[0:33] I will now call the role. It's a short group tonight. Um, Commissioner Stump

[0:38] » here. >> Commissioner Sordy

[0:40] » here. >> Commissioner Bernett

[0:42] » here. >> Commissioner Mayor

[0:44] » here. >> I'm here as well. and Vice Chair Barnett

[0:47] and Commissioner Thomas are absent this evening. Please stand if you can and

[0:51] join as Commissioner Stump leads us in the pledge.

[0:56] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[1:03] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:09] justice for all.

[1:17] As the planning commission conducts the meeting this evening, we encourage

[1:20] active participation by the public, which is essential to democracy and the

[1:25] important work of the planning commission.

[1:27] Public input is very much welcomed and always considered. The public can

[1:32] participate in a couple ways. Prior to a meeting, written comments about agenda

[1:36] items may be submitted to staff. And during the meeting, there are two

[1:40] opportunities for members of the public to participate. First, during the verbal

[1:45] communications period, an individual may speak on a topic that is not on

[1:49] tonight's agenda. Second, during the public hearing portion of tonight's

[1:53] meeting, any member of the public may speak about an agenda item. If you wish

[1:58] to address the commission tonight during verbal communications or on a public

[2:03] hearing item, uh if you are on Zoom, please raise your hand. But if you are

[2:07] here, could you please fill out one of these cards and get them to staff? That

[2:10] way, I can call your name out properly. When you are called to speak, please

[2:15] come up to the podium, speak directly into the microphone, and you will have

[2:20] three minutes. We now will begin with the verbal communications portion of the

[2:25] meeting during which members of the public are invited to address the

[2:28] commission on any issue not on tonight's agenda.

[2:33] Uh, I would like to add that we take no action on items discussed during the

[2:37] verbal communications portion. And I have I have one card, George of the

[2:42] Jungle.

[2:54] Door to the jungle.

[2:58] Birch tree. Okay. Um

[3:04] the uh two two things that I want to kind of bring up. Um one is the what's

[3:10] going on with uh Farley and WV VMA. It's in the town and everybody's talking

[3:16] about the um um the fire, you know, the the difference between over 1,200 going

[3:24] in under, you know, 600. And it's, you know, it's really not good news for the

[3:30] town. And I just want you guys to plan for just in case they're planning on

[3:34] something like a lot of people showing up and stuff like that. We we need to

[3:38] plan for that stuff. Other thing is I I I gave you this soccer I mean uh the the

[3:43] field. I don't know you do you guys got this? It's a the GMAX test and it's you

[3:50] know I I just received this. I'm doing trying to do a real thorough job of

[3:55] what's going on and I just want to point this out that 259 is incredibly high and

[4:01] it it's just, you know, I'm I'm going to still look at it, but it's it's just

[4:06] something that I want to point that out and uh you know, that's another thing

[4:11] that might come back to haunt us if certain things are, you know, going

[4:15] sideways on us. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for

[4:20] the speaker? No, thank you. Um, it looks like I do have a second one. Linda

[4:27] Swinberg.

[4:37] Hi, I'm Linda Swenberg. Um, I guess this is somewhat related to the last speaker.

[4:42] Um, I wanted to talk about trust between the town and the residents. I do trust

[4:51] this town and I trust your process, but I'll be honest, my trust is wearing

[4:56] quite thin. We've been through five planning commission hearings on a multih

[5:00] hall assembly item. As public, we get three minutes and then you deliberate

[5:06] and if we hear something that sounds kind of odd or that we have experience

[5:10] on, obviously we don't have an opportunity to interject at that time

[5:16] and that's just how the process works. But um it's really too bad when I heard

[5:22] the numbers come up um at a previous meeting. It just didn't jive because I

[5:29] had previous experience as a volunteer in the community as a house manager for

[5:34] school plays. And when we have when we run those plays and set up the house,

[5:38] you have to lock the chairs together, the folding chairs into groups of three.

[5:44] I don't know if any of you have done that before, but that's in order to

[5:47] ensure that there's an orderly exit process should an emergency happen. You

[5:52] can't just have people out on the floor. You wouldn't be allowed to put as many

[5:55] people in the room if you did not lock those chairs together. Um, so

[6:03] unfortunately, you got the wrong information. That's

[6:07] what it turns out. And it's not that the numbers changed. You got numbers from

[6:11] earlier in the process. I do have a handout if you want. It might help you

[6:16] understand. But the thing is that um basically you got information from the

[6:24] beginning of a process that was supposed to happen uh and the beginning of

[6:30] numbers that the building department was supposed to really have and to be able

[6:34] to verify. I don't know where that disconnect happened, but it did. Um

[6:41] anyway, My last concern of my my concern is

[6:45] these probably people have been in an unsafe overpacked uh situation for quite

[6:51] a while now. Um but my last concern is forward thinking forward looking

[6:57] assuming this were a theater or any other assembly project. If seating has

[7:02] changed from fixed or strapped chairs or anything like that to standing in which

[7:09] is what happened. How will we know that in the future it will be handled

[7:13] properly? We shouldn't have to wait for complaints.

[7:17] If an inspector sees a situation that is not like it was before, they should be

[7:21] asking questions. They should be entitled to do that. So, what I ask you

[7:26] is um I respectfully ask you that you direct staff to create a simple

[7:31] checklist for any assembly use change fixed to floor or to standing or sitting

[7:37] on the floor. um requiring seating plans and all of that. Um like a simple

[7:42] checklist. Okay.

[7:45] » Yeah. >> Would you like

[7:46] » Don't leave questions. Are there questions for the speaker?

[7:50] » Okay. I do. You you've said different numbers a couple times, but I would like

[7:54] you to clarify for our notes exactly which numbers you're referencing.

[7:58] » Well, it's in the planning department's file for the particular project. I don't

[8:02] have the numbers right here, but there are actually letters on um record now.

[8:08] Are you referencing allowable occupancy of the space?

[8:11] » Yes. >> Okay.

[8:12] » Yeah. So, the different numbers, one of them is how many fish can you fit in a

[8:17] can and the the final number is how many can actually get out in time,

[8:23] » right? >> Okay.

[8:24] » Yes. And feel free if you want to give the handouts to staff, they will share

[8:28] them with us if you'd like. >> Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any other

[8:32] questions? All right. Are there any hands raised on Zoom?

[8:42] I'm going to assume no.

[8:48] » There are no hands raised. >> Okay. Thanks. I wasn't really sure which

[8:52] one of you I should be looking at for that question right now. So, all right.

[8:56] We will move on to the consent calendar tonight. We have five items on our

[9:01] consent calendar. Approving the draft minutes of the May 21st, 2026 planning

[9:06] commission meeting. Special meeting. Approving the draft minutes of the June

[9:11] 11th planning commission special meeting. Approve the draft minutes of

[9:15] the June 24th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

[9:20] Approve the draft minutes of the August 12th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

[9:25] and forward a recommendation to the town council on an ordinance amending chapter

[9:30] 29, the zoning regulations of the town code for Senate Bill 9 SB9 regarding

[9:37] urban lot splits and two-unit housing developments in response to changes in

[9:41] state laws. The proposed amendment to the town code are not considered a

[9:45] project under section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality

[9:50] Act and in accordance with the government code section 66411.7N

[9:57] and 66452.21G 21G

[10:01] Senate Bill 9 ordinance are not a project subject to California

[10:05] Environmental Quality Act. Town Code amendment application A-26-00004.

[10:13] Are there any speaker cards from the members of the public that may wish to

[10:18] pull or is there anyone on Zoom with their hand raised?

[10:21] » You do have a card for verbal. >> That's it. Okay.

[10:23] » Or sorry for for the minutes. >> Oh, that's sorry. Yeah, you're right.

[10:29] Okay. So, I do have a a card. Is this just to speak or to

[10:36] » to speak on the consent calendar? >> Just to speak. Okay. Um Brown,

[10:50] this is where the Brown Act started. I think you guys all know the minutes are

[10:54] I think very important to at least document uh just a little little uh

[11:00] phrases and stuff like that and you know at one point all all but Rob Stump uh

[11:08] you know redid it. So, I'm I'm just saying, hey, uh the like the the May

[11:15] 21st one is is, you know, I I basically uh uh put it in the email and I, you

[11:23] know, transcript it, you know, so it's it's it's part of what the last speaker

[11:30] is, you know, I I'm just trying to put out the truth and it should, you know, I

[11:35] I kind of filed the class action. I'd hope that maybe we get a I'm I'm to

[11:41] suggest that we all sign a document. Hey, get one uh US district court judge

[11:48] that's a senior that I've talked before. She actually let me speak. I'm I'm not

[11:52] terrible speaker and I had a lawyer and but I was having problems with lawyer.

[11:58] So, it's one of those things where, you know, if somebody that's that knows law

[12:04] because my my this Brown Act was between, you know, town attorney and me

[12:10] and uh it's it just ballooned. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? No.

[12:15] » Any questions? >> Thank you.

[12:20] Um do any commissioners wish to pull any item from the consent calendar?

[12:25] Commissioner stop. It's not pull, but I was not present at the uh June 11th

[12:30] special meeting, but I did watch every moment of it on YouTube.

[12:36] » All right, Commissioner Bernett. >> Yes, I as well was not uh present for

[12:41] the August 2026

[12:45] planning commission meeting. Um I did watch it, however, so I feel good about

[12:50] item number five and item one through three.

[12:55] » All right. Thank you. Any further discussion or does anyone want to make a

[12:58] motion? Commissioner Stomp. >> I move to approve the consent calendar.

[13:03] » Second. >> Second.

[13:04] » Commissioner Sordy. Is there any discussion? All right. Uh call the

[13:08] question. All in favor? Passes unanimously.

[13:15] All right. We will now move on to our public hearings starting with item

[13:18] number six.

[13:23] Okay, hold on. I want to make sure I just did

[13:27] this right on my notes. I did. Okay. Consider a request for approval to

[13:31] construct a new second story addition to an existing single family reference

[13:35] residence on a non-conforming property zoned R18 located at 1 193 House Drive,

[13:42] APN527-43-021,

[13:47] architecture and site application S-26-007.

[13:52] categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act

[13:56] section 15301 existing facilities property owner Nira

[14:02] Goyell and applicant is Laura Cuda the project planner is Siri Nathan before

[14:08] the staff report may I have a show of hands of those that have seen the

[14:11] property I think we did this previously so all right and Mr. Nathan, you'll be

[14:15] presenting the staff report this evening.

[14:17] » I will. Thank you, chair. Um, good evening, commissioners. Before is an

[14:20] architectural site application for a project located at 193 House Drive,

[14:25] zoned R18 on June 10th of this year. The planning commission continued the item

[14:29] to today's hearing with specific direction for applicant to scale down

[14:33] the overall building mashing and increase the setback of the second floor

[14:37] great room wall to break up the rear twotory vertical plane. The applicant

[14:42] states in the letter of justification that they have met the commission's

[14:45] directions by removing the second floor open space above the great room and

[14:50] thereby reducing the structures overall massing by 22% and eliminating the need

[14:55] for the second story wall setback. Additionally, the applicant revised the

[15:00] plans to feature frosted glass garage door. While the town consulting I has

[15:04] not evaluated the specific material change, staff notes that the town's

[15:08] residential design guideline encourages this encourages the use of wood garage

[15:12] doors. This concludes staff's presentation and staff will be happy to

[15:16] answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you, Mr. Nathan. Are there any

[15:19] questions for staff? Commissioner Stump,

[15:25] » can I um ask about this garage door because it's

[15:31] a little bit unique. Our residential guidelines call for wood or is it

[15:35] woodlike wood simulated or is it truly they call for wood garage doors?

[15:40] » Uh the res design guideline just states that it encourages the use of wood. It

[15:47] also says it encourages the use of windows in the garage. Um that's it

[15:52] doesn't go any further than that. >> Do we have experience with this type of

[15:56] garage door in the neighborhood or um what's been the reaction or the response

[16:02] to these kinds of garage doors in other locations?

[16:05] » Um there have been doors of similar material that has been approved in the

[16:10] past. uh usually in the building permit stage. Uh I'm not sure about this type

[16:15] of garage within the immediate neighborhood or in the neighborhood.

[16:18] » And through the chair, I can add also that um we see these types of garage

[16:22] doors come up fairly regularly. Um often the consulting architect may express

[16:28] some concern with it. Um when we are outside of a discretionary application,

[16:32] we often work with applicants to ensure that one of the concerns that the

[16:36] architect typically brings up, which is uh light bleed through um is that they

[16:41] can put solid panels behind the glass. So from the exterior, it still looks

[16:45] like you still get that look of that contemporary garage door, but it

[16:48] eliminates the light bleed. That's one of the characteristics of these doors

[16:52] that can be challenging. The other is that um whether the contemporary look of

[16:56] that door is compatible with the neighborhood

[16:59] » and other than it still doesn't comply with our residential guidelines, has

[17:03] that been an acceptable fix for light bleed that we're at least aware of?

[17:08] » Yes, we haven't I to my knowledge we don't get a whole lot of complaints

[17:11] about these. >> Thank you.

[17:13] » Right. Any further questions to staff? All right. And I will call up the

[17:20] applicant to speak. I believe James Woodard or Oh, no. You okay? Sorry. Just

[17:25] please state your name when you come up and if you get a chance later, just fill

[17:28] out a card. >> Oh, there's two. Did I just grab the

[17:31] wrong one? I did. Just go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead and state your name.

[17:37] » Uh hello everyone. My name is Tika Ger. Uh and thank you for your time today. So

[17:42] today I'll talk a little bit about our project. uh why it's important to us and

[17:46] the changes in the design we've made to meet the recommendations and we're

[17:49] looking forward to get an approval today. So why this project is important

[17:54] to us. If you go to the next slide uh one more uh a little bit context

[17:58] actually one less a little bit first context about our family. We are a

[18:03] family of four me my husband and two kids. Uh one just started sixth grade uh

[18:07] and the other one is in kindergarten. Uh going to the next slide.

[18:13] The reason we live here is we love this neighborhood. We have been living here

[18:16] since 2018. Our kids attend public school here. They have their closest

[18:20] friends. We have built our strong relationships with neighbors. It's just

[18:24] simply home for us. This the next one that's a picture of my daughter with her

[18:30] friends in the neighborhood. And then the next one slide is the picture of our

[18:34] little one. Uh if you go to the next slide that's them in the play lot next

[18:40] to our house. And then the next slide has a picture of me with our community

[18:45] in our backyard. And then the next one is a picture of needed with his friends

[18:49] and family in our backyard. Going to the next slide. We believe in

[18:54] peaceful neighborly living and community service. We both currently serve and

[18:58] have served on several nonprofit boards. This is going to the next slide. This is

[19:04] the list of those nonprofit boards. And today I'm not mentioning this to just

[19:08] gain any advantage but just to share our principles that we believe in giving

[19:12] back to this community. Now going to the next slide. What has prompted this

[19:16] remodel? The context has changed a lot since we

[19:20] bought the house in 2018. When we bought, we were a family of three and

[19:24] now we are four. And then since Nero's dad passed away last year, his mom comes

[19:29] to stay with us more often. So, we just simply need more space. Now going to the

[19:35] next slide. We have I want to walk through the changes in the design we

[19:39] have made to address the recommendations.

[19:41] We believe we have addressed the massing and sizing concern raised by staff and

[19:46] planning commission. Going to the next slide, the recommendation was to scale

[19:50] down the overall massing to better match the neighborhood context. In the first

[19:55] iteration itself, we reduce the overall size from 2600 ft² to 2,300 ft² to meet

[20:00] the objective guideline. And today in our latest uh redesign uh it was uh

[20:06] established in the last hearing that it's not a problem of twotory or floor

[20:10] area ratio but the massing and as staff mentioned in this new redesign we have

[20:15] removed the open space on top of great room reducing the massing by 22%.

[20:20] Going to the new uh next slide you can see this was the old design and if you

[20:25] go to the next slide you'll see the reduction in the mass is coming from the

[20:28] illumination of that space. uh you going to the next slide you'll be

[20:33] able to see also this was the old design from the front and then if you go to the

[20:37] next slide you'll see the reduction significant reduction in massing from

[20:40] the front as well we believe we have also met all the

[20:44] consulting architects recommendations so uh the first recommendation if you go to

[20:48] the next slide what uh one more please uh the first recommendation was to

[20:53] extend the first floor eve and roof across the twotory wall and to set the

[20:57] second floor uh great room wall back so in the first iteration itself we had

[21:02] extended the eve and now that since we have eliminated the space above great

[21:05] room so that a setback condition is met and if you go to the slides you can see

[21:10] the old design and the new design uh where the eve and uh the set uh space is

[21:14] that wall itself is gone. The second recommendation if you go uh was to get

[21:20] more uniformity in the windows. Now in the first iteration itself we had done

[21:24] that actually for all the windows except for one which was in the stairways and

[21:28] that two we had left just for additional light light in the stairways. But now in

[21:32] the second iteration we have addressed that window itself. So if you go to the

[21:36] next slide this was the old design and going to the next slide you see a new

[21:41] design with much uniformity across all the windows.

[21:44] Quick uh uh quickly going to the next uh there were two more recommendations from

[21:48] the consulting architect which were actually addressed in the first

[21:51] iteration itself. So we can skip over the next two slides in interest of time

[21:54] and get to the neighborhood context. Uh going to one more slide actually. So we

[21:59] believe we are being a responsible neighbor. We have been constantly

[22:03] communicating with all our neighbors on the design. We have shared design

[22:06] printouts and today we have letter of supports from seven of our neighbors who

[22:10] support this design and remodel for us. Some other quick uh points uh to

[22:15] consider the house. Uh if you go a few more slides uh we can skip over the

[22:21] letters I think. Um and one more slide. The house behind us with which we share

[22:26] a fence is twotory. So we can go to the next slide and there are many more such

[22:31] two-story houses just few uh houses down from us on our street. So, we have

[22:35] attached all of those pictures and uh quickly with I know two seconds,

[22:41] but if you go to the last slide uh or I can skip it because I know I'm out

[22:47] of time. >> Does anyone have a question for this?

[22:54] » I have a question. >> Well, Commissioner Bernett just raised

[22:57] faster than you, so now you got to wait. >> Thank you. So would you have any

[23:00] problems actually not putting uh keeping with the same kind of garage door that

[23:06] is prominent in the neighborhood? >> Yes. So did you want to address the

[23:10] garage door question >> to the question for the immediate

[23:14] neighborhood in the neighborhood the glass door that we've put in the garage

[23:18] it's like quite prominent and I think in our uh submission we have shared the

[23:24] many houses sh having the same garage door but if it becomes uh a pertinent

[23:29] question or the blocker we would be open to considering it but we have already

[23:33] submitted few houses which have similar in the uh neighborhood. So, you're

[23:38] saying you would not be interested in keeping it in the same look that it is

[23:43] now? >> So, to rephrase what he just said, uh we

[23:47] would uh respectfully ask for permission to keep the glass door design we have

[23:51] offered, but if that's becoming a condition for approval, we'd be happy to

[23:55] reconsider it. >> Thank you,

[23:58] Commissioner Sordy. >> I was just going to ask the applicant to

[24:01] go ahead and explain that last slide. >> Uh thank you. I really appreciate it. I

[24:08] believe this was also a point brought up by Commissioner Saudi last time. So, um

[24:12] we our house has a lot of natural shading. So, uh if Oh, I are you

[24:18] referring to this slide or the slide after this? Sorry.

[24:24] » I think it was that slide. It's your last slide. The one you didn't get to

[24:29] present. >> Oh, yes. The one we didn't get. So, it's

[24:32] one more slide down actually. Yes. Uh so going one more down.

[24:38] Okay. Yes. So the house has a lot of natural shade and uh as you can see uh

[24:44] this one we have the story poles up but you can hardly see them from the play

[24:49] lot and actually there's one more slide where you can see even from the front

[24:52] view. Uh going to one more slide the and there also the story poles are up but

[24:58] they're hardly visible from the street. So the natural shade protects that view.

[25:05] Any further questions for the speaker? No. All right. Thank you.

[25:11] » Okay. So, I do then have a second card from James Woodard.

[25:18] » So, James Woodard with Sego Designs. I'm the principal designer of the project

[25:22] and I have a um comment card there just for answering any questions that may

[25:25] come. >> Ah, okay. Thank you very much. Um I

[25:29] don't have any other cards. normally you get, you know, time to come back and

[25:34] make a closing statement. If you would like to, please go right ahead.

[25:40] » I do appreciate that time. So, yes. Um, I just want to really summarize what I

[25:45] already walked through. We love this neighborhood. We have built our home

[25:49] here and our requirements and context have changed. We believe we have

[25:55] followed all the recommendations of the staff, the consulting architect and the

[25:58] planning commission. So, we're respectfully uh asking for an approval

[26:02] today so we can continue to be a part of this community.

[26:06] » Okay. >> Thank you. Are there any final

[26:08] questions? No. And as I always do, I forgot to ask if there was anybody with

[26:14] their hand raised on Zoom. I'm so sorry. >> No, there were no raised no hands raised

[26:18] on Zoom. >> Okay. I will like put it bold and red.

[26:21] Um, all right. We will close the public portion for this um particular item and

[26:26] I will then ask my fellow commissioners, do you have any questions of staff or

[26:30] would anyone like to make a motion before we can begin discussion?

[26:37] » Sorty. >> Uh, I'll go ahead and make a motion to

[26:40] approve the project. Um, I think the applicants made some considerable

[26:44] changes. Uh most significantly, I think they have they um specifically requested

[26:50] what we asked them to, which was to quote scale down the massing to improve

[26:54] neighborhood compatibility and increase the setback of the second floor great

[26:57] room wall to break up the two-story vertical plane. Um I think they've done

[27:01] a significant amount of reduction in that massing. So I'll just um recommend

[27:08] uh make a motion um to approve the project subject to the findings that the

[27:12] project is categorically exempt. uh subject to the finding that the

[27:16] objective standards of chapter 29 of town code have been met.

[27:20] Um number three that the finding that the project is in compliance with the

[27:24] residential design guidelines. Number four um considerations as required under

[27:29] 29.20.150 of the town code relating to

[27:32] architecture and site application. And finally to approve the architecture and

[27:37] site application S260007 with the conditions contained in exhibit

[27:41] 3 and revised development plans in exhibit 11.

[27:45] » Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Mayor

[27:48] » I'll second. >> All right. Thank you. Is there any

[27:51] discussion? Commissioner Stump.

[27:54] » And I I don't know if this question is really appropriate. I guess it's to the

[27:57] fellow commissioners. Um, obviously with our residential design guidelines, it

[28:01] talks about this frosted glass garage door and that it really is not a fit

[28:06] with our residential design guidelines. I realize they're just guidelines. Uh,

[28:10] but at the same time, uh, the the owners actually indicated a willingness to

[28:15] consider something other than the frosted glass door if that would allow

[28:19] for obviously approval. Um, and so I'm just trying to get a sense from other

[28:24] commissioners, you know, and how [clears throat] they kind of feel about

[28:27] the whole garage door issue because I'm not set on it. It's just something that

[28:31] when you we look at our residential design guidelines and try and take them

[28:34] seriously. >> I I will actually speak up on this um

[28:39] because I will say um a few years ago I remodeled my home. My home has lights in

[28:46] the garage and we worked with staff to make sure that they are frosted to a

[28:50] point with shades that there is no light bleed. So I would trust

[28:56] staff to work with them on a solution because they did with us. That would be

[29:00] my personal opinion. Yes. Does anyone else have any Commissioner Bernett?

[29:05] » Yes, I tend to agree with Commissioner Stump. Um, I think going through the

[29:10] neighborhood, I think it was uh predominantly a a more of a condition a

[29:16] traditional garage door. And I think that they I congratulate them for making

[29:21] the changes. And I think it'd be a small request to keep with the uh the keeping

[29:27] of the neighborhood and the keeping of our residential design guidelines which

[29:31] is uh clearly outlined that uh is we encourage to use wood garage doors and I

[29:38] think this um would have a much better uh effect with overall look of the home

[29:46] and the neighborhood. So, I would support a friendly amendment to uh the

[29:51] maker of the motion, but um that that would be my suggestion.

[30:00] » To the maker of the motion, is that an amendment you wish to make?

[30:03] » Well, not quite ready to make it. I guess I want to understand what design

[30:06] guideline we're um addressing because maybe I missed it

[30:10] in the staff report.

[30:16] The residency design guideline is 3.4.3. It states that uh to integrate garage

[30:22] door into the design with appropriate details, wood doors are encouraged and

[30:27] windows in garage doors are encouraged and it doesn't really go beyond that in

[30:32] terms of describing. >> So the second part was specifically wood

[30:36] door. >> Wood doors.

[30:39] » It calls out the material. >> Yeah.

[30:41] » Okay. Um, well, I think the applicant

[30:44] expressed uh a willingness to do that and since

[30:47] it's a residential design guideline, I guess I'm happy to make the friendly

[30:50] amendment. >> Does the seconder agree?

[30:55] » Yes. >> Yes.

[30:57] » Second. [laughter] >> All right. Um, quite honestly, for

[31:03] discussion, I I don't agree. Um, I also think that that is one of our guidelines

[31:07] that needs to be updated. I think that there are a lot of situations where wood

[31:11] is not appropriate. Um, and more modern styles are coming out, but it's just one

[31:17] part of the motion. So, I will be supporting the motion. Is there any

[31:21] further discussion? Sure. >> Commissioner Mayor?

[31:24] » Yeah. On that uh design guideline, did you say that uh it's encouraged to use

[31:30] wood garage doors with uh windows in the in the door itself or

[31:35] in the garage? What's what is it specifically?

[31:37] » Right. Thank you. Yes, it says u windows in garage doors are encouraged. It's

[31:43] another bullet point. >> So, can that be part of the motion uh to

[31:47] the maker of the motion that is wood door with windows in in the door f?

[31:52] » Yes, I would definitely want a wood door with windows. Okay. [laughter] So, I

[31:57] kind of think of that as coming standard these days, but uh let's clarify it for

[32:01] that. Sure. >> Through the chair. I mean, I think so.

[32:05] The wood is encouraged. we other rather or other than in

[32:10] historic districts hardly ever see wood. They're typically metal rollups that

[32:15] have um windows in them. Um but just just for the commission's information.

[32:20] Um obviously wood's encouraged, so you can feel free to do that, but just want

[32:25] to make sure that you understand that as well.

[32:31] » That's a good point. Um,

[32:35] I mean, as we talk through this, I do acknowledge the fact that

[32:40] very often nowadays, um, garage doors have a wood appearance, but they're

[32:44] metal, right? And so, that just kind of leave it open-ended as to the material.

[32:48] And I do feel now a little bit like I'm being a little too ownorous by requiring

[32:52] wood. So, um, is it too late to I'll go back to my original motion. I

[33:00] think that I I I do now that we discuss it and we kind of work through it, I

[33:03] think it's important to give the applicant the opportunity to have design

[33:07] freedom and be able to um do what they want with the garage door. So, I'll

[33:11] stick with my original motion. >> Is this acceptable to the seconder?

[33:16] » Uh no, I you are not the seconder. [laughter]

[33:20] » I want to be the second. >> I know, but you're not. So,

[33:22] » uh yeah, I'm okay with that. as long as uh there's language uh in the motion to

[33:28] um you know implement a design to prevent the light bleed from through

[33:33] through the through the glass. >> Yeah. Yes.

[33:36] » Okay. And then that I think they can work with staff on that the light bleed,

[33:39] right? >> Yes.

[33:40] » Okay. >> Is there any Okay.

[33:43] » Okay. Thank you. Is there any further discussion?

[33:47] » So my issue is that it's a frosted glass garage door. Now, it can it doesn't need

[33:53] to be wood, but it needs to be similar to the other garage doors in the

[33:58] neighborhood and with windows at the top. My issue is that of a a frosted

[34:03] glass garage door and with our design guidelines are is not appropriate. And

[34:09] right now, that's what we're following is our design guidelines. They haven't

[34:13] been updated yet. So that I would continue to want to uh you know further

[34:20] explain what my issue would be and I don't know if the maker of the motion

[34:25] and the second maker of the motion uh would go along with that or not. Um

[34:31] » no I don't agree. Sorry. Commissioner Sto.

[34:38] » And I I certainly don't see this as a black and white issue, unfortunately,

[34:42] because even as I saw that our recommendation is for a wood garage

[34:46] door. My reaction was, "Wow, that's so yesterday." Uh because wood garage doors

[34:51] are very heavy. Uh you typically never see them in a rollup door any longer.

[34:56] But there are garage doors that are made to look woodlike. I'll put it that way.

[35:03] They certainly can't replace Well, some of them do. Some of them are really

[35:06] really good and have windows etc in them. And so um I'm just going to go

[35:12] with the technicality kind of nothing personal but I'm going to stick with you

[35:16] know the idea that it should be woodlike even though it's not wood you know and

[35:20] they certainly have the right to put windows in it but I I won't vote for the

[35:24] motion as it is. >> All right.

[35:27] » But I understand. >> Okay. Okay. Any further discussion?

[35:32] » All right. I will call the question. All in favor?

[35:36] Right. Opposed? Motion passes two to three. Are there

[35:41] any appeal rights on this item? >> Yes. The decision of the planning

[35:45] commission can be appealed to the town council by any interested person as

[35:48] defined by town code section 29.10.020 within 10 days on forms available online

[35:54] with fees paid. The appeal is due by 100 p.m. on the final day if it is a Friday.

[36:01] » All right. Thank you. We will move on to item number seven. Consider an appeal of

[36:06] the community development director decision to approve a request to

[36:10] construct a second story addition exceeding 100 square feet to an existing

[36:15] single family resident on property zoned R-120

[36:19] PD located at 695 Bnel Road APN 40703006

[36:29] minor residential application MR-26-001

[36:34] categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act

[36:38] guidelines section 15301 existing facilities. Property owners

[36:44] Ronald C. Eddington Jr. and Marjgery Eddington. The applicant is James Hec.

[36:50] The appellant is is Dale Drum and the project planner is Sean Mullen.

[36:56] Can I get a show of hands of who have

[37:03] Okay, sorry. It's getting instructions. All who have visited the property. There

[37:07] we go. Is there any are there any disclosures? All right. Seeing none,

[37:15] you like threw me for a curve by handing me cards in the roll that um Mr. Mullen,

[37:19] will you be giving us a staff report on this?

[37:21] » Yes, and thank you. Uh before you this evening is an appeal of the community

[37:24] development director's decision um approving the second story addition on

[37:28] the Biknel residence. The minor residential development application was

[37:33] reviewed by the town, including the town's consulting architect. The

[37:36] applicant responded to all the consulting architect's recommendations.

[37:40] In the course of the application review, the neighbor also expressed some privacy

[37:44] and massing concerns to which the applicant responded by revising the

[37:48] project um including eliminating the exterior staircase, incorporating a

[37:53] privacy wall on the balcony, and incorporating trelluses to break up the

[37:56] two-story mass on the side elevation. Uh the application was deemed complete and

[38:01] given uh the applicant's response to the recommendations and the neighbor

[38:06] feedback, the director approved the minor residential development

[38:09] application on June 26th. Um that decision was appealed to the planning

[38:13] commission by the neighbor on July 1st. In their documentation, the appellant

[38:18] contends that the proposed second story addition would adversely affect the

[38:22] privacy of their rear yard and pool area and result in visual impacts to their

[38:27] property. Uh following the filing of the appeal, the applicant submitted a

[38:31] written response addressing the issues which is included um with your staff

[38:35] report and to that an additional letter from the appellant uh responding to the

[38:40] applicant's letter is also included with your staff report. Um this was a brief

[38:44] discussion but the complete discussion of the appeal is also included in your

[38:48] staff report. So based on the reasons provided in your report, it is

[38:51] recommended that the planning commission deny the appeal of the community

[38:54] development director's decision approving uh the minor residential

[38:58] development application. Uh this concludes staff's presentation and we

[39:01] are available to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Mullen. Are there any

[39:04] questions of staff? Right. None. Commissioner Sordy,

[39:10] » I just had a couple questions about setbacks. I think this is an R120 zoning

[39:14] district, right? Which is larger lots and um I didn't see it in the staff

[39:20] report. Um what is the minimum sideyard setback in R120?

[39:26] » But believe that's 15 ft. I'd have to double check, but if you give me one

[39:30] second, I'll check for you. >> Okay. Um

[39:34] does it apply to pools and decks? >> Um that's a good question. No, it

[39:38] doesn't apply to pools. Pools have their own um setbacks and pool equipment have

[39:42] their own setbacks. Those can definitely project into a 15t setback on the rear

[39:47] and and then decks. It really depends on the height. Um it's I won't it gets a

[39:52] little bit complicated. Um but typically decks can project a certain distance

[39:57] into required side and rear setbacks depending on the height. So a deck

[40:01] that's close to the ground can go anywhere. Um once you get above I think

[40:06] two feet it starts to pull back from the side setbacks and above the above six

[40:10] feet it's it pulls back more from the setback

[40:13] » and so the uh there's no setback that pertains to the pool itself the the

[40:18] water line it's the same in other words >> yeah there is a setback for pools um I

[40:23] can look that up as well I believe it's well I won't quote it um but and it's

[40:29] measured from the coping line >> okay but it's not the pool water line.

[40:34] The pool itself wouldn't be need to be outside the 15t setback. It could be it

[40:39] could extend into it. >> It could extend into it. It has um and

[40:42] it's not zone specific. Uh it's just a static distance from a property line.

[40:48] » Right. Okay. Thank you. >> Are there any further questions to

[40:53] staff? >> I'm going to ask a clarifying question

[40:56] because I feel like this goes back and forth. Appellant then applicant.

[41:01] Correct. Okay. and then closing with a applicant then appellant.

[41:06] » Thank you. All right. So then I will call um Dale Drum.

[41:21] » Uh good evening. My address is 697 Bnell Road. Um I know you've seen all the

[41:28] documentation. Hopefully you've read it there. Um, my biggest concern is the

[41:33] second story. Um, although it's 15 feet, maybe a little bit more back with a

[41:40] setback, it's still towering over our backyard. And I've met with them and I

[41:46] thought the best thing to be um would have the second story set back a minimum

[41:52] of five feet. I was a real estate developer. I've built homes in Lascatus,

[41:57] Saratoga, um Campbell. Um it was very typical even

[42:02] here in Lascatus and it's even your design guidelines when you're building

[42:07] next to a residential neighbor. The best thing on a second story uh addition to

[42:13] break up the mass would be to set it back 5 ft. So that's what I'm

[42:17] requesting. I'm not having any hassles with how large their building is or

[42:22] anything um that they are building there. Um but my biggest concern is that

[42:28] when we come out of our backyard is going to be towering over everything we

[42:32] have. It doesn't just affect me down from me because the road curves. My

[42:38] other neighbors are affected. And I believe you got a letter also from my

[42:42] adjacent neighbor at 100 Smith Creek that also was concerned about looking

[42:48] over and see the big flat stuckle wall. So what I'd like to see the commission

[42:53] do was follow the guidelines and see if you can't have the second story set back

[43:00] 5T. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for

[43:03] the speaker? Commissioner Stump. So then it's no longer a privacy issue

[43:09] for you. It's more of a sight issue. >> It's both. Um it's privacy in that it

[43:15] would be towering over the top of us. When we're in our pool, we're going to

[43:19] be looking up, if you can imagine, 22 feet in the air to their structure. Um

[43:26] there's a photo that I brought you. If you look at that where you see the red

[43:30] line right now, that's where the setback is. So that's where the current single

[43:35] story is. That whole entire second story portion is going to move forward to that

[43:41] red line and go up straight up. So, it's going to be towering over my

[43:47] property.

[43:52] » Commissioners had a chance to take a look at what we were given.

[43:58] » Okay. Mr. Stump, you had a follow-up. >> Yeah. on the privacy aspect as I recall

[44:03] in here that they were proposing to put up a trellis that would

[44:07] » they have a large deck across the back and they were proposing to put a trellis

[44:10] on the front of it so that we couldn't see people walking on the deck. That was

[44:14] nothing I asked for, something that they decided to do.

[44:18] » Originally, originally they had the deck all the way to the setback line and the

[44:23] stairs going down in the setback. So after some discussions, they removed the

[44:28] stairs, they pushed the uh deck back a little bit, and then now they've added

[44:33] the trellis. There is a trellis on the structure. We'll never see it because of

[44:37] the neighbor fence that's between us. It's too low.

[44:40] » So then the trellis from your perspective provides no benefit to you.

[44:44] Privacy, >> nothing at all.

[44:49] » Any other questions, Mr. Sordy? So in that handout that you

[44:53] gave us, I think there's a red line. >> That red line shows where the current

[44:57] single story comes down. That's at the setback line. And then if you envision

[45:02] that back section of the twotory is all going to move forward to that red line.

[45:08] » Well, when you say move forward to the red line, it's not really in plan view.

[45:13] It's move. Yeah, >> I'm still confused about what it's

[45:18] showing us. Well, if you envision that picture, just take that back portion and

[45:23] bring it all the way forward. I'm not an architect, so I can draw that up.

[45:27] » I guess I see what you're saying now. Just

[45:29] » But that's where it's going to be. >> Yeah.

[45:31] » And then it's going to look like the pages attached.

[45:35] So, there's my version of what it would look like. I drew up a design uh what I

[45:40] would love to see it look like, >> and then they have their design. Another

[45:45] question in my notes. I I thought I had written down that you had asked in pre u

[45:48] prior correspondence with the applicant that it be moved back three feet and

[45:53] then now you're asking for five foot. >> Well, that's what you're the if we go by

[45:57] the town's guideline it's five. In my past everything has been five and then

[46:02] originally I talked to them I said it could be two to three but the farther

[46:06] back it is the better.

[46:10] » Okay. Thanks. Any further questions? Um, so I would

[46:16] like to ask you a little bit about the engagement.

[46:19] Were you notified earlier on? Were you at any meeting or did somebody come and

[46:25] speak to you about the project or in reading your letters, I was just trying

[46:28] to come up with that sort of the timeline?

[46:30] » Yes. When they put the sign up on their property, that was the first time I knew

[46:34] that they were going to build this addition. So then I went online and was

[46:39] able to look at the drawings that the city had online.

[46:42] And following that, were you able to have

[46:44] » Following that, we got together and talked to them and that's when we got

[46:48] the first email that I sent to them after looking at the plans asking them,

[46:52] these are the things that I don't like. >> Were there any follow-ups after that or?

[46:58] » Yeah, we've talked several times about what changes we could make and that's

[47:02] how it came into uh the deck being pushed back and the stairs and a few

[47:06] things, but nothing on the massing of the structure. So they have have they

[47:10] seen this proposed? >> I sent that to them as an email. So I

[47:14] attached the email on one of my letters. It's exactly what I sent him was a quick

[47:19] sketch I did in five minutes and said this is what I'd like to see it look

[47:23] like. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. That helps.

[47:26] Any further questions? All right. Thank you.

[47:30] So I will now call the applicant Marjorie Eddington

[47:35] or Mr. Edington. Oh,

[47:39] » I'm the Hi, good evening. I'm the designer of the project. I've been

[47:44] working with the homeowners and with all of the the decisions to make all of the

[47:48] support changes possible to supply anything we can do to supply for the

[47:53] neighbors. Worked extensively with Sean. I'm in my 21st year of doing

[47:58] architectural designs. I've had several council meetings as well. In my 21 years

[48:03] of doing this in service, I have never had a client so apt to try to please

[48:09] their neighborhood ever. So, I just really want you to understand that we

[48:13] have been trying. We've had five different design changes. We've uh one

[48:18] of the things that they have, as you mentioned, being a 20 lot um zone, it is

[48:23] a very large lot. The rear yard does have a tennis court. They do have a

[48:26] swimming pool on the opposite side of Dale. They do have a trampoline. It is a

[48:31] sloped hill. To be accurate, the addition is 17 1/2 ft away from the

[48:37] property line. In addition, we did a light study. We showed that in two

[48:41] different seasons of time and two different times, the shade from this

[48:45] addition will not encroach on the neighborhood and the neighbor for Dale.

[48:49] We have then immediately tried to accommodate by having trees put in. We

[48:54] hired an arborist to rely to look into a possible tree to give more shade and

[48:59] more support for privacy. In doing so, we found that there's a tremendous

[49:03] amount of aqueduct and drainage that goes right down the middle of that side

[49:07] and the fence for the hillside and water drainage. So, no trees are really

[49:11] applicable. However, we also then moved windows higher. That bedroom that's

[49:17] going to be moved is a bedroom. It is not a playroom or an an access room.

[49:21] that would be something that would be looking down during the day of the play.

[49:25] It is a bedroom. So in in in helping them, we also raised and minimized the

[49:29] windows so we could have light and ventilation in the bedroom, but we made

[49:32] them so that they were higher than height level so view in from that room

[49:36] would not encroach on the neighbor as well. We then looked into moving the

[49:41] addition further back. What happens is is due to the construction of making

[49:46] that addition, we need to extensively spend more money to reassure the house

[49:51] because because there is already a second addition already. There's already

[49:55] a second story there, but making it all the way to the perimeter helps cost for

[49:59] the down to the foundation. So, we're we're looking at trying to tell the

[50:05] neighborhood as well as you that we have done almost everything possible. We do

[50:10] meet the guidelines. One of the things that Dale talks about not meeting the

[50:13] guidelines is regarding to the front and our front elevation meets all the

[50:17] guidelines. We meet all of your architectural reviews. We meet all of

[50:21] the FRA zonings and limitations and square footage maximums for this

[50:26] project. We kindly hope that you'll decide to let this do this project.

[50:31] Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for

[50:33] the speaker?

[50:37] » Did you have a question? Sorry. Okay. Okay. Um, I don't think they do. I I do.

[50:42] So, I want to clarify. Um, just so I'm clear, I'm looking on sheet A4

[50:48] » where it has the second story, >> the floor plan.

[50:51] » Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Um, so if I was measuring off the edge of the addition

[50:56] off the bedroom to your property line, you I think you said 17 and 1/2 ft, but

[51:01] I want to make sure I got that right. >> Yeah, you could look on sheet A1, the

[51:03] site plan. It'll have the actual dimension.

[51:06] » I just have to make it really big. Yeah.

[51:16] » Okay. Thank you. That actually answers what I

[51:20] needed. There any further questions? >> Okay,

[51:25] Commissioner Shorty. >> 17 foot 7 in.

[51:28] » I had a question. may end up being for staff. But um so what was the impetus

[51:34] behind engaging Jeremy Khan um who I think is listed as the town

[51:39] arborist, but then at in the email it says

[51:43] um fire department planner 5, something like that. I was just curious to know

[51:47] who engaged that person and was that part of town review or is it the

[51:50] applicant or >> So I can answer part of that question.

[51:52] Um the town arborist, the acting town arborist is a consultant firm um that

[51:58] has a number of arborists and different professionals on staff. Um Jeremy is I

[52:03] think I got his name right. Um that's his title, but he's a certified arborist

[52:08] is my understanding. And the applicant or yeah the applicant may be able to

[52:11] answer why they engaged them, why they initiated that.

[52:16] » You want do you want to hear >> this is so wait just to clarify from

[52:19] staff. So that that is an employee of a consulting firm that serves as a town

[52:24] arborist. >> Currently they serve as the town

[52:26] arborist. Yes. >> Okay. Got it.

[52:29] Okay. Thanks. >> So we called the town arborist because

[52:32] we wanted to because of the privacy issue and to try to break up a flat

[52:35] wall. We wanted to put the um trees there and they wanted us to put it

[52:42] closer to our property to the new addition but we have a drainage system

[52:46] there. So, we contacted Jeremy and he said, "Oh, well, you can't put it

[52:50] there." And he said, "Because of the other trees and there's no room." So,

[52:54] then I said, "Well, we could go ahead and put vines. I'm happy to do whatever

[52:58] we can in that 4ft planter." I suggested tall trees and they said, "Well, we

[53:02] don't want the trees to be too tall." So, I don't know how then to break that

[53:07] up. So, then we there was a thing. There was trelluses. We have a trellis that

[53:11] provides um privacy on the balcony and then we have trelluses on the first

[53:17] story above the sliding glass door in the window to break up the flat wall

[53:21] which was in the town guideline. So I asked if they would be able to see them

[53:26] and he said yes we would be able to see them because they have a raised living

[53:29] room. Otherwise we would not have put in the trelluses on the lower story. I

[53:34] would have been happy to put in um some of those ornamental like Juliet

[53:38] balconies or whatever they might be up there as well. Um so I'd be happy to put

[53:44] in those, but we did ask Jeremy for advice because we wanted to do what was

[53:49] appropriate for the town and to try to help the neighbor and we don't want

[53:54] anything that will fall into his pool. >> Okay. Do you have any further questions?

[53:59] I do. Um Oh, sorry. Do you have one, Commissioner Mayor? Yeah, I just sorry a

[54:04] clarifying question uh for the applicant and the designer. Um can you uh repeat

[54:08] again how far is the second story wall away from the property line?

[54:13] » 17' 7 in. >> 17 foot 7 in. Thank you.

[54:16] » So, um I I just want to clarify some of the conversations then that you've had

[54:21] to sort of understand, you know, there's a concern about privacy. Sounds like

[54:24] you've guys have been, you know, making concessions where you have. Sounds like

[54:28] you spoke to an arborist about potential trees or vines. Have you been able to

[54:33] land on a solution that you you think will help provide that screening on his

[54:39] side while you are able to maintain your design?

[54:43] I would have to take one more step with the arborist because he said there were

[54:47] no trees. He just thought vines could go in the forefoot. I was so no because he

[54:52] said the flat the drum said the the trees were not a concern. It was the

[54:56] flat wall. So, I'm not I'm at a I'm stuck as to I'm happy to do trees that

[55:02] we can plant in a 4 foot raised bed next to the fence. I'm happy to do that. I

[55:07] don't know if there's trees that will run into the drainage system. I'm happy

[55:12] to put in vines that can climb as tall as possible.

[55:17] » Okay. All right. Great. Thank you very much. Any further questions? All right.

[55:22] Thank you.

[55:26] So at this time, do we have any speakers on Zoom?

[55:34] » There are no hands raised on Zoom. >> Okay. I don't have any further cards,

[55:38] which usually means now the appellent can No. God knew I was

[55:44] going to do that. You get an opportunity to say anything further if you would

[55:48] like. I know. I tried. I'm sorry.

[55:57] We have wanted to do this project since we first bought the house and life

[56:00] happens and now we have the funds and so asking us to pull it back another 5T

[56:05] would be difficult to do because of the structural concerns. Um I did just as

[56:10] far as talking with them as soon as the town said that we needed to talk to them

[56:14] we went out of our way to talk with them. Um I did not know that in a

[56:18] backyard edition I would have to do that. So, please forgive my naivity, but

[56:23] I have done everything, my husband and I have done everything that we can short

[56:27] of bringing that wall back. We also had

[56:31] another option that we tried, which was, well, what if we attach, you know, make

[56:36] it look Dale suggested we could keep the first story roof line coming down and we

[56:42] talked to our architect and our contractor and they said that would be

[56:46] cost prohibitive as well. So, we tried both designs to do that. Um, I don't

[56:52] want to look over their yard, which is why we have their privacy trellis up

[56:57] there. I I don't want to do that at all. Um,

[57:02] and the neighbor next to them, we can't see them from our yard, so I'm not quite

[57:07] sure how they can see us, but that's okay. um the one on 100 Smith Creek who

[57:13] also has a flat wall and a lot of people have flat walls. So we really would love

[57:20] to go forward with the project. We have our contractor been waiting for a long

[57:25] time. We have been waiting for a long time and we feel we have gone out of our

[57:29] way to do almost everything while still maintaining the integrity of what we

[57:33] would like for our home and our family. >> Thank you. Any final questions? All

[57:40] right. Thank you. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Sordy did. Sorry.

[57:44] » Um, so just in reading the correspondence, I think I I ended up in

[57:48] my notes listing five things I think that you've done, and I just want to

[57:51] make sure they're still part of the project. It says, number one, remove the

[57:54] entire set of exterior stairs from the balcony to the ground.

[57:57] » Yep. >> Number two, shortened the rear balcony

[58:00] by 4T on both sides of the house to decreasing the overall length and moving

[58:04] it away from their yard. >> Yes. Um the third one was put in a

[58:08] privacy lattice on the end side of the balcony facing their property so we

[58:13] cannot look down on their yard. >> Yes.

[58:15] » Fourth is we reduced the width of the rear facing window closest to them um

[58:20] which does not look toward them by 2 feet. So it is now on our side of the

[58:24] privacy lattice. And then finally, um, the fifth one made the windows on the

[58:28] southside facing them smaller, raising them to be above head and eye level so

[58:34] that they would not overlook their property, but still have light and cross

[58:37] breeze. Those are all still. I just want to make sure those are all

[58:40] » and we put in the those lower lower trelluses. We don't need the lower

[58:44] trelluses if they're not going to affect them. Um, but we did put them in to help

[58:49] break up that look. >> Okay. Thank you.

[58:53] Right. Any further questions? No. Thank you very much. And now the appellant can

[58:59] come back up.

[59:12] Uh just want to say that one of the reasons we're pushing for the second

[59:16] story setback is also because you just heard from them. They cannot ever plant

[59:20] a tree next to this thing. So, it's going to always be one big flat stuckle

[59:26] wall that I look at in planting anything. Since we have a pool next to

[59:30] the fence, I really don't want something someone planting a tree in that little

[59:34] 4ft area because all the roots are going to end up damaging our pool. So, that's

[59:41] one of the things the easiest way is to set the building back resolves the

[59:45] massing makes it look better. You see a little bit of roof line. It's always

[59:50] been done in the past by me and by a lot of the projects even in this city that

[59:55] we did in the past and I'm not sure why it doesn't happen here. This is my wife.

[1:00:00] She wants to add a few comments. >> Hi Monique Drum. I just wanted to I

[1:00:05] don't know if anybody realizes that um Could you move a little bit closer to

[1:00:09] the microphone so we know they pick you up? Thank you.

[1:00:10] » Sorry I'm not used to public speaking. Um that the property in question is

[1:00:16] relatively flat. it does raise up a little bit. Our property, however, has a

[1:00:21] very large hill that begins um I don't know what is it like 20 ft 20 ft from

[1:00:27] our um back door. And so we don't have as much usable property. I mean that's

[1:00:33] why our pools on the side of the house. We didn't put it there, but we bought it

[1:00:36] that way and that's where the only place it could really be. So, our gathering

[1:00:40] area is directly outside our back door and it's about 15 feet to the where the

[1:00:47] hill starts and then, you know, not even the width of the property. I just want

[1:00:51] to point that out because it's it's though the properties look really large,

[1:00:55] we don't have um as much accessibility um to entertain or or use because of the

[1:01:02] giant hill in the backyard. >> Our property is also 24,000

[1:01:07] » be closer. Yeah, our property is also 24,000 square feet. It's just most of

[1:01:12] our property is not usable. Halfway up our property, we have a fence so our dog

[1:01:17] can be in there. The rest of it, just like all of our neighbors, they're all

[1:01:20] halfacre lots. They're all open so the deer and everything can roam through and

[1:01:25] not be hindered. Um, theirs is one of the few properties that's flat and

[1:01:29] theirs is fully fenced. >> Thank you.

[1:01:34] » Are there any questions? >> No. Thank you very much.

[1:01:42] All right. I will now close the public portion of the hearing for this item um

[1:01:47] and invite my fellow commissioners to ask questions of staff or make a motion

[1:01:52] so we can begin discussion.

[1:02:06] Okay, Commissioner, >> I'll make a motion. Uh, I'll make a

[1:02:10] motion to uh deny the appeal of the community development director's

[1:02:14] decision to approve a request for approval uh to construct a second story

[1:02:19] addition exceeding 100 square ft uh to an existing single family residence on

[1:02:23] property zoned R-120 PD APN 40703006

[1:02:30] categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act

[1:02:35] section 15301 existing facilities ities. Uh, property

[1:02:40] owners Ronald Eddington Jr. and Marjgerie Eddington, applicant James

[1:02:44] Hec, appellent Dale Drum, project planner Sean Mullen. I can make the

[1:02:49] findings required finding for SQA. The project is categorically exempt pursuant

[1:02:54] to the adopted guidelines for the implementation of the California

[1:02:57] Environmental Quality Act section 15301 existing facilities. Uh, required

[1:03:03] compliance with the zoning regulations. The project meets the objective

[1:03:07] standards of chapter 29 of the town code and I can make the finding required

[1:03:11] compliance with the residential design guidelines. The project is in compliance

[1:03:15] with the residential design guidelines for single family residences not located

[1:03:19] in hillside areas. >> Thank you commissioner. Is there a

[1:03:24] second? Commissioner Bernett second that.

[1:03:27] » All right. Thank you. Is there any discussion or does anyone want to make

[1:03:31] an alternative motion?

[1:03:36] I'll begin discussion. I'm going to support the motion. I do think that the

[1:03:41] applicants have done a lot of work to address issues um that have come up

[1:03:47] particularly around privacy. Sounds like there's been a number of changes made.

[1:03:51] Um I'm sure that they could work on something like Ivy to break up a a wall

[1:03:56] or something like that, but um I feel ultimately it's a nice design. um lines

[1:04:02] up well with interest of the neighborhood. Any other comments or

[1:04:08] Mr. Sorty? >> I'll just make a quick comment. I do

[1:04:11] think that the um the applicant has made considerable effort. Um one of the

[1:04:16] things that's compelling to me is that there's the difference in grade and I

[1:04:20] think the subject property is above um and I understand that. But given the

[1:04:24] proximity of the addition and um the addition of privacy lattice, I do see

[1:04:29] that as potentially screening the view um it certainly isn't going to remove

[1:04:33] visibility of the whole addition in the entire bulk and mass. But I think it it

[1:04:37] definitely given the lower grade to upper grade and the proximity of the

[1:04:42] pool area to the addition. I think it is going to go part of the way toward

[1:04:46] screening the view. So I think that um that helps a lot and I'm going to

[1:04:51] support the motion. >> All right. Thank you. There are no

[1:04:55] further commissioner Mayor. >> Yeah, I'll just make a couple comments.

[1:04:57] I agree it's a I think it's a tasteful addition. Uh well executed. Um it's

[1:05:02] beyond the setback by a couple feet. Uh you did everything right with regard to

[1:05:08] being considerate about privacy with the clear story windows and the lattice on

[1:05:12] the deck. So um usually when there are privacy issues, those are the sort of

[1:05:18] strategies that we recommend and you've already implemented them. So, thank you.

[1:05:23] » Right. There's no further discussion. I will call the question. All in favor?

[1:05:27] Passes unanimously. Are there any appeal rights for this

[1:05:31] item? >> Yes. Thank you. The decision of the

[1:05:34] planning commission can be appealed to the town council by any interested

[1:05:37] person as defined by section 29.10.020 within 10 days on forms available online

[1:05:44] with fees paid. The appeal is due by 100 p.m. on the final day if it is a Friday.

[1:05:50] All right. Thank you. Um, if it's okay with you guys, can we take a three

[1:05:53] minute break? All right. We're going to take a very

[1:05:56] quick break. Thank you.

[1:06:22] Step

[1:10:50] All right. Thank you everybody. Call the uh meeting back to order. So we are now

[1:10:56] going to move on to other business. Discuss the town council's direction on

[1:11:00] the work plan for the historic preservation committee and the

[1:11:03] evaluation process used to determine the significance of pre-1941 residences. The

[1:11:10] planning commission's discussion is not considered a project under the adopted

[1:11:14] guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

[1:11:19] And Mr. Mullen, will you be giving us the report on this?

[1:11:25] Yes, thank you. On December 2nd, 2025, the uh town council provided direction

[1:11:30] to staff to evaluate the level of effort and feasibility of the following items

[1:11:35] related to historic preservation in the town. preserving small homes, reviewing

[1:11:40] the boundaries of the historic districts, refreshing the Bloomfield

[1:11:44] survey, considering replacement structures, um historically relevant,

[1:11:49] adopting pre41, uh to 70-year rolling, uh dates, and

[1:11:54] updating and clarifying definitions and required findings for determining

[1:11:58] historic status. The council asked staff to return after the objective design

[1:12:04] standards update for multifamily and mixeduse residential projects was sub

[1:12:08] substantially completed. Um this process is still going on and going to the

[1:12:13] council on September 1st um for consideration.

[1:12:17] As such, staff has not begun to evaluate council's direction regarding historic

[1:12:21] preservation. On February 25th of this year, the planning commission chair

[1:12:25] requested that an item be added to an agenda for a discussion of the council's

[1:12:28] direction and evaluation process used to determine the historic significance of

[1:12:33] pre-41 structures. For the benefit of the public, I'll remind folks that this

[1:12:36] is a discussion and uh item only and no action will be taken this evening, nor

[1:12:40] direction provided to staff as we're waiting for council's direction. But

[1:12:44] your discussion this evening, the minutes of this uh and the video will be

[1:12:47] ava made available to the council when staff returns to council um with our

[1:12:52] evaluation of these uh the the work needs for these items. Um staff's

[1:12:57] available to support your discussion and we'll try and have some uh visual

[1:13:01] presentations to help guide that. >> All right. Thank you. Are there any

[1:13:05] questions of staff at this time? All right.

[1:13:09] And I have two cards. David Zikovich. Did I say that right? I didn't think I

[1:13:15] would. I'm sorry. I know. You know, by now you should know to put the phonetic

[1:13:20] for me every time. >> By now you should know me.

[1:13:23] » It's good. That was a great comeback. Thank you.

[1:13:26] » Okay. I I'm just here to hear what you guys have to say tonight and kind of

[1:13:29] curious why you guys don't sit down here with a whole bunch of architects and

[1:13:32] builders and review the feasibility of the things that you're trying to come up

[1:13:37] with. Any questions?

[1:13:43] I don't Anyone have any questions? No. Okay. Sorry. Commissioner Sto.

[1:13:50] » Well, I think you anticipated one of the things I was going to be talking about

[1:13:53] tonight, which is including that group of people. And you know, I we do include

[1:13:59] um people in those conversations. But in my from my standpoint, it is critically

[1:14:04] important that we include voices like we got something from um Bess Weisma uh

[1:14:11] back in June. And I thought what was written was, you know, incredibly

[1:14:15] important and things that we need to make sure we're taking into account. And

[1:14:19] so I believe that, you know, that is absolutely got to be a part of the

[1:14:23] process. >> A majority [clears throat]

[1:14:27] » there wasn't a question in there, but you can just say hooray. Yay. Well done.

[1:14:31] Uh, the majority of the work, architecture and construction, is done

[1:14:36] by maybe 10 builders and 10 architects that work in town all the time. Probably

[1:14:41] check in with Sean on that one. Um, so I just don't know why you wouldn't get

[1:14:45] their input on on what it is you guys are trying to achieve.

[1:14:51] » Right. Any further questions of the speaker? No.

[1:14:54] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:14:56] » And the next card is Vesma.

[1:15:08] Um, good evening, commissioners. I know I know several of you from many years of

[1:15:12] doing houses um, in town and I appreciate the opportunity to kind of

[1:15:17] just speak on this subject. Um, again, as a local residential architect that

[1:15:22] does a lot of projects in historical districts and immediately adjacent

[1:15:26] historical districts, um, this is a really passionate topic for me and, uh,

[1:15:32] I know that some of you know how passionate I am about it. Um, part of it

[1:15:37] is a personal passion. Um, I love what I do and I love working in this town and

[1:15:42] part of it is my job as an architect to advocate for my clients. And sometimes

[1:15:48] that means I have to get passionate about what I present and do. Um, I

[1:15:54] wanted to just reiterate some of the things that I said in the letter and I'm

[1:15:56] not going to kind of go into it, but I I do really want uh there to be very

[1:16:02] specific um guidelines for you guys to tell the town on how to incorporate um

[1:16:09] local architects and builders. I think we all talk about that we want to be

[1:16:14] included. I think that often we hear, "Hey, we reached out or you should be

[1:16:18] included or we said we would include you, but the way in which we're included

[1:16:22] or participate is not always um creating anything that facilitates positive uh

[1:16:27] conversation nor results. Um it's very hard for us when we are noticed at a

[1:16:33] last minute. We all run businesses, um, small businesses, um, and so we'd like a

[1:16:38] little more notice and we'd like a little more time and we'd like some,

[1:16:40] we'd like some opportunity to maybe talk about it in several different, uh,

[1:16:44] meeting times, maybe not just one. Um the recent thing that a lot of us

[1:16:48] participated in related to uh some of the new housing mandates where there was

[1:16:53] a a company that was hired to facilitate these uh Zoombased things was um frankly

[1:16:59] very impersonal and a lot of the questions uh were not really appropriate

[1:17:03] necessarily for single family residents compared to uh multif family. However,

[1:17:08] there's been a lot of chatter about uh infiltrating of some design guidelines

[1:17:12] kind of getting cherrypicked and put in maybe new or future design guidelines. I

[1:17:17] think you even heard tonight um there are design guidelines that uh

[1:17:23] frankly aren't great or updated design guidelines, not just uh aesthetically um

[1:17:27] but also neighbor neighborhood specific. Um and and then most recently uh we now

[1:17:33] have fire uh that is weighing in with new rules. Half of what you guys talked

[1:17:37] about tonight I couldn't get set I couldn't get through on a set of plans

[1:17:40] and that's a code that's not a guideline. So we can talk about things

[1:17:44] that are aesthetic and pretty and nice to haves but if they don't work with how

[1:17:48] we actually have to build things today either with materials or distances and

[1:17:52] I'm not just talking fire. I'm talking about best practices in building then

[1:17:56] the guidelines are impossible and we're we're we're mincing words. Um, I would

[1:18:01] like to say there are some resources that I would like you guys to ask me

[1:18:04] about that I think the town could take advantage of and I'm happy to help with

[1:18:07] any grants to make those resources available to the town

[1:18:12] because I didn't get to say everything. [laughter]

[1:18:15] » I Well, I I have a question. I would like for you to talk about some of those

[1:18:18] resources that you referenced in your >> Okay. Um I think when we go about uh

[1:18:24] making new guidelines and new standards especially for historical things some of

[1:18:28] the things that I put in my letter referencing um both national and state

[1:18:32] standards are uh are certainly guide are certainly guidelines and yes indeed some

[1:18:37] of that language that we have built into our own uh historic um code uh or or um

[1:18:44] definitions. What we haven't built into them and what we haven't done is we have

[1:18:48] not educated our historic committee that makes decisions on how to interpret

[1:18:53] those and we have a bunch of laymen doing it. So things become subjective.

[1:18:58] Uh there are training programs out there, seminars, workshops etc. Um there

[1:19:03] is a uh company called the or an organization called the California

[1:19:08] Preservation Foundation which specifically deals with educating towns,

[1:19:13] people, foundations, etc. um with um opportunities around how to

[1:19:19] uh write guidelines, how to um set up uh best practices in their town. In fact,

[1:19:25] um, some of their workshops that they just have going on, uh, are things like

[1:19:29] historic review ordinance and districts, a three-part public practitioner and

[1:19:33] local government training, historic districts explained, understanding

[1:19:37] designations, diversity in current challenging times, preservation boot

[1:19:42] camp, objective design standards in historic context, balancing housing and

[1:19:47] preservation, policies, case studies, and strategies. These are just some of

[1:19:51] the simple workshops that are out there that are that are taught by people who

[1:19:56] are professionals that might help to create a platform for less subjective

[1:20:01] understanding and interpretation of of our um of our our guidelines. Um there

[1:20:08] is so that's California Preservation Foundation. There's also the um

[1:20:12] California State Office of Historic Preservation or OP

[1:20:18] whose entire program is to offer assistance in grant-based education

[1:20:23] to integrate historic preservation into the broader context of overall community

[1:20:27] planning and development activities by adopting a comprehensive approach to

[1:20:31] preservation planning which combines identification, evaluation, and

[1:20:35] registration of true historical resources with strong local planning

[1:20:39] powers, economic incentive ives and informed policy. These are things that

[1:20:45] are just available in our own state. Available in our own town is an entire

[1:20:49] collection of architects and builders who know about all this, who want to

[1:20:53] help these kinds of things. And having guidelines and interpretations and

[1:21:00] definitions that are consistent and and actually have integrity in how

[1:21:05] they are made actually makes my job better. a large part of and makes better

[1:21:10] projects. I mean, I I think you you can see the difference

[1:21:15] in projects that we saw tonight that might actually check the box on they've

[1:21:20] met a design guideline. In my opinion, they're not good design,

[1:21:25] but they've checked a box on it because we've decided that we've interpreted

[1:21:30] literally a guideline. We haven't actually made an educated

[1:21:36] um understanding of the intent of it. >> Okay. I need to see if anyone else has

[1:21:41] any questions. Commissioner Shorty, >> I was just going to ask if you could

[1:21:44] submit that list of resources to staff and they could disseminate it to us.

[1:21:48] That would be great. Thank you. >> And I I mean I would like to say I'm

[1:21:52] happy to help get this integrated into how we do it. I I mean and I know there

[1:21:58] are several other architects that would too. I'm really

[1:22:00] » I have to let everybody ask their questions. Don't go anywhere. There's

[1:22:02] more. >> Yes, sir.

[1:22:03] » Bernett. >> So, just to put your mind at ease, I've

[1:22:06] been on the historic preservation committee for 13 years and I've attended

[1:22:10] many, many uh seminars down in Pasadena and all over. I've been very involved

[1:22:17] with it. So, just to put your mind at ease that there are probably some people

[1:22:20] on the historic preservation committee that aren't just layman. I think the

[1:22:25] biggest issue with our uh what we're having now the issues we're having is

[1:22:30] with our findings and I think the reason and we do follow chapter 15 of the

[1:22:36] national uh you know the preservation it we just

[1:22:41] have gone about it in a different way. Our issue and I think either Joel or

[1:22:45] Sean can speak to it is that it's not in code and that is where we get into

[1:22:50] trouble because I think we actually do follow what you want us to follow but

[1:22:56] Lascatus does it in a different way and what has hindered us is that it's not in

[1:23:01] a code form and I think that's what we're probably working on. I've

[1:23:05] discussed it with Sean and Joel. So, that might put your mind at ease that we

[1:23:10] are um addressing what your concerns are. And there's just um you know, I

[1:23:18] think that's what this whole thing is about. And as far as you've mentioned

[1:23:22] many times, the windshield drivebys, well, that was actually done by

[1:23:28] historians was an initial look and then just tonight at the historic

[1:23:34] preservation committee, there was a home on Magnus Loop that had driveby

[1:23:40] initially, but it was given a double plus rating by Bloomfield herself. And

[1:23:46] then you followed through then with a much more indepth

[1:23:50] uh survey of the home, ratings of the home, and and how it eventually ended up

[1:23:56] that it would appear it was for the National Register. So, we just didn't do

[1:24:01] drivebys, though that was in general. And then we went into more depth if it

[1:24:06] looked like that home did have qualities that should be looked into more deeply.

[1:24:12] So my question is I hope that that might give you some uh

[1:24:20] uh strength or some uh feeling that you

[1:24:25] that the historic preservation committee has some history and knowledge of what I

[1:24:31] think I find offense when you always say layman but I don't think you do your

[1:24:36] your due diligence into looking into who really is on the historic preservation

[1:24:40] committee and the years of experience they've had and assuming that. Um, so I

[1:24:46] just needed to put that out there. All right. Are there any other questions? I

[1:24:52] I actually do have one. Um, I know other communities, particularly the smaller

[1:24:57] ones, also deal with some of this. Have you been involved in any other

[1:25:02] communities and maybe how they did maybe workshop this with architects or

[1:25:06] something? Is there a brief description that you could give me

[1:25:11] of what perhaps you have seen because council is going to hear all of this and

[1:25:17] it might be nice to hear hey this has been successful in another community.

[1:25:22] Um I think what is successful in other communities um Campbell, Carmemell, uh

[1:25:28] even San Jose and Santa Clara County and their historical or their heritage uh

[1:25:33] commission is what the county calls theirs, not historical.

[1:25:37] um is there are people who are um and I I

[1:25:43] Commissioner Bernett, I use the term layman because I mean people who do not

[1:25:46] have a degree or certification as I do or as the people who wrote the Pasadena

[1:25:53] first 30 pages of their 280 page guideline document. doesn't relate to my

[1:25:58] question >> but okay but I think what it is is you

[1:26:03] you have to have a round table with people who understand how the guidelines

[1:26:08] and regulations are written and can help people make the best interpretation of

[1:26:15] those for the specific project >> and in those communities did that

[1:26:19] opportunity get to happen that's kind of what I'm trying to understand right like

[1:26:23] seems like we're moving down a process >> so there's often a historian that is on

[1:26:26] the um or on the committee.

[1:26:29] » Uh I would say that that's just like the way we have Canon uh do um design

[1:26:35] guideline uh looks. There are um but there's someone who's actually on the

[1:26:39] committee. It's not just another sendout because typically we all will get our

[1:26:42] own historian if it's a project of significance or something like that.

[1:26:45] Anyway, um I would say that uh there's also there's also a conversation about

[1:26:52] if it is not meeting different um it the same way the national register looks at

[1:26:58] it. If if things are not slotted in different uh categories, if they're not

[1:27:02] meeting all of these different pieces, it's no longer open for discussion.

[1:27:06] these other parts and we as a community have everything wide open for discussion

[1:27:12] whether it checks a box has has two pluses or narrows it down.

[1:27:16] » Correct. So you start getting on to tracks that then if you want to contest

[1:27:20] the track um for instance Santa Clara County

[1:27:29] » you have to talk into the microphone. >> Sorry if you want to contest the track.

[1:27:33] they have a twopart application that is separate that gets

[1:27:38] looked at then by um by historians. One is identification of properties for

[1:27:44] potential historical significance. So if it's an inquest or questionable thing,

[1:27:48] it goes through a different process. After it passes that, it goes through a

[1:27:53] deeper part two application that's also looked at not just by planners but by

[1:27:58] someone like Canon etc. and requires a significant body of work to be presented

[1:28:03] for that. And that's that's okay. >> Yeah. So,

[1:28:07] » that's helpful. That's very very helpful. Thank you,

[1:28:09] » Commissioner. Mayor, >> sorry I missed that. Did you What

[1:28:11] jurisdiction was that? Santa CL County. >> That's Santa CL County.

[1:28:14] » Santa Clair County. Okay. I think San Francisco, the city of San Francisco has

[1:28:17] something similar to that process. Yeah, >> I think that would be nice to

[1:28:20] understand. Commissioner, mayor, if we talk about that later.

[1:28:23] » Okay. >> I think if you want to look at a a

[1:28:25] keynote one in California, it would be Pasadena.

[1:28:27] » Okay. Thank you. Um, hold on. Commissioner Bernett, then Commissioner

[1:28:31] stop. >> I just want to I want to ask one

[1:28:33] question. Were you here when uh Bloomfield did the survey? Were you

[1:28:37] familiar with all her like the survey methodology and all the all the issues

[1:28:43] that were gone through at that time and how Lascat has arrived at

[1:28:50] what we have now. Are you aware? Have you ever looked at her? I mean, if you

[1:28:55] go to our historic section in the library and even in our planning

[1:28:59] department, there's a whole history of everything that she presented and

[1:29:04] followed through on. And that's Have you looked at that? I mean, can you're

[1:29:08] talking about your side now. Why I think you should also, and again, my question

[1:29:14] is, have you done that? Have you looked at the Bloomfield study and what that

[1:29:18] really means and how we really do our survey and what it was based on our

[1:29:23] criteria, the four major criteria and the breakdown of that and how we arrive

[1:29:28] at our findings. Have you done that? >> Yes.

[1:29:31] » Oh, good. Thank you, Commissioner Stump.

[1:29:37] » This is just a followup. You know, you were talking about communities that you

[1:29:40] were saying Carmemell, Campbell, maybe Santa Clara County, Pasadena. Um, as you

[1:29:47] think about our town, the character of our town, who would you say you'd really

[1:29:52] chase after from best practices to go take a look at what they are doing and

[1:29:56] learn from what they're doing?

[1:30:01] » Um, I'd probably put us uh in a in actually an outofstate town. Um, and I I

[1:30:10] think if we were to look out of state at how historicals handled, I would I would

[1:30:14] probably pick something like um Park City, Utah. Uh, and I say that because

[1:30:20] they have a small core downtown. They have an expanded uh urban element that

[1:30:27] is not designated truly historical, but clearly um is integrated into the fabric

[1:30:32] of what we all know. Then they have random

[1:30:36] uh more p more planned developments like the way we have the manor etc. And so

[1:30:43] the way that their designations are written and done um they really are

[1:30:47] reflective by neighborhood and typology. We don't have as big a core as Pasadena

[1:30:53] does. We don't have famous architects yet like Pasadena does did. We don't you

[1:30:59] know there's we don't have that that type of core. we have a little bit more

[1:31:03] of a hodge podge around a very tight core in in my opinion.

[1:31:07] » Thank you for that. And chair, I will volunteer to sacrifice to go to Park

[1:31:11] City on behalf of the planning commission.

[1:31:12] » No, no, I'm the chair. I already took that spot, so sorry. All right. Do we

[1:31:16] have any further questions? No. Thank you very much. Um, and Lee, I did get

[1:31:22] another card.

[1:31:31] » Again, speaking as a 31-year resident of Losatis, I am very encouraged by the

[1:31:36] conversation that I hear, the the dialogue back and forth in a sense of

[1:31:40] trying to find ways to learn from each other and work together. Um, clearly

[1:31:44] it's needed. Um my wife and I moved here with our family because of the sense of

[1:31:50] character in this town. Um, we've lived in seven other, my wife and I lived in

[1:31:55] seven other cities in four countries. And when we came here to to to look, we

[1:32:03] fell in love. And we want to preserve the character, preserve the character

[1:32:08] that's here so that the next generation can also see this uh this sense of

[1:32:15] welcoming community but still preserving the the values and and that sense of of

[1:32:21] history. Um, and the uh the priority I think that this

[1:32:30] community needs to be doing is to work to preserve that sense of history and

[1:32:37] and relevance while still welcoming new residents in into our town. Um, and I

[1:32:45] also think it's interesting to think of, you know, not just pre-1941 housing to

[1:32:49] be preserved. Maybe now we ought to look at pre-1961

[1:32:54] because there's a lot of that type of character that that defines certain

[1:32:58] neighborhoods. Uh where I live, the 25 houses on the street that I live on, um

[1:33:04] they they they are being preserved. U we had one neighbor who wanted to build a

[1:33:09] second story and the neighbors came together and said absolutely not. So,

[1:33:12] they moved a couple of blocks away and uh they're in the uh the unincorporated

[1:33:18] area called Blossom Hill. And uh that's fine. Um, and the other thing that I'm

[1:33:25] concerned with, um, well, before I get to that, I I think the suggestion that

[1:33:30] was made by the the previous, uh, uh, guest up here, um, she made some very

[1:33:36] good points about looking at other areas that have found very good ways of

[1:33:42] putting that sense of preservation into the municipal code. And that's what I

[1:33:48] think is missing here is uh we need to put some of this into the code. So I I

[1:33:54] think that should be the mission that is undertaken uh as quickly as possible.

[1:33:59] And I like the workshop that's going to be done uh the next couple of weeks to

[1:34:04] to deal with a lot of this. And um the last thing is we need to find ways to

[1:34:09] protect ourselves from the threats coming from Ringling Brothers up in

[1:34:13] Sacramento with a legislation that they're passing down about their new

[1:34:17] mandates, ignoring local sense of community, but rather they want to

[1:34:21] standardize everything, make it less expensive, allegedly less expensive, so

[1:34:26] that developers can put in all kinds of things that have no bearing on the

[1:34:31] quality of life here. Uh, and I'll end with that. It's

[1:34:36] » a good spot to end. Hold on. Commissioner Bernett.

[1:34:39] » Yes. So, thank you for speaking tonight. Do you think we've done a pretty good

[1:34:43] job at preserving and maintaining the character of our town?

[1:34:47] » I believe so. I uh I I'm encouraged to see the commitment from a lot of people

[1:34:54] who are not just in the audience, but up at the DAS and and that is is good.

[1:35:02] The thing is now keep it up and and find ways to be even more engaging with the

[1:35:08] rest of the community and other legislators because that's where the

[1:35:12] changes have to occur. >> Thank you. It sounds like we are doing

[1:35:15] something right. >> Passing grade.

[1:35:19] » All right. Are there any other questions for the speaker?

[1:35:22] » Right. No. Thank you. So, Mr. Mullen, like we talked a little

[1:35:27] bit before we started this, there were some objectives from council for this

[1:35:33] discussion. Could you pull that up? >> Let me get those on the screen for you.

[1:35:38] » So to my fellow commissioners, in anticipation of this, I thought to keep

[1:35:41] this organized, we will simply go through those.

[1:35:45] » Yeah. Can I finish? What does it say? >> Just wanted to ask kind of a process

[1:35:49] question. and one of my fellow commissioners handed out something to us

[1:35:53] at the deis that's an eight-page um it's entitled survey methodology and um I

[1:35:59] think she was a little concerned that I didn't want to accept it in advance of

[1:36:02] the meeting. She did tell me that it was it was disseminated to director Pollson

[1:36:06] and that it would be handed out to everybody equally. I just wanted to make

[1:36:09] sure everybody got it. >> Yeah, it's not this evening. We're just

[1:36:13] having a discussion. There's no action. We still have to get direction from

[1:36:16] council on these items as to what we're actually going to work on. Um, but you

[1:36:21] know, that's something that we can definitely make sure that the other two

[1:36:23] commissioners that aren't here. >> Yeah, just to clarify my question, I

[1:36:27] it's actually a historical document. It's entitled survey methodology. I

[1:36:30] think it was done by somebody, some Bloomfield and um back in the '9s and

[1:36:36] it's eight pages long. I just didn't have a chance to read it and it's really

[1:36:39] more of a procedural question. Should a planning commissioner be handing out

[1:36:42] information right before the hearing that the public doesn't have access to?

[1:36:45] It should come to staff and then staff will disseminate it to the um officials

[1:36:50] and to the public. And so if you give it to me, I can run some copies because we

[1:36:55] should have it available for the public as well.

[1:36:58] » Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. >> No, that's fine because I I actually

[1:37:01] don't I don't have a copy of it either. So that'd be fine.

[1:37:05] » But that's okay. >> Can I just

[1:37:08] » Commissioner Bernett? >> Yes. Actually, it was I I gave it to uh

[1:37:12] Commissioner Sordy because there were questions in the past on the the drive

[1:37:18] by uh windshield thing and I thought this would be a nice little summary for

[1:37:23] him. I wasn't like meant to it was more like a reading something. It

[1:37:30] it wasn't coming up tonight, but it was just

[1:37:32] » So, was it only for Commissioner Sordy? >> I gave it to Commissioner. Okay, then I

[1:37:37] I'll make copies because it should go to the public as well.

[1:37:40] » Okay. Thank you. >> All right.

[1:37:45] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mullins. So, there were a few key things that you can

[1:37:50] obviously fill in since I wasn't at that meeting that came up that were more

[1:37:54] specific and how that they would like to maybe guide this conversation. So, I

[1:37:58] would like as much as possible to stick to these bullet points. Obviously,

[1:38:01] there's some other um supplemental information that was in our packet that

[1:38:05] has a little bit more of a deep dive on some things if we need to reference

[1:38:09] that. Um so I but I would try to like to try to stick to this just for the sake

[1:38:14] of people that are going to listen to this video later and take in that

[1:38:18] information. So the first one is preserving smaller homes.

[1:38:23] Are there any thoughts that you guys would like to share around preserving

[1:38:27] obviously historic homes I think is what we're trying to say or in a historic

[1:38:30] neighborhood specifically Commissioner Stump.

[1:38:33] » Yeah, I I attended a um [clears throat] housing boot camp in San Jose this past

[1:38:39] weekend and um I don't know that it's new. In fact, either Mr. Mullen or Mr.

[1:38:44] Pollson can correct me, but there's more discussion going about trying to

[1:38:48] preserve affordable housing. Um, which means ideally finding funding that, for

[1:38:55] example, if a a place is going to sell, and it's going to get turned into market

[1:38:58] rate housing that a group steps up, buys it, it gets refurbished, and the same

[1:39:04] people live there. This idea of having smaller homes in Loscatos, again, what's

[1:39:10] affordable? Even a smaller historic home in Los Gatos is going to be beyond the

[1:39:15] reach of a family of four, $150,000 a year. But I do think it's a good thought

[1:39:22] because I don't know that a historic home because there may be more value to

[1:39:27] that home is considered a starter home. But if you've got a 1,200 foot home

[1:39:34] versus a 4,000 ft home, it might give people an opportunity. Like I said,

[1:39:42] historic homes is not my area of expertise and what the overall value is.

[1:39:46] We just know that uh property values in Los are really really difficult and how

[1:39:52] do we give young families when we came back to this area we ended up in a

[1:39:56] 12,200 ft² home with a family of four that's what we could afford at that

[1:40:00] point in time um and and yet we could afford it 1,200 foot home so I do think

[1:40:07] there is something to this idea of trying to preserve smaller homes um

[1:40:12] potentially for the benefit of allowing somebody an entry point into the

[1:40:17] community potentially uninformed opinion.

[1:40:21] » Yeah, the potentially lies with the historic part. Are there any other

[1:40:25] comments anybody wants to make? Commissioner Mayor?

[1:40:28] » Yeah, I think Commissioner Stump uh touches on something interesting about

[1:40:33] um you know, smaller homes traditionally being starter homes, more affordable

[1:40:38] homes. Um, that's sort of a housing affordability

[1:40:43] conversation, preserving smaller homes. I, so when I

[1:40:47] see that bullet point, uh, we're talking about affordability,

[1:40:51] but this is about historic preservation. So,

[1:40:56] I don't necessarily think that just because something is small, it's it's

[1:41:00] historic. There's probably historic homes that are very large as well. So,

[1:41:05] I'm just trying to understand what that bullet point

[1:41:09] means exactly and maybe maybe Sean Mr. And you can uh is is it about housing

[1:41:15] affordability an entry point? Uh is that what it's is that the primary objective?

[1:41:20] » I think partially I think it has a foot in both worlds. I think it has a far uh

[1:41:23] the foot in the affordability world in that um a smaller home is and I'll use

[1:41:28] the term naturally affordable with commissioner Stump's point taken that

[1:41:32] affordability even a small home in Lascatus is out of reach for most folks.

[1:41:36] Um so I think that's the affordability component. The other component is that

[1:41:42] older homes tend to be smaller and from a historic preservation perspective,

[1:41:50] there's some value in preserving that context in the town.

[1:41:54] » And I'll just add, I mean, I think that most of these come from a list that was

[1:41:58] prepared and I think reviewed by HPC. And so they see these smaller homes come

[1:42:03] and being requested to be removed from the inventory. Um, I think the

[1:42:07] affordability component, I'm not sure how much weight there is in that. Um,

[1:42:12] because people, whether it's a historic home or a non-historic home, you're

[1:42:17] paying for what you potentially could build there. Um, so unless someone's

[1:42:21] going to uh talk to all the real litterers and say you got to sell these

[1:42:26] homes for cheaper than, you know, you normally would, which I don't think is

[1:42:29] reality. Um, I think it's a it's kind of, as Mr. Mullen said it's in both

[1:42:34] sides, but the affordability component, you know, that that's really market

[1:42:38] driven. So, I'm not sure how we're going to effectively affect that component of

[1:42:43] it. >> Yeah. Because [clears throat] correct me

[1:42:45] if I'm wrong, but, you know, I've seen homes in Loscatoos in historic districts

[1:42:50] that, you know, go through HPC and go through the the commission and go

[1:42:55] through the whole process and they add a lot of square footage, but they still

[1:42:59] are considered historic homes. So the smaller homes point and and I mean I

[1:43:05] understand the point of wanting to preserve opportunity for affordable

[1:43:09] housing, but in the conversation of historic preservation, I just don't want

[1:43:15] uh that conversation to sort of uh sideline and or make us lose focus on on

[1:43:21] the historic preservation part. >> Understood. It's because my take on that

[1:43:26] having sat on the historic preservation for a long time and then the commission

[1:43:30] for a long time is um we have seen a number of historic homes whether it's

[1:43:35] the historic neighborhood or designated um where someone has bought it their

[1:43:41] family has grown or whatever and they they want to expand that house and I

[1:43:46] think we have been fortunate and seen a number of really sensitive ones that are

[1:43:50] done that maintain the character of it you know but allow you know a larger

[1:43:55] their family to live there. And I think we've seen examples where it wasn't done

[1:43:59] quite so well. Um, and to me, I think that might be a little bit more of this,

[1:44:04] you know, what language is in guidelines or whatever right now around,

[1:44:11] you know, where do we draw the line on no, you have to preserve the smaller

[1:44:16] house versus it is very acceptable to add on to this house, but with these

[1:44:20] very specific criteria. And that's what I would assume because I've had a lot of

[1:44:23] meetings where we have argued about is it acceptable and what's that criteria?

[1:44:28] I don't know that I think we're supposed to solve that tonight, but to me that's

[1:44:31] the issue. If somebody else sees something more to that idea of either

[1:44:35] preserving or expanding homes, I would like to know.

[1:44:40] » Yeah. And by the way, I don't disagree with the discussion about affordable. In

[1:44:44] fact, I was not trying. Unfortunately, affordable is a loaded word. Um, and I

[1:44:49] really wasn't using it in the sense that these homes are certified affordable,

[1:44:53] right? So that they're going to have, you know, 55 years of restriction and

[1:44:58] sale. Um, but just the fact, like I say, for us when we moved back to Los Gatos,

[1:45:04] you know, 1,200 ft house was was there and it afforded us an entry point. So

[1:45:11] there is value in in smaller square footage homes whether they're historic

[1:45:15] or not in Los.

[1:45:19] » Mr. Mullen, do you by any chance have in front of you there there is some

[1:45:22] language about the amount of the home that must be preserved when you're

[1:45:26] adding on to a historic home to maintain that designation. So I well there's a

[1:45:32] technical demolition um definition that we look at um that

[1:45:38] has to do with the exterior wall covering of the outside walls of of

[1:45:42] historic houses. Um street facing facades you're only allowed up to 25% of

[1:45:48] demolition. Um so you could only remove the siding um if it's original um of 25%

[1:45:54] of the street facing facads and then 50% of the building cumulative. Um, and we

[1:45:59] don't look at the roof. Projects that

[1:46:04] it gets a little murky admittedly, but projects in districts um can experience

[1:46:09] a technical demolition and there's not any language that says you didn't tear

[1:46:15] the whole house down and the HPC and the town approved it and you did an addition

[1:46:20] to it. It's still historic, but it's still treated as such. Um but with

[1:46:26] recognition that it experienced a technical demolition. U there's holes in

[1:46:29] our code for sure and right things that can be improved.

[1:46:32] » Okay. I because I do think that's probably one spot. Um I I have actually

[1:46:38] always felt like the language around what the addition

[1:46:42] to a pre um a historic home how that addition should be. Actually I always

[1:46:48] thought that wasn't too bad. I'm not an architect. So perhaps that's also

[1:46:52] something that people want to advise council perhaps to get guidance on um

[1:46:57] from professionals on how that language could be tightened to avoid

[1:47:02] maybe more people misconstring what the meaning is behind that.

[1:47:07] There any other conversation around preserving smaller homes?

[1:47:11] All right. Reviewing the boundaries of the historic districts.

[1:47:16] Um any thoughts on this?

[1:47:22] Okay, good. Commissioner, mayor, >> uh,

[1:47:24] » I think our current historic districts work pretty well. Most of the issues I

[1:47:28] see with the, uh, historic review seem to be these 19 pre-1941

[1:47:34] properties that are not in one of the well-defined historic districts. So,

[1:47:41] I wouldn't advise council to make any changes to the current boundaries, but

[1:47:45] if they wanted to consider adding another neighborhood or two, I

[1:47:51] mean, I'd be curious to hear if any other commissioners have thoughts on if

[1:47:55] there are areas currently not that are designated historic districts that

[1:48:00] should be. Okay, that's an interesting thought

[1:48:04] because I do think our current historic districts are pretty good, but I think

[1:48:08] some of this is going to also land on do we change the years to where a whole

[1:48:13] district then falls under like a 70-year ruling.

[1:48:16] » I'll make a comment when we get to that. >> Okay. So, to me, those tie a little bit,

[1:48:19] but I could be looking at that wrong. Any other thoughts, Commissioner Shorty?

[1:48:24] I was just going to mention um one of my colleagues mentioned Magnazon Loop

[1:48:27] earlier and which has a I don't know the age of all those homes but I don't think

[1:48:32] that's a historic district and I mean I think it's just noteworthy.

[1:48:38] So >> I can add through the chair that

[1:48:40] Magnuson Loop um I can't remember the age of the homes they're all most of

[1:48:44] them are provincial and architectural style. Um they were rated most of them

[1:48:48] rated pretty high especially as you get closer to Loscatus Boulevard in the

[1:48:52] Bloomfield survey and there was recognition that that could as it was

[1:48:56] kind of identified as a potential district there through that survey

[1:48:59] process and I'm sure Commissioner Bernett will add to this um through that

[1:49:03] survey process that was conducted in the late 80s and 90s um there were a number

[1:49:08] of areas of town LMA Alta Glenidge Johnson and the Cottage District that

[1:49:14] were identified as potential districts. they just were not adopted um for one

[1:49:18] reason or another. I wasn't there um quite old enough yet, but I'll leave it

[1:49:23] at that. >> Commissioner Fernette.

[1:49:26] » Yeah, I just want to mention five areas in town and one of the most

[1:49:34] one of the most important one was the Glen Ridge district which I wrote the

[1:49:39] ordinance on 1998. I did the whole 12 blocks with all the photos of every

[1:49:44] house, the Bloomfield study, and last during COVID, I actually walked the

[1:49:49] whole neighborhood again and updated all the homes. I mean, it is just a a source

[1:49:56] of wonderful, wonderful homes. And it really should be a historic district and

[1:50:01] if any district should be sort of started to follow up on because I have

[1:50:07] done all the the base work. I mean, it wouldn't it would take some work, but

[1:50:12] with the ordinance written and with the photos of all the homes in the 12b block

[1:50:17] area and the description, which I have read now upgraded, I think it would be

[1:50:24] wise to do that because coming down from Sacramento now with SB9

[1:50:30] and the increase in density and intensity of our neighborhoods and

[1:50:35] actually going also into historic districts which

[1:50:40] would not be protected. I think if the town could at least maybe get Glen Ridge

[1:50:45] in. Um it would be helpful to give some protection for the density that is

[1:50:52] coming down from Sacramento. And like I say, I mean most of the

[1:50:58] the hard work is done. I mean, we need a historian to follow up on it, but it's

[1:51:05] every street in the neighborhood 12 blocks.

[1:51:08] » So, it sounds like the perhaps the response to council is we do think

[1:51:11] that's worth looking into that that there were other recommendations. There

[1:51:15] may be other areas and probably somebody above my pay grade makes that decision.

[1:51:20] But I Yeah, Commissioner S.

[1:51:24] » Um, just a question in general interest, how would we go about doing that? I

[1:51:28] mean, we certainly heard tonight, you know, about

[1:51:32] Johnson, potentially Glen Ridge, >> um, and how would we go about

[1:51:36] identifying potential historic districts in 2026?

[1:51:42] I I can start with a little bit of feedback, but I'm sure that it would

[1:51:45] involve if council provided the direction and and any funding uh

[1:51:49] allocation that would be necessary. It would involve um likely someone with

[1:51:55] much more experience to look at the archive files and make a recommendation

[1:52:01] as to, you know, any potential updates and then go from there about

[1:52:05] recommendations on potential districts. And then ultimately a a historic

[1:52:09] district needs to be approved by the council. It's it's a council designation

[1:52:13] for an overlay. >> And I just add through the chair, I

[1:52:16] mean, I think should the council provide that direction, um, you know, there are

[1:52:21] potential implications for, you know, assigning new districts. So, we probably

[1:52:26] would need to do pretty significant outreach to the properties that would be

[1:52:30] affected by that so that their voices could be heard as well. um because that

[1:52:34] may or may not have bearing uh should it move forward.

[1:52:39] » All right, that's good to know. Thank you. Um

[1:52:44] what about the next one then? Let's talk about refreshing the Bloomfield survey.

[1:52:49] Um yes, I think this should be done. I do not think it should be somebody in a

[1:52:53] car just driving by houses. Um, I I I think if we are going to do

[1:52:59] this, it would be great if it was a more

[1:53:03] thorough review of the homes. But anybody else have thoughts?

[1:53:12] we just a more thorough review of the homes

[1:53:16] against a updated set of criteria or evaluation criteria because one of the

[1:53:21] things we run into here I want to hide under the deis when we have an appeal

[1:53:26] come to us um because I just sometimes feel things are squishy and

[1:53:31] [clears throat] um we we don't necessarily have all of

[1:53:35] the facts and we it doesn't feel solid and so I really desire for us to be far

[1:53:41] more factual and and you know criteria and evaluation driven but I think that

[1:53:45] maybe comes through an update like we're talking about.

[1:53:49] » Do you mean so normally we follow like what is it the four or five criteria

[1:53:53] that gets put in front of us. Are you actually meeting potentially more like

[1:53:58] architecturally specific criteria? >> I guess what I'm even thinking about is

[1:54:02] when you take a look at the old Bloomfield checklist that they used it

[1:54:05] would be first of all look at something like that or other things other tools

[1:54:09] that are out there. In fact, you were weren't you putting up a couple for us

[1:54:12] earlier or was Yeah. And so we need to update that, I guess, is what I was

[1:54:17] saying. >> That's what I was asking.

[1:54:18] » We need to update that. >> Yeah. Okay. Any other thoughts on this

[1:54:22] item? >> Yeah. Commissioner,

[1:54:24] » so that when we talk about refreshing the Bloomfield survey, is that I know

[1:54:29] that it was done so long ago that I guess my question is what homes are we

[1:54:33] targeting and is it feasible? So is it is it to refresh the evaluation of

[1:54:37] everything that's 1941 and older or

[1:54:42] » to me this all ties together. So let's say council says for example we're going

[1:54:47] to add the Glen Ridge historic district right? So if we're going to do a refresh

[1:54:51] Bloomville survey it should include that. If we decide that there's actually

[1:54:55] like a rolling something that's an evaluation probably it should include

[1:54:59] those too if we're designating all of these places as historic. Gotcha. I

[1:55:04] think >> that's my opinion. Council can ignore

[1:55:07] that completely. >> Follow by asking

[1:55:09] » I feel like they all tie together. Yes. >> Sorry to be the dunce in the room, but

[1:55:13] what does that mean? Adopting pre-1941 to 70year ruling

[1:55:19] » down. Well, okay. You just made reference to us. I maybe when we get

[1:55:23] there, we can define what that is because I'm I'm just picturing like a

[1:55:27] 1936 house being pushed down a hill.

[1:55:34] Commissioner Bernett. >> Yeah, I just want to mention um I mean

[1:55:37] that's what Saratoga does. I mean they add to their inventory all the time and

[1:55:42] so rolling is 50 years one. So I mean that's

[1:55:49] » and we're going to get there. That's two bullet points down. So let me get to the

[1:55:52] next one and then I want to have a thorough discussion.

[1:55:54] » Oh I thought we were talking about the >> not yet. He's just jumping ahead.

[1:55:57] » Okay. >> Yeah. Ignore him.

[1:56:00] » Okay. So um considering replacement structure historically

[1:56:05] relevant um

[1:56:09] is was the conversation and council or has the conversation been I for example

[1:56:15] have a historic that was a historically nice house and it burned down and I

[1:56:22] build the structure back exactly like it but obviously it won't be exactly like

[1:56:26] it. Is that this discussion or what does this mean?

[1:56:30] » The starting off point of this goes back to a lot of the requests that the HPC

[1:56:36] reviews and make makes recommendations on for removal from the inventory. Um,

[1:56:41] and when something's removed from the inventory, um, it's no longer subject to

[1:56:46] review as a historic home because it could be demolished, it could be added

[1:56:51] on to, it could be technically demolished. I think the desire of the

[1:56:55] HPC in their letter to the council that council grabbed on to here was there

[1:57:00] would there's a desire to maintain some control over the design of the new

[1:57:06] structure to ensure that it's historically relevant to honor what was

[1:57:10] there previously. And I'm seeing a head nod from

[1:57:13] Commissioner Bernett who serves on the HPC and was part of writing that letter.

[1:57:19] Yes, just to clarify that uh it could still be considered a contributor even

[1:57:24] though if if it was rebuilt redone in the same likeness and followed the

[1:57:29] guidelines then it should not be just um it should al still reflect uh time and

[1:57:36] place even though it would be a new build. If you look at the, you know, all

[1:57:41] the documents, this is this is considered an okay thing to do. And so I

[1:57:48] think that that would be um something where we addressed that it still would

[1:57:53] be historically re reent relevant even though it was a new build. It would

[1:57:59] still fit into the neighborhood like it had before burned down or something. So,

[1:58:06] that was the point we were trying to make.

[1:58:08] » Okay. If So, if there's a new home being built in a historic district, doesn't it

[1:58:15] already go? >> And I'll make a clarification there

[1:58:18] because Commissioner Bernett touched on a loaded word of contributor. Um,

[1:58:21] contributors are only located and not negatively, it actually is a really

[1:58:25] salient point. Um, contributors are only located in districts. So, within the

[1:58:29] district, we have a group of homes. within the that group of homes, they are

[1:58:33] designated as contributors or non-contributors. That is listed in the

[1:58:38] back of the residential design guidelines. There's a thorough address

[1:58:41] by address list of the contributors. Um to Vice Chair Burch's uh or Chair

[1:58:47] Burch's excuse me uh point within a district if there is some

[1:58:53] project where the approval is to demolish a home um the HPC maintains

[1:59:00] control from a design standpoint within the district because the district itself

[1:59:05] is overlaid with the landmark and historic preservation overlay zone. What

[1:59:10] I'm speaking about is outside of a district, these pre-41 homes where there

[1:59:14] are no such things as contributors, and this is also something that can be

[1:59:17] tightened up in the code. Those homes once they are demolished, we just remove

[1:59:22] them from the inventory, they're no longer subject to review by the HPC.

[1:59:29] And just to add on, so so the I think the ask is that similar to the historic

[1:59:34] districts that the HPC there's some desire to retain similar control for

[1:59:40] homes that may be removed from the inventory andor demolished uh for future

[1:59:45] uh construction. >> But if we took it off the registry,

[1:59:51] then that structure was already deemed not relevant for whatever reasons. I

[1:59:57] mean, we've seen some lately that fell under historic, but it was a box that

[2:00:01] was falling down, for example. Um, would this I guess this would wind up being

[2:00:07] blanket. So, if if it was decided here that, you know, it has been added on, it

[2:00:12] has been Frankenstein forever. You cannot see the original relevance of it

[2:00:17] other than the fact that it's pre-1941. every one of those would then still go

[2:00:22] to HBC even or is it Yeah, I guess it would have to

[2:00:27] be blanket statement. Yes. >> Yeah. I mean I think there's multiple

[2:00:30] options, right? So there's there's varying degrees of how it could be

[2:00:33] implemented should that be the direction that it goes. Um because I think I also

[2:00:37] hear a lot in HPC and it comes up when these things rise to planning commission

[2:00:43] of a desire. I'll just I'm going to make something up just for fun. house is

[2:00:47] totally Frankenstein, but we know what the original house looked like. So, now

[2:00:51] we're getting back to this rehabilitation or preservation. So, we

[2:00:55] may go back towards that angle, but uh Commissioner Bernett could probably add

[2:01:00] some additional flavor on that.

[2:01:05] All I know is that during the so-called windshield driveby, uh, it was a if it

[2:01:13] was given a plus and it was not in a historic district at the time, it could

[2:01:18] be considered a contributor if it were in a historic district. So, it did give

[2:01:23] it some qualities that yes, this house if it were in a district, it would be

[2:01:29] considered a contributor. So that was a further definition

[2:01:35] that part. >> Okay.

[2:01:39] I'm going to speak up and then you guys can say what you think. Um I think if it

[2:01:43] is not in a historic district and we have already gone through the steps to

[2:01:47] remove it from the registry, then it's just off the registry. I think that this

[2:01:53] could get excessively messy. If a house has been Frankensteined, but we know

[2:01:58] that the house from 80 years ago was relevant, but it's not there anymore, I

[2:02:03] don't see how we impose that on a homeowner in both style, cost, and size,

[2:02:10] but that is that is my thought. That feels a little overstep.

[2:02:15] » I I agree with that completely. I don't have a lot to elaborate on it, but I do

[2:02:19] see it becoming very messy. And so the the way I've been thinking

[2:02:24] about it is just that let's take a house that you know an appeal was successful.

[2:02:30] It's off the registry and and you look in that neighborhood and you see the

[2:02:34] character of the neighborhood, right? And you would say

[2:02:38] maybe [clears throat] there is a desire to really say we're going to maintain,

[2:02:44] you know, you got to maintain just the character of that neighborhood and

[2:02:47] what's surrounding it. And I hate to pick up this example because but let's

[2:02:52] go build an Icler, you know, in the middle of what was maybe um a period

[2:02:58] representative neighborhood. And again, like I say, that's the way I'm I'm not

[2:03:04] suggesting that, but it's sort of one way to look at it that you would say,

[2:03:07] you know, you're taking down something that did have at one point some value,

[2:03:14] some blah blah blah, and now we, you know, we can you replace it with

[2:03:18] something that would be somewhat historically

[2:03:21] relevant, not to the box, >> you know, not to the box, right? So

[2:03:25] anyway, >> but but we already do that. So if it if

[2:03:28] the idea is we then you know that house maybe before it was Frankenstein aligned

[2:03:34] with this neighborhood, we already do that. That doesn't have to be a historic

[2:03:38] thing. That's a you know neighborhood compatibility and you look at that

[2:03:43] neighborhood and say, "Okay, what makes sense?" We try. I I think we do pretty

[2:03:48] good most of the time, but I mean I'd like to know, Commissioner Mayor, what

[2:03:52] do you think? I mean, I think this conversation we're having now gets to

[2:03:55] the heart of sort of where the challenges are and where the breakdown

[2:03:58] is in this whole entire process. And again, I don't I don't think it it's the

[2:04:04] historic districts. I think those are well defined and I think that works

[2:04:07] well. It's the pre-1941 outside the districts. Um, you know, I know there's

[2:04:13] a desire by the town and by the HPC and, um, you know, all of us, I think, here

[2:04:19] in the room tonight, you know, care about the town and, uh, want to preserve

[2:04:23] its character and we have quite a nice, uh, architectural legacy here. Um, but

[2:04:30] I think so, so there's there's a desire to want to preserve the character,

[2:04:33] right? So that lens is being used to evaluate pre-1941 properties that come

[2:04:38] before HPC to go off the registry. But often times those uh properties that

[2:04:43] come are, you know, beyond repair. Uh they're completely uh decrepit and

[2:04:49] structurally unsound. Um, so and I touched upon this in my

[2:04:53] letter that was distributed as a desk item, but I think part of the problem is

[2:04:58] that when someone comes to the HPC asking to remove it from the registry,

[2:05:03] we don't know what they want to do with it, but we know we know that they want

[2:05:06] to make it easier to do something with it, right? But there's no standard

[2:05:12] really aside from our residential design guidelines to evaluate what will come

[2:05:18] next after it. So I think there's this desire to want to hold on to to to the

[2:05:24] character of the town and sometimes that manifests itself in perhaps, you know,

[2:05:31] unnecessarily preserving something that is unsafe and structurally unsound. Um,

[2:05:35] so I I I don't know what the answer is to this. I'm just thinking out loud, but

[2:05:39] there seems to be a breakdown at w with this. And I think part of it is the

[2:05:44] process. >> No, agree. rather than the rather than

[2:05:49] the intent. >> Yeah. Exactly. And I mean, I can just

[2:05:52] say all the years I was on HPC, you know, it was you don't get to evaluate

[2:05:59] this home based on the next home. This home stands on its own merit, its own

[2:06:04] architectural value, its own significance. You don't get to decide

[2:06:09] about this house based on the next. And I guess I have always kind of held that

[2:06:13] in mind. And I don't know if that would be my thought, but

[2:06:17] » through the chair, if I could offer to kind of piggy back off of Commissioner

[2:06:22] Mayor's statement, um I mean outside of state laws that get around our rules and

[2:06:30] guidelines, if a home's removed from the inventory and they go through the

[2:06:34] traditional process to redevelop the property outside of a district, um we

[2:06:39] obviously use the residential design guidelines and we have a professional

[2:06:42] architect peer view um specifically for neighborhood compatibility is one of the

[2:06:47] components that they look at. So um I know that the HBC loses their their

[2:06:51] their lens on it. Um and I do understand the concern there, but I just wanted to

[2:06:56] make sure it's on the record that there is not it's not a free-for-all um

[2:07:00] outside of of course state laws. And I do want to um and secondly um I was

[2:07:04] handed a note from a member of the audience that didn't get a chance to

[2:07:07] speak um during the public hearing and um would request the public hearing be

[2:07:13] reopened for them to have an opportunity to speak on the matter. That's at the

[2:07:17] discretion of the chair. >> Yeah, of course. I think we want to hear

[2:07:22] what people have to say.

[2:07:27] You Lee

[2:07:34] I appreciate the note on the frontly.

[2:07:58] I apologize, but I caught got caught in traffic from Jazz in the plaz and it

[2:08:02] took me over 20 minutes to get here. Uh, it wasn't the cars, it was all the pe

[2:08:07] people that I had to keep stopping for. Um, but

[2:08:13] I had originally intended to come and uh during the historic preservation

[2:08:18] committee meeting, I wasn't feeling well, so I decided not to come. I'm

[2:08:23] feeling a little bit better now. And I think I really would like to uh discuss

[2:08:28] a couple of things. And it's going to be hard for me to know

[2:08:33] where to start, but what I've passed out to you is the uh table of contents of a

[2:08:40] report that was done by uh Anne Bloomfield and

[2:08:46] I have looked at some sections of that report. I have put a check on the

[2:08:51] sections that I have been able to read. Uh and I have to say it was a a big

[2:08:58] education. I understand a hell of a lot more now about how the survey was

[2:09:04] developed, how it was implemented and uh the people who did it, they were not

[2:09:10] nonprofessionals. There were historians on the committee.

[2:09:14] There was uh forget her name, but she was the one who

[2:09:20] started the history museum and she was very involved in history. uh and there

[2:09:24] was a member of the staff as well as members of the historic preservation

[2:09:29] committee. What I want to start with is that once I

[2:09:35] got a hold of this and was able to read the degree of detail that went into

[2:09:42] developing the survey and educating those who were doing it that I felt it

[2:09:48] was really important to talk about how the survey was rated and how it differed

[2:09:54] from the way uh National Park Service rates The things that were rated or that

[2:10:02] were used to determine findings were basically the same in both. The

[2:10:09] difference is that in the National Park Service, they evaluated

[2:10:14] each of those four categories that we look at individually

[2:10:22] and then uh related it to the fifth category was which was um integrity. The

[2:10:29] way this was developed, it was developed specifically because of the fact that

[2:10:35] and all of that relates to going back to that all of the National Park Service

[2:10:40] criteria relate to uh structures that are eligible for listing on the National

[2:10:48] Historic Register or on the state register. Not they're not at the level

[2:10:54] of uh a small town and small town feeling preserving that neighborhood

[2:11:01] feel. Can I go on? Two more minutes. Okay. Okay. Um and

[2:11:09] what I found was that the uh process for the survey when they actually did it,

[2:11:17] the driveby was only the first phase. Then there was quite another number of

[2:11:21] phases. But looking at the criteria that they used, she developed a criteria that

[2:11:28] was based on another uh historian uh and it rather than evaluating things

[2:11:34] individually, it uh did it as a package. They were all integrated. They were the

[2:11:41] same four five basic categories. Uh and they had 14 different things below them.

[2:11:47] Each one was given a a a rating based on a excellent, good, ve,

[2:11:56] very good, good, etc. And then that was totaled and if it was above a certain

[2:12:01] number of points, uh, it was considered as eligible for the inventory. The

[2:12:09] important thing is though is that that survey and the final rating system

[2:12:16] included ratings for integrity and in fact

[2:12:22] the integrity ratings were a negative rating. So they had a real impact on

[2:12:27] whether something qualified or not. It's not that integrity was not considered at

[2:12:33] all. It's it was a totally different way of looking at things and frankly uh

[2:12:40] looking at what I've been able to read. Uh I've really become educated. I have

[2:12:44] so many more questions. I've always had questions. That's why you you have this

[2:12:49] before you in the first place. Although I'm not speaking as a as a member of the

[2:12:53] committee. Uh I was I excuse me. I'm not representing the committee, but I was

[2:12:59] the chair who requested that this all be developed and I I would say that um God,

[2:13:08] I have so much more to say. Uh yeah, unfortunately, we we've got to get

[2:13:12] to this now. So, thank you. But >> no questions. [snorts]

[2:13:16] Yeah. Any questions for the speaker? >> Oh, thank you very much, Lee.

[2:13:25] I assume I don't have to reclose this, do I? Because Oh, I do. Okay. We're

[2:13:29] reclosing the public portion of the of this item. Okay.

[2:13:34] Sure.

[2:13:38] » I'd like a question to >> Joel or Sean. Um, is there a way I mean

[2:13:45] what brought up >> I'm sorry. Is there a way that we can

[2:13:51] put this into a code? I mean I I think that's that's where we're having issues

[2:13:56] here and where things get so as you were saying squishy is we don't it's more

[2:14:02] just standards or is there a way to I mean we've talked

[2:14:07] about this uh I've talked about it with you and with Joel so and I I think there

[2:14:12] was a suggestion about how we could maybe

[2:14:16] do that so it's a little easier to understand and clearer for for

[2:14:20] everybody. I think the ultimate goal, should the

[2:14:26] council provide us that direction, is to see where it should live. What's the

[2:14:30] appropriate place for it to live, whether that's in the uh the town code

[2:14:34] or in some other document. We again, we don't have direction to do anything at

[2:14:39] this point. Um, so we're waiting for our opportunity to go back to council,

[2:14:44] provide them some feedback, provide them the feedback that you are giving us

[2:14:48] tonight and uh, receive direction from the council

[2:14:51] » and through the chair. I think that you know whether it's the findings,

[2:14:55] definitions, whatever it is, that's really the last bullet of discussion up

[2:14:58] there. >> Yeah, exactly.

[2:15:00] » And whether it belongs in the guidelines and the code, some of it might belong in

[2:15:03] both, some of it might belong in one rather than the other, right?

[2:15:06] » Um, so should we get that direction then we would look into

[2:15:10] going through that process. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sordy,

[2:15:14] » add kind of a followup on that because um hopefully this isn't outside the

[2:15:18] bounds of what we're sort of talking about, but we have these pre-1941 houses

[2:15:21] come up. The findings that we use are um I think in a couple different places.

[2:15:26] They're mostly um they mostly live in the residential design guidelines, but I

[2:15:31] don't think a single one of those findings is actually an ordinance. And

[2:15:34] almost every single time we make a decision as a commission, we do so based

[2:15:38] on findings that make direct reference to ordinances. And so it's really a

[2:15:43] legal question. I guess I'm first of all, I'm wondering if we've ever been

[2:15:46] challenged in court on a determination related to a pre-1941 house. And if not,

[2:15:53] maybe the town attorney can vent your guess about how difficult it would be to

[2:15:57] win such a case if somebody challenged the decision. Um it's probably not

[2:16:01] appropriate to answer your second question in this setting, but um what

[2:16:05] we're doing right now is the code references the residential design

[2:16:08] guidelines and then the residential design guidelines in turn reference the

[2:16:13] other standards that the town uses. Um so it is more tenuous than is ideal and

[2:16:18] so ideally the town code would include it codified.

[2:16:26] » Okay. Um all right. So then I the adopting pre1941 to a seven-year rolling

[2:16:34] commissioner sorty.

[2:16:38] » What does that mean? >> I can jump in on that. So when um the

[2:16:45] decisions were being made as to what the historic inventory was going to include,

[2:16:50] there was a conversation at that time about what the um appropriate sort of

[2:16:55] benchmark was. Um for example, SQA uses 50 years as something that needs to be

[2:17:02] looked at for potential impacts to a historic resource and its environmental

[2:17:06] implications. Um, so obviously, um, in 1980 that would have been a 1930 home.

[2:17:12] Um, but now that's a 1976 home. Um, so that conversation was had. I found some

[2:17:18] record of that in the minutes. And what they decided was that the pre 1941 was

[2:17:24] the date. It was a hard date rather than a rolling date, which in changes every

[2:17:28] year. And that was based on the um year that the town had the first

[2:17:35] comprehensive set of assessment tax assessment records for the town.

[2:17:40] » Okay. So if we applied to it to today, it would be like 1956 if I'm doing my

[2:17:45] math right. >> I mean at the time it's just sort of

[2:17:49] circumstantial that >> when they adopted pre-41 it was about 50

[2:17:53] years ahead. Um but the they had a specific discussion about that in the

[2:18:00] minutes. Um and that it wasn't about the fifth years, it was about the tax

[2:18:03] assessment records. >> Right. I'm just saying if we instituted

[2:18:06] it today, that's essentially what it means. We would take today's date minus

[2:18:09] 70 and we would >> that would be the threshold.

[2:18:12] » 1956. >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:18:17] » Okay. Commissioner stop. >> So how did the council arrive at 70

[2:18:20] years? This was just a number that was thrown

[2:18:24] out. I'm, you know, sure it's open to significant discussion should they

[2:18:28] should they get there.

[2:18:35] » I agree it should be updated. I'm trying to wrap my head around because a lot of

[2:18:40] the houses in this town were built in like what the 50s 60s that there's a

[2:18:47] point where damn near sorry every house in town would have to go to the historic

[2:18:51] preservation committee and that is overwhelming.

[2:18:55] It is. That's a lot of houses. Every single one of them should not go to the

[2:19:00] historic preservation committee. So I don't know if the idea is while we

[2:19:06] may

[2:19:10] maybe [clears throat] change the date or something. Then

[2:19:12] there'd have to be some tightening around what would those still be

[2:19:18] considered historically relevant because I I live next to a lot of houses that

[2:19:24] were built in the 60s and I promise you they're not historically relevant.

[2:19:28] So I like they're just Yeah. How would we do this? Well, I think um like

[2:19:34] there's a group right off of Lascas Boulevard. It's the Ikler homes. I mean,

[2:19:39] there's a whole little street full of Ikler homes and that could be captured.

[2:19:44] I doubt that we would look at every house in the near in the town, but I

[2:19:48] mean, >> but who if we go to a rolling program,

[2:19:51] somebody has to get paid to assess that. >> Yeah. Well, Saratoga does. I mean, you

[2:19:56] you would have members that you would have certain standards, certain

[2:20:01] guidelines, certain kinds of construction. Like I say, the Icler

[2:20:04] homes, there's I think eight or nine of them there.

[2:20:07] » Well, wouldn't it almost be easier to say if we're going to say we should do a

[2:20:10] better survey, like we're going to update this and we're going to do

[2:20:13] survey, we just roll some of those into it.

[2:20:15] » Yeah. >> Instead of saying

[2:20:19] every track house that was built in the 60s is historic because that's what this

[2:20:24] means. No, that wouldn't >> Yeah, I would rather we take and spend

[2:20:30] some good money on somebody just going through and reevaluating houses and

[2:20:32] adding houses to the registry than >> this. This does not feel appropriate,

[2:20:38] but I will take arguments if you guys have any, but

[2:20:42] » no, it would be definitely >> Commissioner Mayor is going to volunteer

[2:20:44] to be the person that evaluates every one of them. I just

[2:20:46] » I agree with the chair on your assessment. I don't think changing the

[2:20:50] year or implementing a rolling clock is going to solve the problems that we're

[2:20:55] trying to solve here. It could potentially make it worse. Um, so I

[2:21:00] don't think changing the year is is the issue and I I know there was probably is

[2:21:06] going to be some action by the council and it's going to have to be very well

[2:21:10] considered because the resources are limited, right? So I I think we should

[2:21:15] keep that in mind as well that the town's resources are limited and where

[2:21:18] do we want to take that I I

[2:21:22] you know there's been I'm sorry to go back up to the bullet point about the

[2:21:26] Bloom Bloomfield survey but that also feels like it could be cost prohibitive.

[2:21:30] I'd rather the town's resources be spent more specifically on when something does

[2:21:38] come to uh HPC and there's, you know, questions about, you know, should this

[2:21:45] stay on the registry or should it be taken off, you know, I'd rather town's

[2:21:48] resources be utilized to consult an expert on that sort of thing because

[2:21:56] instead, you know, because they're not all all the pre-1941s outside of

[2:22:00] historic districts are not coming all at the same time, right? They kind of come

[2:22:03] one by one. So, uh I think that I I I personally would rather the town's

[2:22:10] resources be spent on that. But I do think the second bullet point, the

[2:22:13] historic district, I think perhaps looking at expanding uh that looking

[2:22:19] back at what was previously assessed might be also a good use of resources.

[2:22:23] » Yeah, I agree with you completely. That makes a lot more sense.

[2:22:28] » Any other comments? commissioners. All right.

[2:22:33] So then updating and clarifying definitions and required findings for

[2:22:37] determining a historic status. So I'm going to be candid. There's only

[2:22:42] one person that sits up here that I feel is qualified,

[2:22:47] you know, professionally to probably talk about some of the,

[2:22:52] you know, the nuances at least architecturally of this. I do think all

[2:22:58] of us agree they need to be updated and I know that you've got some comments I

[2:23:02] think you've thought about you should make

[2:23:06] but I actually like the idea of maybe getting other other people that are I

[2:23:11] could talk to you about the structural components of it and everything all day

[2:23:14] but I don't know this just feels like only thing I'd be comfortable saying is

[2:23:20] yes we should but commissioner sorty did you have anything you wanted to add

[2:23:24] because you were talking about this earlier

[2:23:28] today earlier or at a different area. >> Oh, just related to the five findings.

[2:23:35] The typical use of the five findings. Yeah, I mean only that um

[2:23:42] yeah I well part of it is just process. Um, I think that

[2:23:48] all it says, our direction generally is all it says is that you shall consider

[2:23:52] these five things and there's no specific direction that says you shall

[2:23:56] make a positive determination regarding all five. And so I just find it

[2:24:02] generally inconsistent or I don't know, maybe just difficult to wrap my brain

[2:24:06] around. Sometimes the determination that a house should not be taken off the

[2:24:10] register revolves around the opinion of the HPC that one particular finding

[2:24:17] can't be met but the other four clearly are. And so just the logic of it I find

[2:24:22] challenging. And then more than that I think other commissioners have shared

[2:24:27] this opinion that it's it does feel a little biased. it does feel a little bit

[2:24:31] like the opinions coming from an advocacy point of view and not

[2:24:35] necessarily an objective party evaluating those findings and

[2:24:40] um and weighing in and having that objective party of course be qualified

[2:24:44] to make the determination. So that's been my feeling in almost every case

[2:24:48] when we're faced with um removing a a house from the 1941, you know, pre-1941

[2:24:54] list. So those are my comments.

[2:24:58] » Yeah. Anything to add, Commissioner Mayor?

[2:25:02] » Yeah, I mean I do think the comment earlier about, you know, getting a round

[2:25:06] table of local architects to give their input is a really important part of

[2:25:09] this, but even beyond architects, there's a a special discipline called

[2:25:14] historic preservation, and there are professionals trained specifically in

[2:25:17] historic preservation. So, I definitely think, you know, there should be some

[2:25:22] resources allocated to consulting with those folks.

[2:25:26] » I I agree. Any other comments? Anything else? I mean, we touched on everything.

[2:25:33] Is there anything else that you guys want to fall back and talk about before

[2:25:37] we close this topic? No.

[2:25:42] Then I'm going to ask staff, did that, at least as far as this getting passed

[2:25:47] on, did that give you what you need or is there anything that you maybe still

[2:25:51] had in your mind that needed to perhaps our thoughts be clarified?

[2:25:55] » Uh, no. I think you know the aim was to have a discussion. So a discussion's

[2:25:59] been had. Um I will daylight that any guidance provided from the council is

[2:26:05] very likely once we start getting work together um to make its way through

[2:26:11] the historic preservation committee and the planning commission before it goes

[2:26:14] to the the council. Um that's what I envision. Obviously it depends on the

[2:26:18] the direction of the council. Um so this is a a discussion that again this

[2:26:22] information will be provided to the council. um as we move forward and uh we

[2:26:27] look forward to receiving their direction.

[2:26:30] » Thank you, Mr. Mullen. All right, we will now Is there a report from the

[2:26:35] director of community development? >> No report this evening.

[2:26:38] » All right. Any any subcommittee reports? I know you do.

[2:26:42] » Yes, we had a historic preservation committee meeting this afternoon. There

[2:26:47] were uh three items and one business other business. Um, two of the items we

[2:26:53] would we were not able to hear because we didn't have a quorum. So, we ended up

[2:26:57] with one which was to remove the property from the historic inventory and

[2:27:02] it was uni unanimously voted to remove it. It did not have it did not meet the

[2:27:09] five criteria. So, it was removed and then another business it was just a

[2:27:15] preliminary review uh to uh for exterior modifications. this person had come back

[2:27:22] three times and so we arrived at a good solution for him. So that that was all

[2:27:29] » good. Great. >> Yeah. Please go ahead.

[2:27:32] » Can I ask the director to just give us a little update on some of the

[2:27:36] applications we saw recently that have made it to council. I think Oka Road

[2:27:40] went last week and Twin Oaks just where they stand. And

[2:27:44] » yeah, I think we discussed Twin Oaks and Oka at the last meeting. Um but uh so

[2:27:50] just for further information because I can't we've had so many meetings this

[2:27:55] month. Um Ochre Road was approved by the the council. Um Twin Oaks was continued

[2:28:04] and requested some additional information, not too date certain. Um so

[2:28:08] we will be working with the applicant and consultants to get some additional

[2:28:11] information. And then last week uh also the West Valley Muslim Association was

[2:28:17] open just for the matter to discuss requested continuences. So ultimately

[2:28:22] that was continued to a date uncertain I believe as well. Um so those will still

[2:28:27] Twin Oaks and the West Valley Muslim Association are to be continued.

[2:28:33] » Thank you. >> All right. Any other commission matters?

[2:28:36] Commissioner Stump. >> This would just be a followup. U Mr.

[2:28:39] Pollson, do you see any possibility of the West

[2:28:45] Valley Muslim Association being remanded back to the commission? [clears throat]

[2:28:49] I'd never venture a guess, but that is one of the options on the table.

[2:28:57] » Okay. Um, if there's no other commissioner matters, the meeting is

[2:29:01] adjourned. Thank you.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING / August 26, 2026 / 7:00 PM

Transcript