Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

to order the town of Lascats planning commission meeting of January 28th. I will now call the role. Uh, Commissioner Mayor here. Commissioner Bernett here. Commissioner Thomas here. Vice Chair Barnett here. Commissioner Sordy here. Commissioner Stump here. And I am here as well. Um, please stand if you can and join Commissioner Bernett in leading us in the pledge of allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the States. All right, I'll just keep

Thank you. As the planning commission conducts the meeting this evening, we encourage active participation by the public which is essential to democracy and the important work of the planning commission. Public input is very much welcomed and always considered. The public can participate in a couple ways. Prior to a meeting, written comments about agenda items may be submitted to staff. During the meeting, there are two opportunities for members of the public to participate. First, during the verbal communications period, an individual may speak on any topic that is not on tonight's agenda. And second, during the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting, any member of the public may speak about an agenda item. Uh you'll be advised of times when you're called to speak. And if you do wish to address the commission tonight, please fill out a speaker card and hand it over to staff so that we can call you up. Um, you can also raise your hand on Zoom if you are joining us that way. I do ask that you print your name with phonetic spelling um to help me out. And when you are called to speak, please come up to the podium, speak directly into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded. State your name for the record and indicate that you or indicate that you are speaking anonymously and you will have three minutes to speak. We will now begin the verbal communications portion of the meeting in which members of the public are invited to address the commission on items that are not on the agenda of tonight's meeting. I have two cards. Uh the first is Gus who please remember you have three minutes to address the commission.

Okay. Um Gasu, I'm anonymous. Uh, I sent you in uh something and I see that you got a new chairperson probably, you know, call her Sleeping Beauty and you guys probably played the little duck duck goose and he ran around. You couldn't catch her. But, uh, because I like to start out with a little sense of humor. Um, I think you have to have planning for what's going on with the project 2025. I brought this up. Uh um you know the the minute 42 second nobody saw it but some people did. Um that was the quick thing in in the paper. Uh the town is going to consider raising taxes. Uh that's going to be a big deal. Nobody is most people don't don't really like their taxes raised and you're in trouble with legally I think because now everybody else in California could say hey you're break you're uh doing the uh breaking the glass ceiling going beyond that. So I said you got to plan for that. Um I really want to hear talk about the um what happened on the um well first the flag raising priorities is not a big thing the the um prideful thing but the what I'm trying to do is the the medical I mean u water bills medical bills are going up. I I paid weave WLY, you know, I was getting it for free. Now I have to pay $1,618.82. It's just outrageous. Um the plan phase

2 north 40 you guys got played. Uh there's the nobody the public didn't get it wasn't publicized. Uh I want to correct that. I said 10 of 200 550 it should be 255 and u that came out to 4%. And what happened I what I saw what happened was you um when the the questions were going back and forth um the you you got played by because I my I'm I know some u shopping center stuff I was in when I was younger I married into a shopping center and a lot of this legal stuff but but they they are playing for $250 million and uh you know like the the parking lot space was uh was required 922 parking spaces were and you only got you gave in at 768. You got played because they didn't have to um all they had to do is submit things and they can they can change whatever uh records they they want, you know, and that's how you got played and and it 17, you know, 17. Thanks for you know I wish I had more time and I knew I didn't but football you're not ready for that either then.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? All right the next speaker card I have is for Jim Ratcliffe.

You've got three minutes.

Okay. So, hi. I'm Jim Ratcliffe. Uh I'm the neighbor um on Farley Road uh the direct neighbor of the West Valley uh Muslim Association. I'm on the uh exit driveway. And so I wanted to speak about the the WVMA's modification of their cup. So, for the last two years, we've been communicating with the town to try to get some uh traction on some what we can do with the traffic and the unsafe uh volume of of cars during Ramadan. And uh Ramadan's approaching in about 3 weeks and we have no uh closure on this matter. And it's it's very scary because uh Ramadan is a very busy time on our street and uh I live on a portion of Farley that does not have any sidewalks and there's limited street lights. So cars park on both sides of the street and so that narrows the street and the thoroughfare. And so if you can picture a thousand cars a night uh with families and people walking down the street uh that is not a safe environment. It's uh to give you a visual festival of lights on Blossom Hill Road. That is the kind of scene it is. And this residential street and they have Lascatus police uh uh you know um going through the traffic and making it you know very safe. This is uh that kind of volume on a residential street with uh just minimal

space. So, um, so what I'm asking for the town is in this upcoming, uh, Ramadan, if we could have the town monitor, uh, the traffic and hopefully help mitigate some of the traffic flow because it's just a very unsafe environment. if someone was had a medical emergency or uh in the in the in the mosque or on the street of Farley, I don't think an emergency vehicle could get down Farley Road to assist them. So, um so I'm asking for that and I'm also would just love a little closure on this matter because it's it's been 2 years and it's it's a safety thing. Our neighborhood is is unsafe. So, thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker?

Um, do you mind coming back to the podium? There actually are a couple questions for you, Commissioner Thomas. Hi, thank you for um voicing your concerns. When you say that um it's a safety concern. You mentioned the uh emergency vehicles not being able to come down the street because of the parking and then the two-way traffic on the road. Yes. Okay. So, that's the main concern that and and just the volume of of traffic uh for 30 days that in a residential street. Yeah. That's very scary.

Okay. So, I sorry, I'm kind of confused because typically when we talk about traffic, we mean like cars aren't moving quickly. So, it's typically not as much like a pedestrian safety concern. So is it just the like I mean there's the concern is when there are car lines of cars emergency vehicles separately the in-n-out the volume of in and out is concerning for ped like what the pedestrians yes and the members of the mosque too they're walking and parking and walking and

yes yes um so I have a cop I have a copy of a letter uh that we sent to the town from my attorney Ernie, I can give you guys a copy of that, too. Um, we I think that I mean the town has that and that's where we would tell you if you brought it here, we would just give it over to them. So, appreciate that. Um, and I think that that is the only question I had. So, thank you. Well, the one last thing, sorry. No, hold on. There's another question, though. Yeah. Vice Chair Bartett, thank you, sir. Uh, have you raised your concerns recently with the town of Loscatoos Police Department? And if so, what uh response did you get?

Yes, I've we've we've talked to them numerous times because uh I documented multiple violations of their current CDP and uh when we call them, they document the violation, but they don't seem very uh I guess appreciative of of the call. It seems like they're very dismissive. So, it's frustrating. Just follow up. Um, have you contacted any other departments of the town?

Yes, we've had several meetings uh with the town attorney, uh, with Joel, with multiple people, the town manager. Yeah, this has been ongoing for two years. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Thank you. Um, Mr. Pson, is there anybody on Zoom? There is not.

All right. We'll close that part of verbal communications. Um I we do not have any items on the consent calendar tonight. Is that correct? Okay. Then moving past that, we will now move into the public hearings portion. Starting with item number one, consider an appeal of the community development director decision to deny a request to remove a pre1941 property from the historic resources inventory for property zoned C1 located at 647 North Santa Cruz Avenue. APN410-14-015 exempt pursuant to SQA section 15061 section B3 request for review PHT-25-022. Property owner is 647 North Santa Cruz Avenue LLC. The applicant is Lance Tate and the project planner is Ryan Safy. Before the staff report today, may I have a show of hand to the commissioners who have visited the property? Are there any disclosures? No. Great. Mr. Safy, will you be presenting the staff report for us?

Yes, I will. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, before you is an appeal of the community development director decision to deny a request to remove a pre-1941 residence from the historic resources inventory on the property located at 647 North Santa Cruz. The subject property is located on the west side of North Santa Cruz Avenue and has a neighborhood commercial zoning classification. The property is currently developed with a two-story office building at the front of the site and a single family residence in the rear. The 929 square foot residence um at the rear has an estimated construction date of 1924 per the applicant's historic report. The property is not within a historic district and is not included in the 1990s and Bloomfield survey. The Sandborn Fire Insurance map show the residence on the property as early as 1928 and shows a rear edition occurring sometime between the 1928 and 1944 um Sanborn fire insurance maps. On November 19th, the Historic Preservation Committee received the staff report, held a public hearing, and discussed the request. HBC voted 4 to1 to recommend denial to the community development director, finding that the resident still has integrity and is typical of the craftsman's style. On November 21st, the director denied the request for removal. On November 25th, that decision of the director was appealed to the planning commission by the property owner. As a reminder, appeals are considered denovo. The planning commission may render a decision a new without reference to the conclusion made through the previous decision. On the appeal form, the appellant indicates that the HPC relied on insufficient evidence and that the property does not meet the town's criteria for inclusion in the inventory. An addendum report from the appellant was provided to supplement their previous historic report um as well as support their appeal which is included in exhibit 7 of the report.

The addendum report outlines the history of development in town, history behind craftsman architecture, location of fine examples of craftsman architecture in town, and a description of the integrity of this structure. Regarding the integrity, which is that fifth finding you'll find in the staff report. The report notes that the building has been significantly altered over time with the enclosure of the front porch and roof extension, a rear edition and associated roof extension on the back along with new columns and architectural features from the neocclassical style. Pictures were included to show these modifications. The report notes that the residence is now a mix of styles and forms which remove the previous craftsman's style and character and concludes by stating that the property is not a significant historic resource. For the reasons noted in the staff report, it is recommended that the planning commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the director to deny this request to remove a pre-1941 property from the historic resources inventory. Staff does note that an addendum and a desk item were prepared and distributed ahead of tonight's meeting which included some public comments. This concludes staff's presentation. We are available to answer any questions and both the applicant, the owner and their uh historian are here as well.

Thank you, Mr. Safy. Are there any questions of staff? Uh, Commissioner Stump.

Mr. Safy, um, is a public posting required at the property uh, ahead of this meeting. I guess the reason I asked that question that in every other case where I've seen something coming before us for an appeal, um there isn't actually a posting at the property so that people that are walking by that the public can actually see that there is going to be a hearing. Now, I might have missed it. I only was on probably two sides of the property. I don't even know if there's a third side that's accessible, but I I went through the main driveway. There's obviously a sign there for the development project, but I did not see anything that gave notice of a public hearing this evening.

So, thank you for that question. Um, I will have to to confirm one piece. Um, I will say the HPC application itself though does not have a public notification process, but I need to double check um if an appeal of an HPC decision would in terms of assign itself. Of course, we did send the the mail cards um in the letter or in in the mail. Any other questions, right? I will now open the public portion of the public hearing for item number one and give the applicant an opportunity to address the commission for up to five minutes. Um I have Bonnie Bamberg as the applicant. Please know that you and and other members could speak but you together all have five minutes.

Yes, I am not the applicant. Oh, I am I have a historic preservation firm, Urban Programmers.

We have been practicing historic preservation elements for over 45 years. And I was asked to bring my firm to evaluate the historic values of this particular property. and we did. Um, I wanted to start by giving a definition of historic preservation because I think sometimes we get lost uh in in the meaning of what we're doing. Historic preservation is an interdisiplinary practice that involves identifying, protecting, preserving, rehabilitating, and reusing buildings that meet the criteria of significance in one of four general categories. These four general categories were put out a long time ago by the National Park Service and they've been adopted in cities and counties across the country. All of which generally fall back into these four criteria. Is it associated with an event, a big pattern of something important that happened, an individual who was very important? Does it have architecture that stands as a symbol of either a pure form or the community? And may it have the opportunity to yield information in either history or prehistory at a future time. So with that definition um and what we use in our firm to go through the process of evaluating properties. First of all, we look at the four criteria. We did not find in this case a significant association with an event

um or a broad pattern that was very important in Lascatus. We did not find a person of importance in Lascatus associated with this property. We looked at the architecture and we found uh that it was an example of a craftsman's style, more a cabin style than uh what we typically think of as craftsmen. And it had been altered rather dramatically on one facade, more on another facade of enclosing a porch or creating an extra room there and somewhat on each of the four sides there have been alterations. When we look at significance of architecture and we look at the buildings in Lascatus in historic districts and not and we find that Lascatus has a wealth of very fine craftsman architecture throughout the city and the hills not just in the urban area. When we compare those buildings to the values of this particular house, we found that it did not meet the standard of being of special character, which is what the Lascatus ordinance calls for, or of of a unique artistic, highquality craftsmanship, etc. So, we found that the building did not meet the criteria for the state of California register or under the criteria of the Lasatus preservation ordinance. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? It does not look like it. Thank you. All right.

My second speaker card is for Steve Johnson.

Good evening. I am uh Steven Johnson. I'm here to speak out against this project 647 North Santa Cruz. So, I've lived in Loscatos virtually most of my life, 60 plus years, and I've seen the town undergo many changes, and the two worst things that have happened is SB 330 and the influx of ultra rich logs. In any case, uh, specifically for this, SB 330 does not is a one-sizefits-all, one sizefitsnone in this state. and we missed our deadline to to diminish the effect this thing would have due to the sabotage in my opinion of several members of the town council. In any case, um all you have to do is look as far as North 40 to see how these projects fail. How many uh lowincome units were supposed to have been built and and on what timeline in the North 40? How far has that been scaled back and how far will it be scaled back in the future since they have still yet to build a single uh low-income housing? In any case, um you can't not you cannot allow these guys to any type of variance to height limits.

I'll tell you why.

Can you take the microphone with you? This is being recorded. You you all say you walk the property. Did you walk the properties that were adjacent to this project? This is my backyard. These are just other photos of the backyard. This is where they're going to build that monstrosity of condos. Okay. They are going to have usually speak into the microphone. They are going to have a direct line of sight from their windows that are on this side of the building into my backyard. I have an expectation of privacy. This is going to completely erode the privacy of my backyard and it's going to erode the value of my property. This is a single family uh residence type of neighborhood. There are no other condos anywhere near this place and there are very few twostory buildings that come close to this height limit thereafter. Um, every house that is torn down, whether it's of great significance or little significance, is another bullet in the heart of the charm of Losatus. And you does no good to say, "Oh, this one's of little significance." You cannot let them continue to destroy the reason most people move to this town without without any stop. Um, and that's essentially what I'm here to say. They will destroy the privacy of my lot, my backyard, my pool. Uh, they're asking for an overight variance.

There any questions for the speaker? Commissioner Stump. I'm sorry. What what street do you live on? I live on Mariposa. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Anything else? Anything else? No, I don't think so. Thank Oh, sorry. Yes, Commissioner Bernett. So, I'm sure Thank you for coming tonight. I'm sure you you know this this home and this area very well, living there for so long, 62 years. Yeah. Has the home that has come before us tonight, has that changed much in um architectural design or I I can only speak to that house for the last 15 or 16 months when I moved onto Mariposa. Okay.

But I've lived in on the other side of town and up on Golf Links by the golf course and I just retired last year and moved to Mariposa. So I can't really say how much it has changed. In your opinion, is is it in a situation of deterioration or certainly it hasn't been maintained, but that's what typically happens. These houses get less and less maintained until they're sold and the buyer, usually a family, rebuilds it within the guidelines of the planning commission that I've done that with a house in Los. So, it would look like it would be inhabitable. It's inhabitable now. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions? No, thank you. Um, Mr. Pollson, is there anyone on Zoom? There are no hands raised on Zoom. All right. If you want to hand in a speaker card for this item, is that what you just said? Yeah, you go ahead and um yeah, come on up. Just state your name and then you can gather information after. Thank you.

Yeah. Um my name is Gracia Johnson. I'm uh his wife and um we moved to this house seeing this back backyard just one house with one shed in it and we were fine. I mean there is a lot of green there and it's it's wonderful. Okay. Now I I understand the change of the house. I don't know if it's historic or not. I don't care about that. But I care about why in one property where there is just one house right now they are going to build the six threestory houses. It's not just a one story. I understand. Fill up the land, the property with a one-story house, but now with a threestory house, it's like we don't have a privacy anymore. And right in our backyard, there will be four four town houses just looking at us. And it's it's it's unbelievable. I'm sorry about all these trees that they have to cut down because they have to build the whatever. And it makes no sense to me. And then you know if we ask to raise our fence just one foot the rules of Losatos probably don't permit that because you know it's just seven feet. But I I want to say just was more if we ask for the fancy to go higher probably they say no and instead for a house of threestory buildings they say

yes. I mean that's it that that's that's what I I wanted to say. I mean think about this if it was in your in your backyard. I mean it's I understand the developer I mean and I understand built the houses but not three story houses. Thank you. I'm sorry for my Thank you. No. Are there any questions? No. Thank you very much. Um I don't believe we have any other speakers. So I'm now going to close the public portion of the public. Huh?

No, sorry. Oh, yeah. I'm so sorry. first day of being the new chair. Sorry. Um, the applicant or the speaker for the applicant has five minutes if you would like to come and make a closing statement. Three minutes. I'm I'm getting there.

I'm sure there's going to be a few questions for you, too. So, um, again, I find myself in a kind of an awkward position because I don't even know what the project looks like. Um, that wasn't our task. Our task was strictly to deal with evaluating the historic values of the property as we saw it. So, I can't really comment anything on on the project other than our reports that have been delivered to you, and I'd be glad to take any questions on those. Wonderful. Thank you. Are there any, Mr. Sordy? Oh, we've got questions for you if you don't mind.

I have a specific question. Thank you. Um, one of the things I'm interested is your opinion on one of the findings because we've got finding, you know, five findings in front of us. You evaluated um the findings in your report. And um as you know we've got well we got one finding it's number three and it says there are no distinctive characteristics of type period or method of construction or representation of work of a master and it appears as though per your report and you're the expert. You've determined that not to be the case, right?

In other words that finding to justify removal from the inventory could be made. I guess what I'm interested in is your opinion about whether or not if that holds true, would finding number five be necessary to evaluate at all? And that finding says the integrity has been compromised such that the structure no longer has the potential to convey significance. So if you don't have three, does it even make sense to evaluate number five? When we go through um an evaluation process in a community that has created its own criterium, we go through every one of the different elements and we also apply how they compare with other buildings in in this case buildings in the community. So yes, we would go through each one even though we may say no, we don't have to go any further, but we do uh and we do com we do consider all of those criteria.

Okay. And then I think it's pretty safe to summarize that at this point you believe all five criteria would be met to justify removal from the inventory. And the reason I ask it that specifically is it seems as though the conclusion that the HBC made at their hearing was that four were met, but the fifth one was not. So

yes, um that would be our professional opinion. Um, and and to be very honest with you, in Lascatus, there's sometimes uh different terms used interchangeably and I had trouble with it. And so I was asking staff earlier. Um, the historic inventory as such as we see it in many places relies on an evaluation of the properties. In this case, we provided that evaluation. We did not see that it was on or had been recognized by the town council to be on in historic inventory, but I understand historic inventory pre-1941 and um possibly other definitions of older buildings. The terms are used interchangeably. And so we respect that and we just say yes it if it's on an inventory of any kind then we would say it doesn't have the merit in Lascatus to be on that inventory.

Thank you. Are there any other questions? Commissioner Bernett.

Yes. Thank you. So if you're if the house was basically built in in 1928 and you're saying that well there's no dist distinctive characteristics of type period or method of construction and yet you look at the home and it's still it looks very much like I mean there has been some changes but as far as the total look of it if you look around the house it still has characteristics of that time period of a California bungalow home. So, it's hard for me to accept what you're saying because how how can you say that when it was built in 1928 at that time it had certain characteristics, a California bungalow, it still has many of those characteristics and yet you you're saying it doesn't. So that that's sort of you know hard to and and inhabitable wise it can be inhabited.

So I mean well Commissioner Bernett was that a question? It sounded more like a Well, I'm just Yes, I'm asking her how she came up with the fact that she feels there's no distinctive characteristics. All right.

When it it hasn't changed that much. There's been some additions in modeling. But so what what do you base your decision your remarks on? Again, we come back to look at not only what is this particular building, but how does this particular building fit in in the general category of craftsman architecture in Loscatos? So, when we look at this particular building, can we tell that it fits into the category of craftsman style? Yes, of course we can. Do we look at not the modifications and everything first? First we look at what is it in comparison? Where does it fit within the architectural heritage that defines Loscatoos? What will future generations look at? Will they see this as distinctive of a craftsmanstyle building in Losatus? And our conclusion is no. It is definitely within the category of craftsman style. Um but it is not a building that rises to the criteria uh limits that many many other buildings in Lascatos do. So it's the comparison looking for special character or significance. Those two uh the Lascatus ordinance uses special character. I don't think we see special character in that building.

Well, thank you for that comment. I I fail to agree with you and through the chair. Um, just so you know that if someone has a question for the applicant, Mr. Tate, um, he's also available on Zoom. Oh, excellent. All right. Does anybody have any questions either for Oh, sorry, Mr. Mayor. Yeah.

Yes. I know you evaluated the structure for its uh architectural merit, but I wanted to ask you if you could u make any comments on the structural integrity of the structure. I can only make those things that we observed um walking around and looking at the building. We saw some settlement. We saw some infestation um area rotted areas probably from water intrusion and then you know the termites arrive. Um but I couldn't give you a structural belief that it is in danger or not in danger. Of course.

Um, this might be for you or might be for staff. Does Does anyone have the information about when was the last time someone actually lived in this structure? That perhaps would go towards Mr. Tate who is on Zoom. I can't answer that. Uh, is Mr. Tate there? Um, do you know uh when was the last time someone uh lived in the home? Uh the the homeowner is actually I'm sorry, the property owner is actually here. He could answer that more uh specifically than I could.

So for the record, the applica the property owner has stated that it two years ago, a little over two years ago. Thank you, Mr. Pollson. Are there any other questions?

Commissioner Sordy. Yeah, I just wanted I wanted to follow up on um Commissioner Mayor's question and lob it over to um Mr. Tate. So, I know I did listen to all the audio from the HBC and at the beginning of the HBC hearing, it was said pretty clearly by the owner that the property is is basically beyond repair, but it there wasn't a lot of support that was then added to that. And so, I was wondering if maybe Mr. Tate could uh elaborate and maybe get into a little more detail about why it's beyond repair. Yeah. And can you guys hear me? Sorry, it's my first planning commission remotely. I apologize. Um, yeah. Yeah, we actually had a um an inspection done uh which was submitted with our application and the uh I mean the the inspection kind of spoke for itself. There's a fair amount of deferred maintenance. Um, you know, there could be an argument to be made that the house wasn't livable even when there were tenants in it. Um, and I would I would uh encourage everyone to to uh to review that component that was submitted with our original application. Does that answer your question? All right. Um, are there any others? Right. Seeing none, I think I'm safe to officially close the public portion of the public hearing for item number one. And um before I invite commissioners um to ask questions of staff, provide comments, etc., I do want to remind the commissioners that we are here tonight specifically concerning the appeal to remove the home from the historic registry or historic inventory. Um, unfortunately we are not here to speak about the any upcoming applications that might be on the property.

And so now I'll invite any questions of staff, conversation, comment. Vice chair, I have a bunch, but I'll yield from time to time. Um, there was the um desk item regarding uh the Sequway valuation on this property. I wonder if Miss Willing could comment on that.

Yes, there was um a letter that was submitted that um stated that the town should consider removal of this property from the historic resources inventory at the same time that it considers the application for a development project. Um and it's staff's view that these are two separate applications. In fact, they are two separate applications. And so the question before the commission tonight is does this property belong on the historic register or not? Okay. Thank you for that. Do you have a a followup to that? I have different questions. Uh if I may proceed, please. Yeah.

Okay. So if we look at section 29102 um the standard is uh for any pre-1941 property whether the town has determined that the structure has no historic significance or architectural merit. And so with respect to architectural merit, is it correct that we then look at the state findings one through five to help inform us as to whether it has his historical or excuse me architectural merit?

I can jump in and then if I miss anything, uh, Director Pollson or Ryan Sappy can help out. Um so the town has um used uh the five evaluation criteria that are included in your staff report that we call findings and those findings are very similar to what are used at the state and national uh level but they don't operate the same. So those five findings are independently um considered. So 1 through four talks about events um significant people distinctive characteristics or work of a master um does not yield any information on the town's history. And then the fifth being integrity which is really evaluating how much change and manipulation has been um has occurred on the resource um since its buil uh construction.

Thank you. I can pass. She has a followup. So yes, please Commissioner Thomas. Okay. If I ask a follow-up to that. Okay. So, um, one question that I have is when and we interpret I think that integrity can sometimes be interpreted in multiple ways. Um, especially for um those that are less familiar with this part of our town code. So integrity means like integrity to the architectural design and structure, not integrity to the stability or engineering of the property.

Thank you for that question. I think that's an important um distinction. So integrity is related to the architecture. Um these older homes tend to have deferred maintenance and uh the structural integrity of a of a residence is not what is evaluated for whether it can be removed from the inventory or not because it if it is a valuable resource it could be a candidate for rehabilitation rather than removal.

Okay. And then my other follow followup is because the town of Lascatus interprets or doesn't interpret but kind of uses these five criteria in a slightly different way. What should we be doing as a body or what happens typically in town if the findings contradict the purpose of the historic preservation ordinance and the the don't uphold for example something like some of the language related to the related to the purpose that you know it says that it is town policy to preserve these resources whenever possible and practical and what if the findings contradict when it's practical or that doesn't serve you know the purposes to promote health safety general welfare public or the enhancement of property values etc. And maybe that's also a question for the town attorney.

I read the uh statute or the ordinance to define historic structure as any primary structure constructed prior to 1941 unless the deciding body has determined that the structure has no historic significance and should not be included in the town historic resources inventory. And so the finding that the commission is being asked to make is does this structure have any historic significance? And those five factors are um ways that the commission can determine whether or not the structure has any historic significance.

So it also says in the town code that the purpose of the historic preservation ordinance states x y and z. So if that contradicts then you should use the five criterion.

Okay. I just Oh, I know we're not on to questions yet, but I just want to say it that is frustrating. I know for more than just me because this happens. And I'm not saying that it's frustrating from a staff how it's being interpreted or telling us. not frustrated with anyone here, but just a frustration of the way that this ordinance is written and one of the reasons why I think the HPC has been trying to to work on updating some of that some of that language. So, thank you for answering those questions. There any other questions, vice chair

to me? Uh, so question for staff. If we look at um finding number three um in the recommended criteria, it says there are no distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction etc. So when it says distinctive, does that mean something that is unusual or it seems to me I can I guess the question is does distinctive mean it's something that's uncommon versus um it has some unique quality make distinctive means to me a unique quality and the opposite would be common. So, for example, if we're talking about it being in the craftsman style, um, under three, it would have to be something novel with respect to a craftsman style.

Hopefully that's clear. I'll defer to Mr. Mullen. Um, I'll give a really bad example and then he can clean that up. So, if you have an otherwise, you know, stellar architecturally craftsman with a turret, that would be pretty distinctive. Yeah, I would not say that in that instance that would be a reason to save that resource. But Mr. Mullen,

and I can add that um I think distinctive in this context really leans on that it's an example of excellence or superior quality. Um so recognizing that you know picking on the craftsman style there can be craftsman elements but are they distinctive? Are they excellent? Are they high quality? when you read that finding as a whole, it ends with work of a master. And so I think there's a distinction between um a craftsman house that may be a Sears kit. I'm not an architect, so I don't know if Sears made those versus a green and green craftsman. Um I think there's going to be a very bright line between the two and I think that's what they're getting at here with the distinctive.

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you. There any other questions? Any comments? Yes, Commissioner Bernett.

Yeah, I just want to make a comment that if we we go along that line, there are a lot of homes in Lascatus that aren't totally distinctive. Uh but they they are a time and place of a California cottage home, whether it's Craftsman or whatever. They may not be the most expensive, but they did um house people in our town that maybe were of a more moderate or but they still have I think I still I believe they have a place to stay in our town because it is part of our history. I mean, just because it doesn't have a turret or a balconies, it still, I think, deserves to be saved and to looked at looked looked at in a different way. I think it has architectural integrity in its own way. Maybe it be simple and, you know, u not a lot of outstanding characteristics, but it was built at a certain time. And I think I think we really need to look at that. And um and so I think it's important for our time. I mean that's what our town is known for. So um I just feel like I always have to fight for these little homes and I think they deserve to be fought for.

Right. Any other comments? Commissioner St.

Yeah. Let me just say that based on what has been submitted in the staff report, what has been submitted as an addendum, the information that's been provided here tonight, I'm inclined to continue to support the denial of this um um removal from the historic uh registry or the the inventory. Again, based on that criterion number five could not be met. the integrity has been compromised such that the architecture no longer has the potential to convey significance. And I think that's a much broader concept about conveying significance than some of the other tighter criteria that are here. So I just wanted to put that out on the table.

All right. Any other comments? Vice Chair.

Yes, this is a question for staff. Um so if we look at the five criteria after four there's the word or not and so to me that means that um the but it's sort of in a negative here um you could not have findings one through four but you could have on five. So in in my view one through four cannot be met and five doesn't apply because 1 through four are not applicable. I was wondering if we if the word or is reasonably interpreted in that mind. Um typically or means that the deciding body makes any one of those five decisions. um this as these findings are written, I think they're paraphrasing what's in the state guidelines. Um and I think it would be worthwhile to see if the state guidelines are set up the same way because I think that um any one of these reasons would be reasons to preserve it within the inventory. any one of the reasons or reasons to either remove it or preserve it within the inventory.

And Mr. Mullen's probably more familiar, but these are pretty similar to the state criterion, but if I'm correct, I think that that maybe is worded differently, so more towards what Commissioner Barnett, how he looks at it. If you can't make the first four, the five ones not in play, but I'm not 100% sure of that. And I can they're they're similar to the way the state criteria are set up. Um I don't trying to pull them up but um having some trouble finding them to provide the comparison but they're very similar. Um the difference between the state as I understand it and the town um and I'm not a professional historian caveat there is um the state looks at one through four as do you qualify under one of these four so let's use an example of a Franklidd Wright house um obviously that's a work of a master architect but that Frank then so you can make finding three there. The next step is then to look at integrity and whether the the resource has the integrity enough or enough integrity to continue to communicate the importance of the structure. So if you had that Franklidd Wright house and someone remodeled it until it looked like uh my ranch house, it's lost its integrity. So therefore, you couldn't make that wouldn't qualify for listing. The town is not operated that way. The town looks at all four of those independently. That's how it's traditionally been done. So if you can't make one through four, but you can make five or the opposite because they're written in the negative. um integrity

just speaks independently of whether it's been remodeled such that it's lost its historic roots or its historic look. Um so that's the distinction between the two. Um as I understand it. Thank you. There any other questions or comments?

Go ahead, Commissioner Sorty. Um, I remember this coming up the last time we had um another item where we needed to consider removing it from the list. I remember talking about the findings. I did express some frustration that um unlike most of the decisions the planning commission makes, the findings are usually in the code. So, it's pretty crystal clear about whether you need to make all the findings or you only need to make one. I think what we concluded in that instance was that the commission is charged with considering all five of these items, but they don't need to make all five in either direction, right? It's just consider all five of these criteria when making your decision or making your recommendation. Um, so in that respect, I think that well I I think so. Okay, so that's one point and I'll move on to my second point which is we have one expert that's weighed in on this and this person has substantial experience and that was the only expert that prepared a report. That's the only expert that weighed in at HPC. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no expert opinion to counter that person's expert opinion at HPC, um the HPC still took it upon themselves to disagree with that. That's certainly their prerogative, but I don't agree with that. I don't think that meets the logical standard that would I would like to see when making a decision. If you're going to counter the expert opinion, you need to have an expert opinion to to fall back on as opposed to a bunch of opinions of lay people, which are fine and everyone's entitled to their opinion. And I'm sure there's varying degrees of expertise when it comes to membership on HBC, but um I would only be comfortable countering and going against the expert's opinion in this case if there was some expert on the other side. And I don't see it. So, you know, I'm inclined to support the request to remove this from the um

inventory. So,

thank you, Commissioner. Sorry, I'll I'll kind of speak in here, too. Um I've had the privilege to serve on the HPC for a number of years and the planning commission and have seen um many homes come in front of us you know and you certainly do get those that when you are on you know number five um there certainly is a great deal of integrity there's no debate on what style and if it has the right um you know significant details of the ar you know architectural style or anything like that. But in a case like this, um, when I look at this house, I see such significant modifications made to it to even go back to try to find the architectural style, you would be doing a great deal of remodel to put it, in my opinion, back to that architectural style. So, I personally um my opinion would be to um grant the appeal, but I'm obviously going to look to my other commissioners for their thoughts.

Commissioner Thomas.

Um thank you. I serve on the HPC and um am, as other commissioners have expressed, sometimes been frustrated with the the way that these f findings have been interpreted and used in town because it can sometimes make our jobs difficult. And um I think that really looking at this language, it says as required for determination that a pre-1941 primary structure has no historic significance or architectural merit. Those are the findings that have to be made. So I think we can agree that there's no historic significance with regards to I mean and continued we made this finding as a a HBC um about the events it's not the work of a master and nothing no it's not no significant person lived there. Um so when we look at the or architectural merit when we say merit that and I mean maybe this is another question for the town attorney but that really unless there's a different legal definition than the lay person's one it's the quality of being particularly good or worthy especially so as to deserve praise or reward and so if If I use that definition, it doesn't seem like this has distinct it doesn't seem that there are distinctive characteristics of type period or method of construction because you know according to the historical report that is true and that is a

finding that we already made and it does seem that the integrity it doesn't matter that then it the integrity has been compromised because it was never of merit to begin with. Is that a way? Yeah, I the way I read the ordinance is it the the decision for this body to make is does the structure have any historic significance and then these five factors are factors to consider when you're making that decision. So any one of these five factors can be the basis for saying yes it has historic significance or no it does not. So it but it also says or architectural merit right or no

I'm not seeing the phrase architectural merit in section um written in our sorry it's written in our findings so that's why I'd said that but I don't know if that's okay the the way the code reads is um an historic structure is any primary structure constructed prior to 1941 unless the deciding body has determined that the structure has no historic significance and should not be included in the town historic resources inventory and through through the chair. So we see the in the in the findings you're talking about the leadin language. Yeah.

Um there. Yeah. Okay. So then a um sorry Miss Whan after the after the section you just read then does it list the five? Um, no. Those those are not codified. Um, but those are factors that the town has tra traditionally used in order to make a determination whether or not it's historically significant.

Um, okay. So, I guess that, and again, this is like going back and forth. I really I mean it's kind of going in circles which I understand but um it just does not I mean I think that there have been there have been modifications that have been made significant modifications that have been made and even before those modifications have been made this is not a a representation of a work of a master and I do not believe that its original architectural style was anything that was that provided merit. So I think that I can support the removal with the addendum that with the additional information that was provided tonight in the staff report by the expert. I just want to say that I agree with Commissioner Sordy. I mean we are looking at this but you know I'm not an architect and I'm not a historian. So, interpreting this information, I have to take what the experts have to say and would be interested to hear what our architect on the planning commission maybe has to say.

Thank you, Commissioner. Mayor,

sure. I can make some comments here. Um, I'm an architect, but I'm not a historic preservationist. Um, but I do know that historic preservation is actually its own discipline that, you know, you can study it, you can get a master's degree in it. So, it is its own discipline unto itself and it's nice to see that we have an expert here today um sharing her uh thoughts with us. Um I just want to say just because a structure is old uh doesn't mean it has historic value. Um I think for the town's historic uh preservation ordinance, I think it does one thing well, which is our historic districts. And when a property is within one of our historic districts, there's no ambiguity about is it historic or not. And then we have this everything uh built before 1941 thing is historic by default and then it has to come to the HBC and then sometimes comes to the plane commission like tonight. So uh and that's the exact opposite. It's just full of ambiguity, right? Um so it is always a tough call and these are uh tough deliberations but I I do think uh it is very helpful to have the uh report of an expert someone who's done a thorough evaluation of uh the historical merit of of a pre-1941 structure. And I would say that uh in this case it it seems pretty convincing to me. I feel like the the house it has been uh altered uh to the point where I don't really see any uh historical value in it. Um so yeah, just just a general comment about the these pre-1941 uh items. It would be helpful maybe in the future uh to have more uh professional

input from the historic preservation side to to assist both HPC and planning commission make their decision. Thank you. Are there any additional Commissioner Bernett?

Yeah, I just want to make a comment about the historic preservation committee. There's one member that has been a member of the San Jose planning department for many years. She's been on the historic preservation committee for many years. She's been in Lascatus. She's been on the planning commission. I would consider her an expert. She's very familiar with the homes in Lascatus. I'm on the historic preservation committee and this is my second round of it. I was on it eight years previous and now I've been on it now for four years. So, I don't have a degree. I have a degree in a masters in nursing, but I don't have a degree in historic preservation. But I think my experience and this are another member on the historic preservation committee, I would consider her an expert. Uh she's very wellqualified. We've all attended classes on this preservation uh uh um agendas and gone to seminars. So I would think that that would count for something, you know, regarding to our commissioner sorty. I think there are people on the historic preservation committee that could be considered not they don't have an a degree or whatever but experience and exposure and time I think also should be uh should be considered in their opinion

commissioner stump Mr. Mayor, I think I'm going to test you here. I didn't quite hear like your last sentence that you stated, and now it's been a while since you made that statement, so I'm not sure that you can even remember what I'm referring to at this point. Sure. I'm looking at uh the five elements of the Loscatoos criteria. And number five, uh the 1924 house has extensive alterations that greatly diminish the minimal craftsman elements of the original design. And I do find that argument compelling. And

I guess the one thing that I would just say is we're kind of piling on related to historic preservation here. Obviously, we're going to be having fewer and fewer 1941 structures coming before the town because we probably have fewer and fewer 19 pre-1941 structures out there. I think what we're also starting to set ourselves up with is who's got the better expert and now are we going to go down the path where because we've had an expert and I certainly don't doubt her credentials at all that we are going to have to counter with our own expert and place additional burden on the town to engage an expert if we get expert information and we want to basically verify it right test it like Mr. I guess Mr. sorty is saying so that would place an additional burden and maybe it's one that we need because you know what I think we all want to get this right and and it is a gray area and that's why I say we get paid the big bucks because we work in the gray right

Commissioner Thomas um I have a question for staff about the his about how Loatus went about determining what went on the historic inventory resources inventory and if that is typical of what most towns and cities do, how how we they went about it.

So I can speak to this town. Um so and anecdotally speak to some others. So some others might use um the SQA benchmark of anything that's 50 years old. Um, so absence in the absence of an ordinance that has specifics like ours, they may just look at a a a house coming in that was built 50 years ago and perform an evaluation on it from the SQA context. The town has uh a historic preservation ordinance and the and some design guidelines that talk specifically about um uh historic preservation. The three main criteria that are that trigger something to be considered historic or potentially historic is any structure site that is located within a historic district. Um so we have six districts uh five districts the Broadway Almond Grove Fairview University and then the nationally registered uh downtown commercial district. So that's one. The second is any structure that is historically designated. Those are individual um historic historically designated sites that are done at the council level by ordinance. Um there's a number of them spread throughout the town. Those are outside of districts typically. And then um the last one, which is the subject of tonight's meeting, is any primary structure that was constructed prior to 1941 unless the town has determined that the structure has no historic significance or architectural merit. Um, when folks come to the counter and stare at me wideeyed about what that means, um, one way I describe it is the town didn't and probably wouldn't have the resources to survey every house that was pre built prior to 1941 to do a full evaluation and individually recognize each house. So, with the date outside of those other two criterion, they cast a wide net. And when you cast a wide net,

you pick up a lot of things that don't belong there. Um, as such, the process had is included in the design guidelines for consideration of whether uh or determination of whether a pre41 structure that has the potential to be historic to determine whether it does have that potential or not. And that's the process um through the HPC's recommendation through the uh director And just if I follow up if I may. Um, and the 1941 date was chosen because why

I stumbled upon this fact um very accidentally when looking for something else. Um when the Anne Bloomfield survey was being considered and adopted by the council, uh 1990ish, um there was debate on what date they should use for the the casting of the wide net. They chose 41 because that was the first year the town had a full tax assessment record within the town's boundaries.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Um any other comments? Anyone want to venture a motion? No, I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay, vice chair.

I'll venture a motion um concerning item one on tonight's calendar. Um, I move to uh grant the appeal of the community uh development director's decision to deny a request to remove the pre-1941 property from the historic res uh resources inventory property for the property commonly known as 647 uh North Santa Cruz Avenue. Uh my opinion is based on the fact that um although it is a pre-1941 construction uh that the property um does not have u historic significance or architectural merit and with respect to the five criteria I believe that one through four cannot be uh made based on the facts that have been presented to the planning commission and also in reliance on um Miss Bad Bamberg's uh two reports that are in the staff report. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Oh, sorry, Commissioner. Sorry. Thank you. All right. Um chair, before you before you vote, sorry. Yes. So, staff has prepared in the event that the commission were to um vote to grant the appeal, um staff has prepared a resolution. Um, and so, um, I can distribute that resolution to each of you and then it can be amended as necessary and I'll also put copies on the table for the public to see. Okay. And just for clarity, we don't have a resolution. We have revised findings.

Oh, okay. Yeah. And I assume we want to read that before we call the vote. Yes. and chair might suggest may we take a five minute break so the planning commission can read this? Yeah. Yes, we'll do a fivem minute break. Thank you.

uh reopen the public portion for item number one. Um and we'll look at the maker of the motion um to see as you've read the updated findings if you wish to adopt those into the motion. Yes. Thank you, chair. So, uh I will modify my uh previous motion by incorporating by reference the SQA findings and the historic resources inventory removal findings presented by staff tonight

and the seconder. Okay. Uh okay. I will now call the question. All in favor say I. And those opposed that passes. uh five to two. Uh are there any appeal rights, Mr. Safy? Thank you, Chair. I'll go ahead and take care of the appeal rights. Anyone who's not satisfied with the decision of the planning commission can appeal that decision to the town council. The appeal must be filed within 10 days. There's a fee for filing the appeal, and the appeal is available on the town's website as well as the clerk's department for the form.

Thank you, Mr. Pollson. All right, we will now move on to item number two. Consider a request for approval for site improvements requiring a grading permit and conditional use per permit for a vineyard greater than 3,000 square foot on property zoned HR2 and a half located at 16135 Sra Vista Drive APN 537-30-018 exempt pursuant to the SQA section 15303A new construction or convert converion of small structures and section 15304 minor alterations to land. The property owner is Ruben I'm going to say the name wrong Cabo. The applicant is Gary Colstat and the project planner is Siri Nathan. Um before the staff report, did everyone get to either visit the property or review the property? Are there any disclosures? Okay, great. Um, and Mr. Nathan, you'll be giving us a staff report.

Yes, I will. Thank you, uh, chair. Good afternoon, commissioners. Uh, before you is an architectural site and a conditional use permit application. The subject site is located at 16135 Sowister Drive, and it is zoned HR 2 and a half. On July 25th, 2025, the applicant submitted an architectural site application for a site improvement that requires grading permit and a conditional use permit for a 16,300 ft vineyard. The project scope also includes a new 576qt detached outdoor kitchen structure along with new patio and pool decking. Uh the planning the project the proposed project meets the technical requirement for the town's code for floor area, building coverage, parking and height. Uh the planning commission is considering the project for a conditional use permit for a vineyard greater than 3,000 square ft. Also a fence height exception for an 8ft tall deer fencing which is about approximately about 95 ft section of a fence around the vineyard where the maximum height limit is about 6 ft. And additionally the applicant requests an exception to the hillside development standard and guidelines for a portion of the finished floor height that exceeds 3 ft above the existing grade. Uh the applicant proposed height is about 3'2 in. Uh exhibit four provides justification for the conditional use of it and exhibit five provides justification for the fence side exception and exhibit 6 provides justification for the grade height exception and this concludes presentation and uh staff will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. There any questions for staff? Commissioner Stump. Mr. Nathan, I guess I'll start out with the word briefly. Could you briefly summarize the building permit history for what we see out there today? There was obviously a building permit issued for the pool, but we see a pad that's been constructed out there as well. Um, what has been done under which building permit or building permits?

Uh, thank you for the question. Yes. Uh in 2020 um there was a building permit um application and um it has been issued and it was for the refurbishing and redoing of the pool and the existing deck at the time. Over time they have extended the deck and added some fill. So that was done without um acuring the proper permit for that.

Okay. And uh along with that um they have also as I stated the vineyard that was also constructed and that uh they said that they didn't realize that they needed a conditional use permit for it. So they have applied for the condition use permit as well as the ANS to rectify these.

Thank you. mute.

There any additional questions for staff at this time? All right, then I will call up the applicant who seems to know exactly what he's doing. Mr. Colstat, you've got five minutes. Good evening, everyone. Um, I am the architect for his uh accessory structures. Um, I did not do the addition of his home or the the pool even though I like both of them and I've been consulting on the side of all that as well. So it was um uh this is actually so as uh planner said we are here for a conditional use permit for the vineyard uh with an exception for deer fencing and also for a grading permit for uh the not for the vineyard but there's grading that was done around the pool and in preparation for our two buildings. Um, and now we're also asking for an exception, slight exception for a fill heights of the patios for these two for the building and the patio. And that's pretty clear on our latest set of plans. That should be in your packet. Um, the vineyard uh was planted in 2019 by a very reputable vine company. Uh, neither they nor the owner was aware that a conditional use permit was required. Um, and I I have to admit I was not aware of that as well. Um, not that I had anything to do with the vineyard. Um, that this vineyard is on this western slope. There were no trees removed. There's virtually no grading done for this vineyard. And uh, this vineyard was was used with modern technology with drip irrigation. This very uh, lowmaintenance um, uh, setup and it's it's been in here been there for for five six years now. And it's very evident that there's been

no environmental concern, no erosion, and and and a case could be made that it's actually stabilized the hillside. Uh the fence that we need um is uh it just is it closes up that fourth side. There's already fencing on three sides and we're asking for a fence on the fourth side um to keep the deer out of this uh wonderful vineyard. And the grapes are really good. Good job. Um, the grading that was done, as I mentioned earlier, was kind of because they were doing the pool and they wanted to kind of just finish up the pool. So, they just cleared a little bit more because he knows we already had permits in uh almost in hand for the ADU and for this cantina. We call it a cantina, the outdoor kitchen. Um, and we went over the 50 yards. So, it's about 110 uh cubic yards. And so that exceeds the allowable uh limit for not getting a grading permit. So we've actually applied for the grading permit and staff has asked us to combine the conditional use permit and the grading permit into one. So there really are two separate projects. Um we also when we were building or designing these structures, we um we wanted to get a little extra room underneath the cantina. all the patio equipment, all the furniture, those kind of things. It would be great to to throw underneath this building. We're building this robust foundation anyway on the hillside. Why not just go ahead and and and doodle a crawl space or a rat slab and grit of storage? It was pointed out late in the game that um we were over the limits for accessory structures, the amount of cut you can make for an accessory structure, which is 3 feet or 4 feet. Four feet. Thank you. So four feet for an accessory

structure. We're asking for six or seven feet. Um we're asking for 7 ft of cut to get this under the building. It's not a basement because we can't have a basement, but it's a it's in a large crawl space. Um, while it's not necessary for the building, it certainly would be a great addition to to finish out this this property. Um, and I know it's um a little bit um uh out of the ordinary, but we're asking to put that back in to the plans and I believe that you as plan commissioners would have the power to ex to grant that exception if you found it uh worthy. So, we are asking for that. I happy to answer any questions on that aspect of it or any other aspect. And also uh Ruben Cabierro is here with us tonight if you have questions for him. Thank you. There any questions? Applicant. Okay. Does it look like Oh, okay. Mr. Stump,

we received a desk item today from one of the neighbors. Um, and I'm sure you've seen it as well. Can you help us understand the claim that extensive environmental damage to the hillside and downs slope area would occur to the fragile nature of the large region of the hill that is currently covered with significant number of trees? Is this neighbor referring to the vineyard or some other location on the property or do you even know what the neighbor is referring to? The way I took that that her letter that or the person's um letter was that there are significant trees below the vineyard area below that there's a small retaining wall at the bottom of the vineyard. There's a small walkway and then there's some more oak trees down there. Um I was just assuming that that's what she was concerned about is those trees. Um, but if any of you went out there to see it, you can see that there is zero erosion. There's zero uh, you know, this is what's happening with the normal rains, not anything to do with the vineyard. The vineyard's on a drip system and it's only watering certain times of the year. So, it's certainly not going to be excessive water that's going to cause any kind of environmental concerns down slope. When was the vineyard planted and what is the irrigation system?

It was planted in 2019 and it's a drip system. Uh we've detailed that in our on our letter or on the plans, I'm sorry. There's a table on the plans. There's we even went to the extent of each how each row is how long and and each plant has one emitter and it's the whole thing. So, it was designed and installed um perfectly to today's standards. Thank you. Welcome.

I have a quick question on um sheet A31. You you're noting the existing wood wire fence, but actually was that existing fence put in with the vineyard in 2019? Um, there are two fences on the property which are existing. There is one fence on the bottom. Yes, that's there right now. And that's a 6ft fence.

And then we're asking for the exception on the southern side, I believe, um to to finish that fourth side. And that's the fence that um we're asking for exception in height over seven feet. We're asking for 8 ft because it sits on a twoft stone base wall and we want the fences to match. So it's actually 8 ft. Does that does that clarify your question kind of? So the where it there's another spot where it says existing something wood wire fence which I think is actually on the east side. Mhm.

Is that was that put in in 2019 then? And is how tall is that? Uh I believe that's the existing fence between the two neighbors and that was put in well before 2019 and that's six feet. And what we say by wood and wire is that there's wood post every six feet or so and then there's wire mesh between the posts. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions?

Okay, Commissioner Sordy. kind of a technical question, but on the downs slope side of the vineyard, it says twoft retaining wall, and I'm wondering if there's any subgrade footing associated with that because sometimes that actually defines the true depth height of a retaining wall that um I did not I was not involved in that construction, but um it two feet of exposed there's no way it's going to be more than a foot of foundation. So, we would still be underneath a three-foot uh max height of a retaining wall or four feet by permit. Okay. Thanks. Yeah.

All right. I don't have any other speaker cards for this item. Is there anyone on Zoom? There are no hands raised on Zoom. Okay. So, I just want to say thank you all and um again, if there's any other questions, we're here. Um and congratulations on your new taking over and thank you for the wonderful job from last year. Thank you. So do do any of us have additional question? Mr. St. Commissioner St. I want to come back to you. I guess you called it a cubby right that you the six foot or you know the space you wanted under the kitchen. The crawl space. Yeah, the crawl space. Is that in drawings anywhere or it sounds like it's been taken out and it was taken out on the last iteration.

Yes. So, what would what would we be referring to tonight other than, you know, your your request to see that and understand what that would look like incorporated into the project? I would I would defer to staff, but I would start with um just granting us the exception. The only reason why we can't do it um is because it there's too much cut for in for a um accessory structure exceeding four feet. So, we would we would ask for the exception of uh excessive or uh cut exceeding the limit, but uh maybe staff would have better language on that.

Um I I don't see any information on that in the packet. And so if that is part of the request, I would recommend that the item be continued. Thank you for that clarification because Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner Thomas.

Um I know that this is not necessarily your area of expertise what I'm about to ask a question about. So um fencing, we have very specific hillside fence guidelines for the purpose of wildlife being able to move about and I understand this is a like fencing in of a area which is a more unique situation. Um, but do you know if um the property owner has looked into are there any alternatives? I'm not aware of any alternatives to really a a tall fence for keeping deer out of a vineyard. Are you aware if there's any alternatives?

We did look into it and there's nothing humane. So, yeah. Okay. That's what Okay. Thank you very much. Right. Any other questions for applicant? And All right. I have a question for the attorney. Um, sure. If if there's no way that they can grant that exception for um exceeding the the the cut. Oh, I don't know if they can grant it or not. I just don't see it as part of the request that's in the packet tonight because because it was pulled out. So that mean that the whole thing gets continued if we if we want to pursue this. Nobody has any information on what you're asking for,

right? It it's it's a crawl space underneath the structure that this exceeds uh the normal crawl space and exceeds the limit the cut limits. So, um I would if if this is going to stall the whole project, I don't think I'm not sure if um we're willing to to go that route. Commissioner Sorty, just for the sake of clarity, so this would be a crawl space underneath the ADU. No, it would be crawl space underneath the cantina. The cantina. Okay. It is not on any of the plans you have right now. So, okay, just to be clear, um

I do have a cross-section, but there's no overhead projector anymore. So, yeah. And and it's additional information that I understand. Yeah. No. Well, do you want to Oh, you're part of the applicant. Yes. I'm so sorry. Why don't you come up in case we have a question for you and come on? Wait, wait. Come up to the mic. Please come on up to the microphone. This is good. Nice meeting you all. Uh, it's actually a symmetric crawl space as the ADU and it's been in the plan since the beginning. So, it's just a symmetric one. Identical. That's it. For storage.

It's actually still in our our current building application, but we haven't revised our building permits. Waiting on our decision tonight. Your decision tonight. I'm sorry. Can I through the I'm just sorry I'm very I'm confused. Can staff just kind of clarify what we're um

Okay, thank you. The applicant proposed the basement under the outdoor kitchen similar to the one that they have proposed for the ADU and because it was going to increase the amount of grading as well as the exceptions for the depth of cut they decided to remove that uh towards the toward the end of it. So we didn't include that in the analysis and also we didn't include it in the staff report. It's only today that he stated that he wants to ask the planning commission if they could grant that. So if I guess my question then for you is that if we don't have that information and therefore can't make a decision tonight, would you ra would you prefer to continue the item to come back with that those that analysis or would it be the preference that we don't consider that because we can't and move move with what we have in front of us? That that's a very great question, fair question. I appreciate that. Um,

if if the continuation process would be quicker than uh having you make your decision tonight on what's in front of you and then coming back for an something else. Um, we we might consider that. Um, I know he's really he's he's he's losing his patience, but it is how important it is it for you. uh or we can take your your decision tonight and then we can decide and reapply um to go through the full staff report and everything like that for this particular exception request. So we I suppose we

we seem to be a little unorthodox right now anyway. So can I ask staff could we do the if we make that decision we are able to make it for a date certain correct that's correct okay so if we are able to make it for a date certain okay does that do you want to come back with that

yeah why don't why don't you take a second to explain this to him please and then we'll have a a couple minutes. Well, let's

No. I I'm I'm very sorry for all this. I think that what we'll do is we'll just drop our request for the for the extra grading. Sorry. For that tonight and we'll we'll reapply at at a immediately to try to get on the the next available planning commission. So, sorry about all that.

All right. So, so just for some clarification, just so you understand, um, if you go that route, then it would be a submitting a whole new application for a modification to the approved application, go back through tech review, go back through everything, and then go do a public hearing. If you choose to continue it so that we can get that analysis squared away and resupplied, um, I don't see a reason why we can't come back uh, on February 25th. We'll take that. Thank Thank you, Mr. Pollson. So, sorry. Oh, sorry. I'm not sure exactly. If you have a question for staff, okay, go right ahead. And then Commissioner Mayor has a question

uh for the architect. Okay. Um I'm looking at the section on uh sheet a A-6 section F. And it looks like you do have a section there through the uh cantina as you're calling it. I mean I'm I'm imagining if you come back with something that we would just see the section like the section cut through the the space so I think everyone could understand. We will have full everything documentation. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Thanks. Commissioner Thomas had a question and then vice chair had questions. Um my question or I guess that if vice chair wants to ask it it's the same. Well hold on. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, ask that because then Yes. And then we're going to close. Okay.

My question is that if this item continues tonight, um, can we contact you to come out and visit again? We have per Okay. We were given your contact, your phone number, and so I just wanted to confirm that it was to let to let us in the gate. You know what I mean? Because now we're going to now there's a long time and I don't want you to be like, who's ringing my bell? You know, like what's going on? So, it would be a pleasure. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, there are no more questions for the applicant. Is there Okay, then I'm going to close the public portion of this and I'm going to ask if anyone has questions of staff and I believe Vice Chair Barnett did.

No, it's moot. Okay. Okay. Is there any questions of staff then or discussion? Commissioner,

sorry. I Okay, I would just like to say that I know that we are likely now to move to continue this item to a date certain it seems, but um I think that it would be helpful for the applicant and staff if we did make sure that we if there are any questions or anything that else that is like missing or not included in our staff report or the packet or the items received that we would, you know, like to know before our next meeting um just for the sake of making sure that we are provided with all of the information before we I know we all want to get out of here too, but I think that would be helpful.

Is there any specific information that you aside from that that you're referring to? No. Okay. All right. Is there any other discussion or does someone want to make the commissioner stop?

This is actually a question of staff. I was, you know, looking through uh the arborist report and there was one concerning statement in here on page two said the site contains um excuse me, the site is already under construction and trees within the context of the improvements have been affected. and it identifies a couple of trees, specifically um tree 179 and tree 190 that are incorporated right around this patio area that I guess got expanded without permit. And so it would appear we did not have tree protection measures in place, nor did the applicant um because they state with tree 179 the concrete pool deck is 18 in away with damage to buttress roots. This is a coast live oak. The second coast live oak pool deck is 36 in on three sides. Fill and root destruction, large lower trunk wounds. So it would sound like the potential is these trees may not survive even though they're cited on the property. I and I guess one of my questions would be um obviously since this you know the town did not have a chance to weigh in on tree protection and we now have uh protected trees that have been damaged. What are the remedies? And this may be an administrative item, not you know part of our planning commission um uh decision tonight. Um, but I'm just wondering on that score, what would we want to get in the way of um um asurances from the homeowner that what what what are they going to do with these trees should they die?

Uh, thank you for the question. Um I did speak with the town consulting arborist and his uh recommendation was that uh we look at it as it's been removed even if they're not planning to remove it and either inlue fee or a replacement. And another suggestion that he made was to take in the IL in fee and uh place a condition stating that it'll be revisited in about three years and if they are still viable then you could refund the INLU fee.

No, thank you for that. And and after having visited uh with the applicant um and seeing the work that's done on that property, there's no doubt in my mind the trees will be planted right that that they will do what's needed up there. But I just think what you're stating is a very prudent action. So, thank you for that.

All right. Does anyone want to make a a motion to move to a date? Certain Mr. Thomas? Um, I make a motion to move item two on our agenda, which is consider a request for approval for site improvements requiring a grading permit conditional use permit for a vineyard greater than 3,000 square ft on property zoned HR 2.5 APN 537-30-018 architecture and site application S-25-036 and CUP P application U-25-00006 to February 25th to a date certain of February 25th. Have a second. I'll second it. How about that? Um, okay. Is there any discussion? Call the question. All in favor? Passes unanimously. All right. All right, Mr. Pollson,

do you have a report? I don't have anything this evening, chair. All right. Um, in addition to their service on the planning commission, members of the commission serve on other town committees, including the conceptual development advisory commission and the historic preservation committee. Do we have any committee reports? Commissioner Bernett.

Yes, thank you. So, we had a historic preservation committee meeting tonight. We had two items. One item was to take a home out of the inventory, which we denied. And then we also had um a home approve approve uh for a second story addition. It's very nice. And that was it. Right. Thank you. Um, are there any other commission matters? Uh, vice chair. Well, we've been notified that there'll be a Sedak meeting in February, but details are will be forthcoming. Okay, perfect. Um, all right. Is there anything any other commission matters? If not, the meeting's adjourned.