewed by HPC. And so they see these smaller homes come
and being requested to be removed from the inventory. Um, I think the
affordability component, I'm not sure how much weight there is in that. Um,
because people, whether it's a historic home or a non-historic home, you're
paying for what you potentially could build there. Um, so unless someone's
going to uh talk to all the real litterers and say you got to sell these
homes for cheaper than, you know, you normally would, which I don't think is
reality. Um, I think it's a it's kind of, as Mr. Mullen said it's in both
sides, but the affordability component, you know, that that's really market
driven. So, I'm not sure how we're going to effectively affect that component of
it. >> Yeah. Because [clears throat] correct me
if I'm wrong, but, you know, I've seen homes in Loscatoos in historic districts
that, you know, go through HPC and go through the the commission and go
through the whole process and they add a lot of square footage, but they still
are considered historic homes. So the smaller homes point and and I mean I
understand the point of wanting to preserve opportunity for affordable
housing, but in the conversation of historic preservation, I just don't want
uh that conversation to sort of uh sideline and or make us lose focus on on
the historic preservation part. >> Understood. It's because my take on that
having sat on the historic preservation for a long time and then the commission
for a long time is um we have seen a number of historic homes whether it's
the historic neighborhood or designated um where someone has bought it their
family has grown or whatever and they they want to expand that house and I
think we have been fortunate and seen a number of really sensitive ones that are
done that maintain the character of it you know but allow you know a larger
their family to live there. And I think we've seen examples where it wasn't done
quite so well. Um, and to me, I think that might be a little bit more of this,
you know, what language is in guidelines or whatever right now around,
you know, where do we draw the line on no, you have to preserve the smaller
house versus it is very acceptable to add on to this house, but with these
very specific criteria. And that's what I would assume because I've had a lot of
meetings where we have argued about is it acceptable and what's that criteria?
I don't know that I think we're supposed to solve that tonight, but to me that's
the issue. If somebody else sees something more to that idea of either
preserving or expanding homes, I would like to know.
» Yeah. And by the way, I don't disagree with the discussion about affordable. In
fact, I was not trying. Unfortunately, affordable is a loaded word. Um, and I
really wasn't using it in the sense that these homes are certified affordable,
right? So that they're going to have, you know, 55 years of restriction and
sale. Um, but just the fact, like I say, for us when we moved back to Los Gatos,
you know, 1,200 ft house was was there and it afforded us an entry point. So
there is value in in smaller square footage homes whether they're historic
or not in Los.
» Mr. Mullen, do you by any chance have in front of you there there is some
language about the amount of the home that must be preserved when you're
adding on to a historic home to maintain that designation. So I well there's a
technical demolition um definition that we look at um that
has to do with the exterior wall covering of the outside walls of of
historic houses. Um street facing facades you're only allowed up to 25% of
demolition. Um so you could only remove the siding um if it's original um of 25%
of the street facing facads and then 50% of the building cumulative. Um, and we
don't look at the roof. Projects that
it gets a little murky admittedly, but projects in districts um can experience
a technical demolition and there's not any language that says you didn't tear
the whole house down and the HPC and the town approved it and you did an addition
to it. It's still historic, but it's still treated as such. Um but with
recognition that it experienced a technical demolition. U there's holes in
our code for sure and right things that can be improved.
» Okay. I because I do think that's probably one spot. Um I I have actually
always felt like the language around what the addition
to a pre um a historic home how that addition should be. Actually I always
thought that wasn't too bad. I'm not an architect. So perhaps that's also
something that people want to advise council perhaps to get guidance on um
from professionals on how that language could be tightened to avoid
maybe more people misconstring what the meaning is behind that.
There any other conversation around preserving smaller homes?
All right. Reviewing the boundaries of the historic districts.
Um any thoughts on this?
Okay, good. Commissioner, mayor, >> uh,
» I think our current historic districts work pretty well. Most of the issues I
see with the, uh, historic review seem to be these 19 pre-1941
properties that are not in one of the well-defined historic districts. So,
I wouldn't advise council to make any changes to the current boundaries, but
if they wanted to consider adding another neighborhood or two, I
mean, I'd be curious to hear if any other commissioners have thoughts on if
there are areas currently not that are designated historic districts that
should be. Okay, that's an interesting thought
because I do think our current historic districts are pretty good, but I think
some of this is going to also land on do we change the years to where a whole
district then falls under like a 70-year ruling.
» I'll make a comment when we get to that. >> Okay. So, to me, those tie a little bit,
but I could be looking at that wrong. Any other thoughts, Commissioner Shorty?
I was just going to mention um one of my colleagues mentioned Magnazon Loop
earlier and which has a I don't know the age of all those homes but I don't think
that's a historic district and I mean I think it's just noteworthy.
So >> I can add through the chair that
Magnuson Loop um I can't remember the age of the homes they're all most of
them are provincial and architectural style. Um they were rated most of them
rated pretty high especially as you get closer to Loscatus Boulevard in the
Bloomfield survey and there was recognition that that could as it was
kind of identified as a potential district there through that survey
process and I'm sure Commissioner Bernett will add to this um through that
survey process that was conducted in the late 80s and 90s um there were a number
of areas of town LMA Alta Glenidge Johnson and the Cottage District that
were identified as potential districts. they just were not adopted um for one
reason or another. I wasn't there um quite old enough yet, but I'll leave it
at that. >> Commissioner Fernette.
» Yeah, I just want to mention five areas in town and one of the most
one of the most important one was the Glen Ridge district which I wrote the
ordinance on 1998. I did the whole 12 blocks with all the photos of every
house, the Bloomfield study, and last during COVID, I actually walked the
whole neighborhood again and updated all the homes. I mean, it is just a a source
of wonderful, wonderful homes. And it really should be a historic district and
if any district should be sort of started to follow up on because I have
done all the the base work. I mean, it wouldn't it would take some work, but
with the ordinance written and with the photos of all the homes in the 12b block
area and the description, which I have read now upgraded, I think it would be
wise to do that because coming down from Sacramento now with SB9
and the increase in density and intensity of our neighborhoods and
actually going also into historic districts which
would not be protected. I think if the town could at least maybe get Glen Ridge
in. Um it would be helpful to give some protection for the density that is
coming down from Sacramento. And like I say, I mean most of the
the hard work is done. I mean, we need a historian to follow up on it, but it's
every street in the neighborhood 12 blocks.
» So, it sounds like the perhaps the response to council is we do think
that's worth looking into that that there were other recommendations. There
may be other areas and probably somebody above my pay grade makes that decision.
But I Yeah, Commissioner S.
» Um, just a question in general interest, how would we go about doing that? I
mean, we certainly heard tonight, you know, about
Johnson, potentially Glen Ridge, >> um, and how would we go about
identifying potential historic districts in 2026?
I I can start with a little bit of feedback, but I'm sure that it would
involve if council provided the direction and and any funding uh
allocation that would be necessary. It would involve um likely someone with
much more experience to look at the archive files and make a recommendation
as to, you know, any potential updates and then go from there about
recommendations on potential districts. And then ultimately a a historic
district needs to be approved by the council. It's it's a council designation
for an overlay. >> And I just add through the chair, I
mean, I think should the council provide that direction, um, you know, there are
potential implications for, you know, assigning new districts. So, we probably
would need to do pretty significant outreach to the properties that would be
affected by that so that their voices could be heard as well. um because that
may or may not have bearing uh should it move forward.
» All right, that's good to know. Thank you. Um
what about the next one then? Let's talk about refreshing the Bloomfield survey.
Um yes, I think this should be done. I do not think it should be somebody in a
car just driving by houses. Um, I I I think if we are going to do
this, it would be great if it was a more
thorough review of the homes. But anybody else have thoughts?
we just a more thorough review of the homes
against a updated set of criteria or evaluation criteria because one of the
things we run into here I want to hide under the deis when we have an appeal
come to us um because I just sometimes feel things are squishy and
[clears throat] um we we don't necessarily have all of
the facts and we it doesn't feel solid and so I really desire for us to be far
more factual and and you know criteria and evaluation driven but I think that
maybe comes through an update like we're talking about.
» Do you mean so normally we follow like what is it the four or five criteria
that gets put in front of us. Are you actually meeting potentially more like
architecturally specific criteria? >> I guess what I'm even thinking about is
when you take a look at the old Bloomfield checklist that they used it
would be first of all look at something like that or other things other tools
that are out there. In fact, you were weren't you putting up a couple for us
earlier or was Yeah. And so we need to update that, I guess, is what I was
saying. >> That's what I was asking.
» We need to update that. >> Yeah. Okay. Any other thoughts on this
item? >> Yeah. Commissioner,
» so that when we talk about refreshing the Bloomfield survey, is that I know
that it was done so long ago that I guess my question is what homes are we
targeting and is it feasible? So is it is it to refresh the evaluation of
everything that's 1941 and older or
» to me this all ties together. So let's say council says for example we're going
to add the Glen Ridge historic district right? So if we're going to do a refresh
Bloomville survey it should include that. If we decide that there's actually
like a rolling something that's an evaluation probably it should include
those too if we're designating all of these places as historic. Gotcha. I
think >> that's my opinion. Council can ignore
that completely. >> Follow by asking
» I feel like they all tie together. Yes. >> Sorry to be the dunce in the room, but
what does that mean? Adopting pre-1941 to 70year ruling
» down. Well, okay. You just made reference to us. I maybe when we get
there, we can define what that is because I'm I'm just picturing like a
1936 house being pushed down a hill.
Commissioner Bernett. >> Yeah, I just want to mention um I mean
that's what Saratoga does. I mean they add to their inventory all the time and
so rolling is 50 years one. So I mean that's
» and we're going to get there. That's two bullet points down. So let me get to the
next one and then I want to have a thorough discussion.
» Oh I thought we were talking about the >> not yet. He's just jumping ahead.
» Okay. >> Yeah. Ignore him.
» Okay. So um considering replacement structure historically
relevant um
is was the conversation and council or has the conversation been I for example
have a historic that was a historically nice house and it burned down and I
build the structure back exactly like it but obviously it won't be exactly like
it. Is that this discussion or what does this mean?
» The starting off point of this goes back to a lot of the requests that the HPC
reviews and make makes recommendations on for removal from the inventory. Um,
and when something's removed from the inventory, um, it's no longer subject to
review as a historic home because it could be demolished, it could be added
on to, it could be technically demolished. I think the desire of the
HPC in their letter to the council that council grabbed on to here was there
would there's a desire to maintain some control over the design of the new
structure to ensure that it's historically relevant to honor what was
there previously. And I'm seeing a head nod from
Commissioner Bernett who serves on the HPC and was part of writing that letter.
Yes, just to clarify that uh it could still be considered a contributor even
though if if it was rebuilt redone in the same likeness and followed the
guidelines then it should not be just um it should al still reflect uh time and
place even though it would be a new build. If you look at the, you know, all
the documents, this is this is considered an okay thing to do. And so I
think that that would be um something where we addressed that it still would
be historically re reent relevant even though it was a new build. It would
still fit into the neighborhood like it had before burned down or something. So,
that was the point we were trying to make.
» Okay. If So, if there's a new home being built in a historic district, doesn't it
already go? >> And I'll make a clarification there
because Commissioner Bernett touched on a loaded word of contributor. Um,
contributors are only located and not negatively, it actually is a really
salient point. Um, contributors are only located in districts. So, within the
district, we have a group of homes. within the that group of homes, they are
designated as contributors or non-contributors. That is listed in the
back of the residential design guidelines. There's a thorough address
by address list of the contributors. Um to Vice Chair Burch's uh or Chair
Burch's excuse me uh point within a district if there is some
project where the approval is to demolish a home um the HPC maintains
control from a design standpoint within the district because the district itself
is overlaid with the landmark and historic preservation overlay zone. What
I'm speaking about is outside of a district, these pre-41 homes where there
are no such things as contributors, and this is also something that can be
tightened up in the code. Those homes once they are demolished, we just remove
them from the inventory, they're no longer subject to review by the HPC.
And just to add on, so so the I think the ask is that similar to the historic
districts that the HPC there's some desire to retain similar control for
homes that may be removed from the inventory andor demolished uh for future
uh construction. >> But if we took it off the registry,
then that structure was already deemed not relevant for whatever reasons. I
mean, we've seen some lately that fell under historic, but it was a box that
was falling down, for example. Um, would this I guess this would wind up being
blanket. So, if if it was decided here that, you know, it has been added on, it
has been Frankenstein forever. You cannot see the original relevance of it
other than the fact that it's pre-1941. every one of those would then still go
to HBC even or is it Yeah, I guess it would have to
be blanket statement. Yes. >> Yeah. I mean I think there's multiple
options, right? So there's there's varying degrees of how it could be
implemented should that be the direction that it goes. Um because I think I also
hear a lot in HPC and it comes up when these things rise to planning commission
of a desire. I'll just I'm going to make something up just for fun. house is
totally Frankenstein, but we know what the original house looked like. So, now
we're getting back to this rehabilitation or preservation. So, we
may go back towards that angle, but uh Commissioner Bernett could probably add
some additional flavor on that.
All I know is that during the so-called windshield driveby, uh, it was a if it
was given a plus and it was not in a historic district at the time, it could
be considered a contributor if it were in a historic district. So, it did give
it some qualities that yes, this house if it were in a district, it would be
considered a contributor. So that was a further definition
that part. >> Okay.
I'm going to speak up and then you guys can say what you think. Um I think if it
is not in a historic district and we have already gone through the steps to
remove it from the registry, then it's just off the registry. I think that this
could get excessively messy. If a house has been Frankensteined, but we know
that the house from 80 years ago was relevant, but it's not there anymore, I
don't see how we impose that on a homeowner in both style, cost, and size,
but that is that is my thought. That feels a little overstep.
» I I agree with that completely. I don't have a lot to elaborate on it, but I do
see it becoming very messy. And so the the way I've been thinking
about it is just that let's take a house that you know an appeal was successful.
It's off the registry and and you look in that neighborhood and you see the
character of the neighborhood, right? And you would say
maybe [clears throat] there is a desire to really say we're going to maintain,
you know, you got to maintain just the character of that neighborhood and
what's surrounding it. And I hate to pick up this example because but let's
go build an Icler, you know, in the middle of what was maybe um a period
representative neighborhood. And again, like I say, that's the way I'm I'm not
suggesting that, but it's sort of one way to look at it that you would say,
you know, you're taking down something that did have at one point some value,
some blah blah blah, and now we, you know, we can you replace it with
something that would be somewhat historically
relevant, not to the box, >> you know, not to the box, right? So
anyway, >> but but we already do that. So if it if
the idea is we then you know that house maybe before it was Frankenstein aligned
with this neighborhood, we already do that. That doesn't have to be a historic
thing. That's a you know neighborhood compatibility and you look at that
neighborhood and say, "Okay, what makes sense?" We try. I I think we do pretty
good most of the time, but I mean I'd like to know, Commissioner Mayor, what
do you think? I mean, I think this conversation we're having now gets to
the heart of sort of where the challenges are and where the breakdown
is in this whole entire process. And again, I don't I don't think it it's the
historic districts. I think those are well defined and I think that works
well. It's the pre-1941 outside the districts. Um, you know, I know there's
a desire by the town and by the HPC and, um, you know, all of us, I think, here
in the room tonight, you know, care about the town and, uh, want to preserve
its character and we have quite a nice, uh, architectural legacy here. Um, but
I think so, so there's there's a desire to want to preserve the character,
right? So that lens is being used to evaluate pre-1941 properties that come
before HPC to go off the registry. But often times those uh properties that
come are, you know, beyond repair. Uh they're completely uh decrepit and
structurally unsound. Um, so and I touched upon this in my
letter that was distributed as a desk item, but I think part of the problem is
that when someone comes to the HPC asking to remove it from the registry,
we don't know what they want to do with it, but we know we know that they want
to make it easier to do something with it, right? But there's no standard
really aside from our residential design guidelines to evaluate what will come
next after it. So I think there's this desire to want to hold on to to to the
character of the town and sometimes that manifests itself in perhaps, you know,
unnecessarily preserving something that is unsafe and structurally unsound. Um,
so I I I don't know what the answer is to this. I'm just thinking out loud, but
there seems to be a breakdown at w with this. And I think part of it is the
process. >> No, agree. rather than the rather than
the intent. >> Yeah. Exactly. And I mean, I can just
say all the years I was on HPC, you know, it was you don't get to evaluate
this home based on the next home. This home stands on its own merit, its own
architectural value, its own significance. You don't get to decide
about this house based on the next. And I guess I have always kind of held that
in mind. And I don't know if that would be my thought, but
» through the chair, if I could offer to kind of piggy back off of Commissioner
Mayor's statement, um I mean outside of state laws that get around our rules and
guidelines, if a home's removed from the inventory and they go through the
traditional process to redevelop the property outside of a district, um we
obviously use the residential design guidelines and we have a professional
architect peer view um specifically for neighborhood compatibility is one of the
components that they look at. So um I know that the HBC loses their their
their lens on it. Um and I do understand the concern there, but I just wanted to
make sure it's on the record that there is not it's not a free-for-all um
outside of of course state laws. And I do want to um and secondly um I was
handed a note from a member of the audience that didn't get a chance to
speak um during the public hearing and um would request the public hearing be
reopened for them to have an opportunity to speak on the matter. That's at the
discretion of the chair. >> Yeah, of course. I think we want to hear
what people have to say.
You Lee
I appreciate the note on the frontly.
I apologize, but I caught got caught in traffic from Jazz in the plaz and it
took me over 20 minutes to get here. Uh, it wasn't the cars, it was all the pe
people that I had to keep stopping for. Um, but
I had originally intended to come and uh during the historic preservation
committee meeting, I wasn't feeling well, so I decided not to come. I'm
feeling a little bit better now. And I think I really would like to uh discuss
a couple of things. And it's going to be hard for me to know
where to start, but what I've passed out to you is the uh table of contents of a
report that was done by uh Anne Bloomfield and
I have looked at some sections of that report. I have put a check on the
sections that I have been able to read. Uh and I have to say it was a a big
education. I understand a hell of a lot more now about how the survey was
developed, how it was implemented and uh the people who did it, they were not
nonprofessionals. There were historians on the committee.
There was uh forget her name, but she was the one who
started the history museum and she was very involved in history. uh and there
was a member of the staff as well as members of the historic preservation
committee. What I want to start with is that once I
got a hold of this and was able to read the degree of detail that went into
developing the survey and educating those who were doing it that I felt it
was really important to talk about how the survey was rated and how it differed
from the way uh National Park Service rates The things that were rated or that
were used to determine findings were basically the same in both. The
difference is that in the National Park Service, they evaluated
each of those four categories that we look at individually
and then uh related it to the fifth category was which was um integrity. The
way this was developed, it was developed specifically because of the fact that
and all of that relates to going back to that all of the National Park Service
criteria relate to uh structures that are eligible for listing on the National
Historic Register or on the state register. Not they're not at the level
of uh a small town and small town feeling preserving that neighborhood
feel. Can I go on? Two more minutes. Okay. Okay. Um and
what I found was that the uh process for the survey when they actually did it,
the driveby was only the first phase. Then there was quite another number of
phases. But looking at the criteria that they used, she developed a criteria that
was based on another uh historian uh and it rather than evaluating things
individually, it uh did it as a package. They were all integrated. They were the
same four five basic categories. Uh and they had 14 different things below them.
Each one was given a a a rating based on a excellent, good, ve,
very good, good, etc. And then that was totaled and if it was above a certain
number of points, uh, it was considered as eligible for the inventory. The
important thing is though is that that survey and the final rating system
included ratings for integrity and in fact
the integrity ratings were a negative rating. So they had a real impact on
whether something qualified or not. It's not that integrity was not considered at
all. It's it was a totally different way of looking at things and frankly uh
looking at what I've been able to read. Uh I've really become educated. I have
so many more questions. I've always had questions. That's why you you have this
before you in the first place. Although I'm not speaking as a as a member of the
committee. Uh I was I excuse me. I'm not representing the committee, but I was
the chair who requested that this all be developed and I I would say that um God,
I have so much more to say. Uh yeah, unfortunately, we we've got to get
to this now. So, thank you. But >> no questions. [snorts]
Yeah. Any questions for the speaker? >> Oh, thank you very much, Lee.
I assume I don't have to reclose this, do I? Because Oh, I do. Okay. We're
reclosing the public portion of the of this item. Okay.
Sure.
» I'd like a question to >> Joel or Sean. Um, is there a way I mean
what brought up >> I'm sorry. Is there a way that we can
put this into a code? I mean I I think that's that's where we're having issues
here and where things get so as you were saying squishy is we don't it's more
just standards or is there a way to I mean we've talked
about this uh I've talked about it with you and with Joel so and I I think there
was a suggestion about how we could maybe
do that so it's a little easier to understand and clearer for for
everybody. I think the ultimate goal, should the
council provide us that direction, is to see where it should live. What's the
appropriate place for it to live, whether that's in the uh the town code
or in some other document. We again, we don't have direction to do anything at
this point. Um, so we're waiting for our opportunity to go back to council,
provide them some feedback, provide them the feedback that you are giving us
tonight and uh, receive direction from the council
» and through the chair. I think that you know whether it's the findings,
definitions, whatever it is, that's really the last bullet of discussion up
there. >> Yeah, exactly.
» And whether it belongs in the guidelines and the code, some of it might belong in
both, some of it might belong in one rather than the other, right?
» Um, so should we get that direction then we would look into
going through that process. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sordy,
» add kind of a followup on that because um hopefully this isn't outside the
bounds of what we're sort of talking about, but we have these pre-1941 houses
come up. The findings that we use are um I think in a couple different places.
They're mostly um they mostly live in the residential design guidelines, but I
don't think a single one of those findings is actually an ordinance. And
almost every single time we make a decision as a commission, we do so based
on findings that make direct reference to ordinances. And so it's really a
legal question. I guess I'm first of all, I'm wondering if we've ever been
challenged in court on a determination related to a pre-1941 house. And if not,
maybe the town attorney can vent your guess about how difficult it would be to
win such a case if somebody challenged the decision. Um it's probably not
appropriate to answer your second question in this setting, but um what
we're doing right now is the code references the residential design
guidelines and then the residential design guidelines in turn reference the
other standards that the town uses. Um so it is more tenuous than is ideal and
so ideally the town code would include it codified.
» Okay. Um all right. So then I the adopting pre1941 to a seven-year rolling
commissioner sorty.
» What does that mean? >> I can jump in on that. So when um the
decisions were being made as to what the historic inventory was going to include,
there was a conversation at that time about what the um appropriate sort of
benchmark was. Um for example, SQA uses 50 years as something that needs to be
looked at for potential impacts to a historic resource and its environmental
implications. Um, so obviously, um, in 1980 that would have been a 1930 home.
Um, but now that's a 1976 home. Um, so that conversation was had. I found some
record of that in the minutes. And what they decided was that the pre 1941 was
the date. It was a hard date rather than a rolling date, which in changes every
year. And that was based on the um year that the town had the first
comprehensive set of assessment tax assessment records for the town.
» Okay. So if we applied to it to today, it would be like 1956 if I'm doing my
math right. >> I mean at the time it's just sort of
circumstantial that >> when they adopted pre-41 it was about 50
years ahead. Um but the they had a specific discussion about that in the
minutes. Um and that it wasn't about the fifth years, it was about the tax
assessment records. >> Right. I'm just saying if we instituted
it today, that's essentially what it means. We would take today's date minus
70 and we would >> that would be the threshold.
» 1956. >> Yeah. Okay.
» Okay. Commissioner stop. >> So how did the council arrive at 70
years? This was just a number that was thrown
out. I'm, you know, sure it's open to significant discussion should they
should they get there.
» I agree it should be updated. I'm trying to wrap my head around because a lot of
the houses in this town were built in like what the 50s 60s that there's a
point where damn near sorry every house in town would have to go to the historic
preservation committee and that is overwhelming.
It is. That's a lot of houses. Every single one of them should not go to the
historic preservation committee. So I don't know if the idea is while we
may
maybe [clears throat] change the date or something. Then
there'd have to be some tightening around what would those still be
considered historically relevant because I I live next to a lot of houses that
were built in the 60s and I promise you they're not historically relevant.
So I like they're just Yeah. How would we do this? Well, I think um like
there's a group right off of Lascas Boulevard. It's the Ikler homes. I mean,
there's a whole little street full of Ikler homes and that could be captured.
I doubt that we would look at every house in the near in the town, but I
mean, >> but who if we go to a rolling program,
somebody has to get paid to assess that. >> Yeah. Well, Saratoga does. I mean, you
you would have members that you would have certain standards, certain
guidelines, certain kinds of construction. Like I say, the Icler
homes, there's I think eight or nine of them there.
» Well, wouldn't it almost be easier to say if we're going to say we should do a
better survey, like we're going to update this and we're going to do
survey, we just roll some of those into it.
» Yeah. >> Instead of saying
every track house that was built in the 60s is historic because that's what this
means. No, that wouldn't >> Yeah, I would rather we take and spend
some good money on somebody just going through and reevaluating houses and
adding houses to the registry than >> this. This does not feel appropriate,
but I will take arguments if you guys have any, but
» no, it would be definitely >> Commissioner Mayor is going to volunteer
to be the person that evaluates every one of them. I just
» I agree with the chair on your assessment. I don't think changing the
year or implementing a rolling clock is going to solve the problems that we're
trying to solve here. It could potentially make it worse. Um, so I
don't think changing the year is is the issue and I I know there was probably is
going to be some action by the council and it's going to have to be very well
considered because the resources are limited, right? So I I think we should
keep that in mind as well that the town's resources are limited and where
do we want to take that I I
you know there's been I'm sorry to go back up to the bullet point about the
Bloom Bloomfield survey but that also feels like it could be cost prohibitive.
I'd rather the town's resources be spent more specifically on when something does
come to uh HPC and there's, you know, questions about, you know, should this
stay on the registry or should it be taken off, you know, I'd rather town's
resources be utilized to consult an expert on that sort of thing because
instead, you know, because they're not all all the pre-1941s outside of
historic districts are not coming all at the same time, right? They kind of come
one by one. So, uh I think that I I I personally would rather the town's
resources be spent on that. But I do think the second bullet point, the
historic district, I think perhaps looking at expanding uh that looking
back at what was previously assessed might be also a good use of resources.
» Yeah, I agree with you completely. That makes a lot more sense.
» Any other comments? commissioners. All right.
So then updating and clarifying definitions and required findings for
determining a historic status. So I'm going to be candid. There's only
one person that sits up here that I feel is qualified,
you know, professionally to probably talk about some of the,
you know, the nuances at least architecturally of this. I do think all
of us agree they need to be updated and I know that you've got some comments I
think you've thought about you should make
but I actually like the idea of maybe getting other other people that are I
could talk to you about the structural components of it and everything all day
but I don't know this just feels like only thing I'd be comfortable saying is
yes we should but commissioner sorty did you have anything you wanted to add
because you were talking about this earlier
today earlier or at a different area. >> Oh, just related to the five findings.
The typical use of the five findings. Yeah, I mean only that um
yeah I well part of it is just process. Um, I think that
all it says, our direction generally is all it says is that you shall consider
these five things and there's no specific direction that says you shall
make a positive determination regarding all five. And so I just find it
generally inconsistent or I don't know, maybe just difficult to wrap my brain
around. Sometimes the determination that a house should not be taken off the
register revolves around the opinion of the HPC that one particular finding
can't be met but the other four clearly are. And so just the logic of it I find
challenging. And then more than that I think other commissioners have shared
this opinion that it's it does feel a little biased. it does feel a little bit
like the opinions coming from an advocacy point of view and not
necessarily an objective party evaluating those findings and
um and weighing in and having that objective party of course be qualified
to make the determination. So that's been my feeling in almost every case
when we're faced with um removing a a house from the 1941, you know, pre-1941
list. So those are my comments.
» Yeah. Anything to add, Commissioner Mayor?
» Yeah, I mean I do think the comment earlier about, you know, getting a round
table of local architects to give their input is a really important part of
this, but even beyond architects, there's a a special discipline called
historic preservation, and there are professionals trained specifically in
historic preservation. So, I definitely think, you know, there should be some
resources allocated to consulting with those folks.
» I I agree. Any other comments? Anything else? I mean, we touched on everything.
Is there anything else that you guys want to fall back and talk about before
we close this topic? No.
Then I'm going to ask staff, did that, at least as far as this getting passed
on, did that give you what you need or is there anything that you maybe still
had in your mind that needed to perhaps our thoughts be clarified?
» Uh, no. I think you know the aim was to have a discussion. So a discussion's
been had. Um I will daylight that any guidance provided from the council is
very likely once we start getting work together um to make its way through
the historic preservation committee and the planning commission before it goes
to the the council. Um that's what I envision. Obviously it depends on the
the direction of the council. Um so this is a a discussion that again this
information will be provided to the council. um as we move forward and uh we
look forward to receiving their direction.
» Thank you, Mr. Mullen. All right, we will now Is there a report from the
director of community development? >> No report this evening.
» All right. Any any subcommittee reports? I know you do.
» Yes, we had a historic preservation committee meeting this afternoon. There
were uh three items and one business other business. Um, two of the items we
would we were not able to hear because we didn't have a quorum. So, we ended up
with one which was to remove the property from the historic inventory and
it was uni unanimously voted to remove it. It did not have it did not meet the
five criteria. So, it was removed and then another business it was just a
preliminary review uh to uh for exterior modifications. this person had come back
three times and so we arrived at a good solution for him. So that that was all
» good. Great. >> Yeah. Please go ahead.
» Can I ask the director to just give us a little update on some of the
applications we saw recently that have made it to council. I think Oka Road
went last week and Twin Oaks just where they stand. And
» yeah, I think we discussed Twin Oaks and Oka at the last meeting. Um but uh so
just for further information because I can't we've had so many meetings this
month. Um Ochre Road was approved by the the council. Um Twin Oaks was continued
and requested some additional information, not too date certain. Um so
we will be working with the applicant and consultants to get some additional
information. And then last week uh also the West Valley Muslim Association was
open just for the matter to discuss requested continuences. So ultimately
that was continued to a date uncertain I believe as well. Um so those will still
Twin Oaks and the West Valley Muslim Association are to be continued.
» Thank you. >> All right. Any other commission matters?
Commissioner Stump. >> This would just be a followup. U Mr.
Pollson, do you see any possibility of the West
Valley Muslim Association being remanded back to the commission? [clears throat]
I'd never venture a guess, but that is one of the options on the table.
» Okay. Um, if there's no other commissioner matters, the meeting is
adjourned. Thank you.