Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. The town of Lascata's planning commission meeting for um this evening is now called to order. And um take a moment please to silent your devices if you haven't done so. And I'll begin with the roll call uh beginning with Commissioner Stump here. Commissioner Shorty here. Commissioner Thomas here. Commissioner Bernett here. Commissioner Mayor here.

And I am here as well. Um so we'll begin with the pledge of allegiance. Thanks to our commissioner Thomas. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So, a few special remarks before we get started. Um, first, apologies for my voice, my sniffing, and my coughing. This is an epic allergy season. Yes. And then uh a couple other points. Um at tonight's meeting, any person uh who wish to speak must be recognized by the chair. Uh all participants uh must speak from the mic at the podium or else on Zoom. Uh comments are to be directed to the planning commission as a body and not to the audience. And uh no person other than commissioner, staff and persons having the floor are permitted to enter into the discussion. And uh to asssure there's sufficient time for all people to speak, there's no yielding of time to another speaker. So as the planning commission conducts the meeting uh this evening, we encourage active participation by the public, which is essential to our democracy and to the important work of the planning commission. Public input is very much welcomed and is always carefully considered. Uh the public's participation can occur in several ways. First, written comments about agenda items may be submitted to the staff prior to the meeting and we have a number of those. And during the meeting, there are two opportunities to speak. First on verbal communications on matters that are not on the agenda for tonight's meeting and uh during the hearing on agenda items 2, three, and

four. Any member of the public may speak about that item. The public hearing on public five uh item five parley road has been closed but it may be uh reopened if approved by the commission and you'll be advised of your time to speak on these items. You wish to address the commission tonight during verbal communications please um raise your hand in the zoom app or for those u here in person provide a card. I only have one at this point and uh when you are asked to speak again please come to the microphone and speak directly into it because the meeting is being recorded and also when you're called to speak uh please state your name and address if you wish otherwise you can speak anonymously and um it's uh necessary that your com comments be limited to three minutes. So, we'll begin with the verbal communications portion of our meeting during which members of the public uh may speak on any item that is not on the agenda. And I have a card from Seuss. Okay. I'd like to speak on 10day rule. Um again on on big big ticket issues like agenda number five. Uh it's it's I I sent in the paper article or I hope you it's in the the thing but there's no mention of it. It's um I think the town in general on this is this is getting out of hand and uh it's it could easily

go legally um and and by not informing the town, you're putting the town um in legal jeopardy and we the town would have to pay and you're not elected officials. you know, I'd rather see you guys push it up to um the the council. Another thing is the World Cup, you know, I've been talking about the World Cup. Uh it's less than it's 30 days or less than a month away. And um there's going to be a lot of publicity because we won the the Brazil won it. And when Brazil's playing, they're going to show flashbacks to Lasatas. And I want to tell, you know, you guys there, if there's a billion people watching, they'll look look at some of the stuff and they'll they'll bring that up and we're on, you know, we'll be under the mic. I mean, the the headlines, you know, hey, where's this little town? And and I think there'll be a lot more people coming in because especially when we the Brazilians play whenever you they have watch parties and they'll they'll they'll go to Lascatus and if a Brazilian fan base is there or you know certain fan bases they'll they'll do that. So heads up on that. you know, I think we should have been planning and doing stuff and I don't see any real work or or commitment from the town into any of this uh stuff. So, those are my two things and I do have a push me pull you for the the two members because it's that they're here on agenda five. I like to hand that out to them. Thank you.

Questions? Thank you for your comments. And we also have a comment uh card from Lee Canana. Did you come up? Thank you. My com, excuse me, comment is actually on item five, but since I was not able to get an answer as to whether the commission was going to receive additional public testimony or not, I would like to make a comment not specific to any chair person.

I'm sorry. This this portion of the agenda is for comments on items that are not on the agenda. As I pointed out, but you you there's really no but if you want to speak on the Farley matter. So you're going to determine whether the public can speak on the Farley matter. The planning commission will. Yes. Even though there's a lot of new information on it.

That's correct. So we'll now move on to the consent calendar. We have one item being the approval of the minutes of our meeting of April 22nd. And before the planning commission acts on the consent calendar, any member of the commission may request that that item be removed. Are there any such requests? I see none. So, uh, do we have a motion to approve the consent calendar? So moved.

Thank you. Second, Senator Bernett. Thank you. Discussion. If not, raise your hand if you agree. consent and it's unanimous. Thank you. So, we'll move on to agenda item number two to consider an appeal of a community development director decision to deny a request to remove a pre-1941 property from the historic resources inventory for property zoned uh R1D located at 241 Loscats Boulevard, APN 5292425. Request for review PHT260009 exempt pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15061B3 and the property owner and appellent is Ms. Nema Ruie and um you're invited to come up and speak at this time.

Thank you through the chair. Would you like a presentation from staff? I apologize. Let's hear from staff first. Thank you.

My omission Great. Good evening, planning commissioners. Aaron Walters, senior planner. Before you this evening is an appeal from the community development director's decision to deny a request to remove a property at 4 241 Loscatus Boulevard from the Historic Resource Inventory. Per the Santa Clara County Assessor's Records, this resident was constructed in 1911. And per the 1990 and Bloomfield survey, the residence was constructed in the 1920s. While the property is not located within a historic district or a landmark and historic uh preservation overlay, it is included in the Bloomfield survey with a preliminary rating of indicating that the house residence is historic although altered. Historic records, including the Sandborn maps, show that the resident exists residence existed um in 1928 and was generally maintained to its original footprint uh through 1956 with an additional rear edition. In on May uh 25th, the historic preservation committee reviewed the request to remove um the item from the historic resources inventory and the committee uh recommended denial of this request finding that they could not make finding number three which is related to the residents lacking distinctive characteristics of type and period. And then on March 25th 26th, the community development director denied the request uh for the removal and the decision was appealed by the appellant on April 2nd. The appellant has provided additional materials to the planning commission for consideration including justification for the five required findings for removal. In addition, on Monday, the uh commission received an addendum on this item. This concludes staff's um presentation. Thank you. Okay, Miss Walters, are there questions for staff at this time?

I see none. Okay, so we'll go back and uh ask the applicant to approach the podium, please. State your name and address if you would.

Oh, sure. Hi everyone. My name is better now. Okay. Good evening everyone. My name is Neimarui and I'm the owner and the applicant in this case and thanks for your time and opportunity to present my appeal case um at this meeting. So uh if you could go to next slide please. So in order for a house to be considered historic five criteria must be evaluated. So we had a meeting with HBC HBC as Erin mentioned um on March 25th and we reviewed all five and HBC agreed on number one, two, four and five that the house does meet the required findings to remove from inventory. Uh criteria number three was the one that was questioned by HBC and uh through new findings here I'm I'm I'm presenting uh the reasons that it should be um not included in the historic. So could go to next one please. Uh so criteria number three is asked whether um the house um has distinctive u character characteristics of type method or um u work of a or representation of a work of a master and uh through the methodology here I'm I'm I'm going to review all of them and um show the justification not to meet criterion number three. So if you could go to the next one please. So the first methodology is physical and visual inspection. Uh I took pictures all around the property. This is the front side and rear side of property. You can see the uh main entrance door was changed. This is contemporary door. Uh m machine manufactured and the dual pane upper um uh glass is also contemporary. Um the roof rafter tails are covered by the contemporary gutter. Uh there is a porch in the front side that was enclosed

after 1956 and the uh window is um also um changed after 1990. Uh um and there is an addition to the house also to the rear side and with uh new vinyl windows uh and also the um roof is completely changed with the contemporary composite uh shingle material. Go to next one please. And next one. So um one of the most important findings uh during my investigation was that this house um has gone through a lot of modification on the front facade. The major one is uh 100% of the sidings of the uh front elevation was removed and replaced after 1990. Uh and that's by time code is a technical demo. Another one is all around the house more than 50% of the sighting is is also removed and replaced after 1990 Bloomfield survey and that's another technical demo. So the house went through two technical demos in addition to the changes that I um um mentioned to the door and and the windows. If go could we go back one slide? Go back one slide please. So the windows all around the house more than 65% of them are either vinyl or metal which is atypical and compatible material and is incon consistent. Even the ones that are wood uh most of them or almost all of them I would say was put after 1990 after the bloom bloom survey. If you go go two slides further. Yeah. So this is one of the most important slides of this uh presentation. On the left side you can see the oldest image that I could find in documents which is the image included in the Bloomfield survey. On the right side is the current house. Um so you can see from top to bottom uh the roof material was changed to uh contemporary composite shingle. The main door was changed as we spoke. Uh the the the main um bedroom window was changed also. The size and shape and materials all changed. uh but one of the most important thing I want to emphasize here is the porch elements. So column is one

of the u historic character characters of a a porch and you can see the column shape, architecture, base uh and size all all changed in in in the porch and also the porch um height was also changed. So it it it comes and covers the base of the um the column. All the architecture and material of the Porsche is also changed after all of them were after 1990 for survey. Could go to next please. So here is a table um that um um shows the uh whether this house could distinctively represent a type method or um period of construction of a or work of a craft craftsman. So, I got the um the list of 10 most important items of a historic bungalow based on a published literature, a field guide to American um houses by uh Virginia Macallister. And uh you can see out of 10 items, only two could partially meet. And one is the roof, which we know the material was changed after 1990. And and the porch, which was architecturally and materially uh changed. So I'm just um being generous um um towards the historic side. Uh still only two out of 10 are met. Um so if you could next please. So based on um all of these um facts, the 241 Loscows Boulevard is not a councalo. In fact, as the vice chair of HBC mentioned in Can I

Your time is up, but we do see the slide. Okay. And why don't we take a minute to read it? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Morning. Thank you. So um so we now invite um comments from the have any questions from I'm sorry

the commissioners have questions for the speaker. Okay. See, thank you again. Okay. Thanks. I actually did I did have one question for staff that I missed on. Should I wait? You'll wait for staff until afterwards. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, now we'll invite uh comments from members of the public. If you've already turned in a card, uh we appreciate that. Um and um we don't have any cards on this item. Uh does I think there was one turned in vice chair

four five this miss canana we can see if we can find it later.

Oh I'm sorry it got misplaced because of the other speaker. My fault. Okay. Thank you Miss Kantana. I'm a member of the Historic Preservation Committee, but I'm not speaking for the Historic Preservation Committee. I'm speaking for myself. I have a couple questions that I would appreciate if um the commissioner could answer after I've finished talking. One, I have a comment on the fact that in the past it's always been a requirement that if there is an appeal that the appellant uh provides the uh trans a verbatim transcript of that section of the meeting that they are on. Um, excuse me. And I think there's a good reason for that. I think in the motion that you have on your staff report, uh, excuse me, I'm going to skip that just for the time being. Um, I want to go back to what what a significant pre-1941 structure is. The town identifies three different significant um historic buildings. One landmarks which are specific to themselves site only. They're not don't need to be in a historic district. The other is historic districts where there may be no landmark buildings at all but it's the entire

district that forms the the feeling for which is being propo proposed as a landmark. And the third is a pre-1941 structure that is outside the historic district. There's a lot of confusion about that. The committee itself has discussed it and we have asked for clarifications to the code and to the guidelines and various other things. Um we talk about the Sandborn survey. Well, part of the Sandborn survey was identifying uh potential new historic districts. And if a building was determined that it would be a contributor to an a historic district, if there was one, it was in the survey. That statement was in the survey. That statement is also in our code under demolition. I'm running out of time. I have so many more things to say. But it said it it seemed to uh anticipate that because one of the things that you cannot do is demolish a pre-1941 that is a potential contributor to a historic district.

Thank you, Miss Contana. Are there questions for the speaker? Commissioner Bernett?

Yes. Thank you for coming tonight. Miss Kana, did you have any specific um comments on 241, the home before us on Lascatus Boulevard? Yes, I do. I think that um for one thing, the the motion that is in your minutes does not contain information that was in the uh audio, which was that uh this would be ex exempt from a technical demo if they were to replace the siding, the windows, etc. at a at a later time. Uh that would not count towards a technical demo. Also, um the addition is in the back is something that probably would have been locationwise approved by the historic preservation committee. It's where we would like to see them. So, there's a and there are lots of porch enclosures, one of which we even approved quite recently. This maintains the structure of the porch, so it could be easily um converted back to a porch if somebody wanted to in the future.

Thank you. Any other questions for Miss Contana? I think any Thank you very much for your comments. And do we have anyone on Zoom? We do. So, Miss Yamamoto, you can unmute yourself.

Hi. Yes. Um, thank you. Um, it's it would be one thing. Um, bungalow style. This Yamamoto, you're really cutting out significantly. Hopefully you can hear me. Um, just want to make sure that we stick with especially on Lascatus Boulevard, the elements of our town need to be preserved. And if they were going to just make it more pre 1941 style, that would be one thing, but they're going to demolish it and put up a totally modern looking building home. And that's wrong. If they wanted a newer building, they should have bought one that wasn't in a historical area. I'm sorry. It's just I'm getting tired of our town being destroyed by people coming in, buying up the homes, and making them not look like Lasatus. I I hope that you do not give these people permission to change the style of the home. If they wanted to go back to a pre941,

that would be one thing, but they're not. They're going to totally destroy it. Put up a twostory whatever home that looks nothing like anything else in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Miss M Yamamoto. Any questions from commissioners? See none. Thank you. Anyone else on Zoom? There is not. All right, then. Um, the applicant can come up and make a closing statement for up to three minutes if you wish.

All right. Thank you again. Uh, actually, I had a closing statement, but I think I have to answer uh the public comment because I respect them. So Miss Katana uh mentioned the porch enclosure. Uh yes, but my application is not based on the porch was enclosed. It's based on the porch doesn't have any architectural uh distinction of a pre even pre990 that was put in the bloom uh survey. So this porch is architecturally and materially completely different from even after 1990. Um so before 1990 sorry. Uh so uh one thing that I mentioned in my packet as well I think we're going towards not the right direction to look at this application. This is just to remove the uh this property from uh historic inventory based on the facts. So mentioning that oh it's exempt from sighting change or windows change that I'm not applying to change the sightings or windows. I'm not applying to demolish the h the house as the the zoom um person mentioned that uh and this is not a historic area. This is in non-historic area. So that was not a right fact that mentioning this is historic area has to be preserved. Uh so um uh there are houses across the street that were built in 2015 and after that that are if you look at them you think they're historic but they're not historic but they all kept the elements of a historic house even more than what I have and it it was in the package that I submitted. So giving the intention to my application that hey this guy is going to demolish or change or build a tube. I'm not doing that. I mean there's nothing in the application indicating that. So I don't I I appreciate if the committee doesn't go toward that direction because that's where HBC also went towards that and they already approved new sightings and new windows which was not in the application. Anyways uh so back to my point um uh is this house a bungalow? Yes. Is this house old? Of course. Uh are these two valid requirements or criteria by towns code to include a house in historic inventory? No. And

this is not in a historic area. It's not a preserved area. Um I want to once again remind uh us um of the most important and substantial modification made to this house that uh validate the loss of integrity and distinctive character to remove uh remove it from uh the the inventory. I mean the changes to the house are substantial technical demolition twice 100% of the sightings removed and replaced on the facade. More than 50% all around the house. Uh substantial number of original features have been removed compromised or even do not exist. This is a vernacular uh bungalow. It means non-distinctive bungalow. Uh after 1990, these are the the major changes. Sightings, uh entry door, windows, uh roof material, porch columns, shape and architecture, uh columns base which is a a character defining all gone. Uh column height is changed. Uh porch elevation is is changed. Um the roof rafter tails are all covered by contemporary gutter. And uh more than 25% of original square um food was added after 1990 uh or 1956. And this is not in historic district again. So uh it's a just modest and simplified version of a style that would not rise to the level of a local landmark or uh possessing any distinctive characteristic of a type period or method of construction. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'll ask commissioners if they have questions for you at this time. I have a question for you. You mentioned the columns at the porch. Yes. As a non-defining feature, but they do taper, don't they? Toward the base.

Well, that tapered column is put after 1990. So, um again, I would go the um house across the street, two of them. They have tapered columns. They have rafter tails coming out of um the roof. So, if you could go back to my presentation, I could show you. So, the house the columns in 1990 were all straight with the base and longer. And uh are we showing the presentation? So this new tapered one was put after 1990. So this is not a historic column. This was put after that. I see your point now. Yeah. Okay.

So the architecture and shape of it was changed completely. The base are gone. Porch size is changed. So everything is everything is after night. Everything all around the house. the windows, the porch, uh the columns, the features, all after 90. If you can see, nothing looks like pre-190. Um, so I had one other question. If I recall correctly, is there sort of a scalloped siding design on the side of the house? No, it's all shingles. Wood shingles and um all of them were put after 1990. I don't on the sides of the homes on the on the two the left and the right sides of the house. There's no scalloping. I thought I saw that. I don't know what scallop it means. I'm not an expert.

Like a curved uh design on some of the siding. The sidings are all wood shingle. I don't see any curved mis misremembering that. So, okay. Other questions? I don't think go. Okay. Thank you. You do have a question. Um I'm sorry you were kind of rushing at the end there to get everything. So, can you just read the a list that you were that you read of all of the changes because that was not like that version of the list that you read out was not really

sure. I'll go over that again. So, 100% of the front facade sightings are removed and replaced after 90. Everything that I'm mentioning here is after 1990 and we don't know even the image that was included in the Bloomfield survey is the original house or not, but we're this is that is the oldest one we have. So, I'm basing everything off of that image. Uh, so 100% of sightings, uh, front facade, more than 50% of all around the house, uh, entrance door. Uh, the windows, more than 65% are vinyl or metal. Even the wood one on the front side was changed and after 1990, uh, the roof material is contemporary asphalt shingle.

Uh, porch, we talked about porch column, porch height, um, porch base um, and the shape of the um, the columns. Um and uh the roof rafter tails are covered uh by contemporary gutter. The height of the porch was changed because now it's covering the base of the the columns. Um and uh more than 25% of the square footage added. Um and yeah, these are the main items. Okay. I think it was just the door that I had missed. Um okay. And then for the when you were talking about the tails, there's still You were saying it's covered by the addition of the gutter. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So I uh can I comment on that?

Yeah. Okay. Um so based on the previous um house that was discussed here uh 16805 LMA Street back in August 13th of 2025. uh the items that uh that were changed or covered for that house that was in eventually removed from the historic uh was not even half of the items that I'm mentioning here uh including the rafter tales there that was covered. Thank you. We um thank you. We are we have to see each item individually but

no I understand I was just answering your yeah about yeah appreciate it. Um, okay. Um, that was that's my I have a question for staff, but yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, so we'll uh now close the public portion of the public hearing on item two and ask if commissioners have questions of staff, wish to make comments or propose a motion. Yes.

Um, I have two questions of staff. The first question is about um decision making. Um when we're making our decision tonight about how to vote on this item, should um should we be considering what might be done with the property in the future? No.

Okay. And then um my second question is related to roof materials. Um obviously having a wood shingled getting a wood shingled roof is not um considered is not possible these days to replace that. Um so what um in the town of Lascatus and like along with HPC what is kind of the the guidance been with regards to how we are updating those roofs? composition roof is pretty standard for replacement. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Commissioner Shorty?

Yeah, I said a question about the findings. I from reading the staff report, it appears because it's kind of baked into the motion that the decision was based on finding number three. And I guess I'm wondering, did the HPC go on record on any of the other four findings? And do we have anything in the record about how they saw the site as far as consistency with those four?

Thank you for the question. So the emphasis on when the fi when the motions made at the HPC for denial is to in ensure that the finding or findings that they were unable to make for removal in this case are are included in the motion. Um, so with that, the other findings I believe were made during that meeting and that was finding three that was the the hangup and the support for the denial recommendation.

Can I follow up just Yeah. So, okay. So, there's five findings that need to be able to be made um that need to be considered as removal and it appears as though they were able to make four but not one. Yeah, I think it's we're confusing it because they're actually um negative findings, but um yeah, it was the one finding that they were unable to make. Okay, thanks, Commissioner Mayor.

Yeah, I have a question for staff. Um can you just um explain the definition the town's definition of a technical de uh demolition if that uh applies to the the framing which is my understanding or if just removing and replacing the sighting counts as a technical demolition.

Thank you for the question. So for pre-1941 homes and historic homes they are um it's a different definition than the um framing. So we are looking at sightings. So it would be the removal of more than 25% on the front elevation or street front street facing elevations and a total removal of 50% total. So anything more than 50% and then that 25% on the front would qualify as a technical demolition and it would um if if someone applied for a new uh home, it would have to go through the demolition and a brand new home application. further questions. So just to enlarge on that, um what would you say is the legal significance of a technical demo in the context of this application or appeal?

Staff does not have any record of the replacement of that sighting. So there's no record. Um, and so what we see in the field is that the original sighting has been removed on the front elevation completely and that would be considered a technical demolition.

Yeah, understood. But I guess it's a question for the town attorney. If it's a technical definition, does that have demolition? Excuse me. Does that have an impact on the decision of the commission regarding the appeal? Um so I read the staff report to say that there are five findings. Um and so if that if the decision-making body finds that are that there are remaining distinctive characteristics of type period or method of construction um that that is a um that would be a basis for denying an appeal for removal. So the technical demo is basically irrelevant or findings demo in these findings, but I'll defer to the planning manager.

I can add that no the technical demolition isn't baked into the findings. It's been used as justification by applicants in the past for removal of the inventory and has been approved by the HPC and at using that justification removals have occurred at the HPC and granting of appeals by the planning commission um on denials for removal from the H by the HPC. So there's some weight to it but there's no technical hate to use that term but there's no technical um tie to it in the in the code in the code. Thank you. Hey, Commissioner Bernett.

Yes. I I would just like to make the comment that um I would vote in favor of denial of this appeal based on the fact that it still has arch. It's an architectural type. It still demonstrates a certain architectural type of time and place, a California cottage. it has pure period character and noted in the Bloomfield study she did address and knew about the alterations and she still considered it to be uh historic or what a contributor. Um the features that were uh talked about by the applicant they can easily be removed or upgraded or changed. They have no impact on the basic structure or the architectural type that we're talking about here. And this is an important area. It's Lascatus Boulevard coming into our town. So I think uh different look at it even though we do go by um you know our findings. But

chairperson um just a reminder that now that we have uh Rosenberg's rules of order, there needs to be a motion on the table before a discussion begins. Oh, well, I did invite comments, but yeah, if you want to make that in the form of a motion, we can discuss it further. Thank you. I wouldn't make that part of the motion that I would m make a motion to deny the appeal based on what I brought up.

Is there a second? I'm not seeing Oh, okay. Commissioner Stump seconds. So, any discussion? I complete my discussion. So I think I I hit the high points. Uh again I I think this is if you look at it and aside from that my house was built in 1925 and the windows were the porch was included exactly like the one there with windows. Um and that was done later and it was done well before 1990. So, I mean, there's precedence in the neighborhoods of that that exact enclosed porch and so that's an additional um comment.

Thank you. Other comments on the motion? Commissioner Thomas?

Um I would just like to um I have a few comments. My first comment is that uh I just want to respond to Commissioner Sord's question about the other findings at the HPC meeting and there was pretty it was unanimous that um the structure was not associated with events or significant persons or anything like that. It was really um the the third the distinctive characteristics of type period or method of construction or representation of work of a master. And um I know that this finding is one that we um have to mle over and discuss and um interpret in different ways. Um some people some of us that serve on the HPC um see this like very that if there's any any characteristics of type period method or method of construction I guess the like distinctive is like the word that we don't necessarily always agree on. Um and so I think that that um is something that you know we have lots of discussions about and that's what ends up sometimes in front of us with our discussions too. So um I also just want to say that a lot of times when we are hearing these items either at HPC or here at um planning commission it is sometimes difficult because you can see how the changes that have been made and how they could be undone to or repaired

to go back to uh a more to to honor the history or the historical architecture of the building. And I I don't personally interpret the findings to to be that if it can be undone or switched necessarily that that means that we shouldn't should or should not take it off of the inventory when we're making recommendations from the HPC perspective during a remodel um or something like that. we often make those, you know, recommendations to add back gables or change back to this window style, etc. But, um, I, you know, from my understanding and of this, I don't think that that is necessarily a way an effective way to interpret the findings for removal from the inventory. So, um it definitely um at a glance, you know, can seem like it had something related to being what a craftsman was at the time. But, um I do think that there have been some major like alterations. And um if we're looking at you know other than the changed roof material um I think that there are some major alterations that have been that have been made. It's unfortunate about the technical demo um portion. I think that even if it was a technical demo but replaced with something with the original, you know, something that was in kind with the original sighting, that would um be a diff, you know, a different interpretation of number three. So, I am

curious what the architect on on the planning commission has to say. So, uh maybe if commissioner mayor could could share his thoughts. I think we are all if you're willing to speak. Thank you.

Sure. Yeah. Um well, clearly uh as the applicant has noted, um there have been uh some modifications to the house over the life of uh the home. Um but I have to say, um I used to serve on HPC and um there were often times where pre-1941 homes would come in front of us that had clearly been altered beyond all recognition. Um, and to be honest with you, I don't I don't think that's the case here. When I look at the old photo, pre-1990 with the current photo, it still retains the proportions and the character of the 1920s Craftsman bungalow. That's just how I see it. I know there have been, you know, the siding has been replaced, the part of the porch has been enclosed, there is a rear edition, etc. But in my professional opinion, this isn't does not count as something that's been um altered beyond all recognition. So in this case, I would probably support the HPC's decision. And also on that point, the HPC voted unanimously to keep it on the historic registry, which um typically when appeals come before the planning commission for this, there's there's usually sort of a split vote or something, but because the HPC voted unanimously, it's a pretty strong uh signal, I think.

Thank you. Other comments,

Mr. Thomas? Yeah. Um, just again not to bring up the fact that this third finding is just always surfacing and plaguing us a little bit, but um, I think that the the interpretation there are no distinctive characteristics of type period or method of construction or representation of work of a master is a weird and confusing sentence that can be interpreted in many ways. And so if um maybe Mr. Mullen or Miss Walters could kind of review how typically that is interpreted by HPC. Thank you for that question. I won't pretend to be able to summarize what how the HBC interprets that. Um I think just breaking down some of the um adjectives in that sentence is helpful for me when I look at it. Distinctive. Um the definition is essentially it's that it's unique. It's um it's exemplary. Um and so when you're looking at distinctive characteristics, I think a line in the sand for me is whether they are a unique or high architecture level of detail representing representing that particular architectural style. Um, I think it's easy to look at many of the old homes in town and point to characteristics of a particular architectural style. Um, the wording here, which is derivative of the Secretary of Interior standards, uses the word distinctive. And I think that's um something that helps me in in in when I'm looking at these things. So, I think that like I said, distinctive is the is the word that we always struggle with because this is a, you know, modest home. And so I think that these ones are often the most

challenging for us to agree on what distinctive means because they are it's it's not as obvious with all of the characteristics of the home because it is smaller and more like just little craman bungalow. So there wasn't a bunch of distinctive stuff to start with. Um, so that I think is just where I struggle a little bit personally on the interpretation of it. Mhm.

Yeah. I I think maybe the word distinctive is misleading because uh maybe perhaps one can associate distinctive with grandiosity or or something like that. But to me distinctive in terms of architecture doesn't mean it needs to be grand. It could be humble. It could be modest. but it's still distinctive of a certain style and a certain period which I feel like this house is. Thank you for that. Commissioner Stump. Yeah. Simply put, I just want to say that I agree with Mr. Mayor's um viewpoint and explanation. Thank you.

Well, I'll weigh in. I think it's a a difficult case. Um the property is modest. Uh but it does have craftsman characteristics including the sloped roof, the porch, the tapered columns. The windows give the impression of divided lights. Uh and it kind of falls into the category of a bungalow style craftsman home. Um and the fact that there's maintenance needed does not justify removal, although the applicant did not app mention that. Um, so although I'm torn, I think I'm persuaded by other members of the commission who support the motion. So I can call the question if there's no other comment. We'll start by rais

I think the motion is clear. Yeah. All in favor? Okay. Passes unanimously. Other appeal rights. Yes. Thank you. The decision of the planning commission can be appealed to the town council by any interested person as defined by town code section 29.10.020 within 10 days on forms available online with fees paid. The appeal is due by 100 p.m. on the final day if it is a Friday.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. All right, we'll move to item three to consider a request for approval for a conditional use permit for a bank on property zone C1 located at 15521 Union Avenue APM 53241035 conditional use permit application U260005 categorically exempt pursuant to secret guidelines section 15301 existing facilities property owner Cindy Johnson of Donna Shriber Realy Group LP and the applicant is Lawrence Solless and the um project planner is Ms. Walters. Is there a report?

Yes, I'll make I'll make it brief. Um the subject property is located in the Downing Shopping Center on the southwest corner of Union and Lascatus Almaden Road. It's within an existing the subject site. It's within an existing vacant um commercial building. it. The size is about 4,200 square feet and the vacant tenant space was previously occupied by the Chase Bank under a um conditional use permit that was approved in 2010. Um this use ceased in June of uh 2019 and the prior approval has since lapsed. So as a result you are seeing a new conditional use permit is required to establish a bank at this site. Uh the project includes operation of the bank, installation of an ATM, facing the interior parking lot, and minor exterior uh facade modifications. The project does comply with all of our zoning standards, and staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with conditions attached in exhibit 3. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh before questions of staff, I meant to ask for a show of hands of those who have visited the property and are there any disclosures? None. Okay. Any questions for Miss Walters then if any? Not seeing any. Is the applicant uh here to make a presentation? Vice Chair, the applicant is online. So I'm going to allow uh Mr. Solless to speak maybe. Hello. We can hear you.

Hi. Can you guys hear me? Okay, perfect. Sorry about that. I was waiting for the prompt to show up. Hi. Um, thank you for meeting with us. I'm the representative for Beimo. My name is Lauren Solless. Um, as previously mentioned that Beimo is a formula retail blank. Our goal is to have the community approve our move in um at the Downing Center. The project primarily consists of a a tenant improvement. We're hoping to do exterior modifications as well for accessibility um usability and then to make sure that we're in compliance with the current codes and standards. Um if some of you don't know what BIMO is, BIMO is a bank that provides an in-person banking service especially catered to seniors and customers who need assistance in more complex transactions uh transactions. Sorry. And then the the banks, we usually often serve the community by supporting local nonprofits. We do a lot of volunteer work and then a lot of financial education programs. Um, our hours are from Monday through Thursday from 9:00 to 5:00 and then Friday from 9 to 6 and then we do we are open on Saturdays from 9:00 to 4:00 p.m. And I I believe we're going to have eight employees on this site, but um that might change um depending on how well we do.

Okay. Is that the end of the comments? Mr. Zolas, is that the end of your comments? Uh, yes. I didn't. Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there questions for the applicant by commissioners? Commissioner Thomas, can you just repeat the operation hours again? Yeah. Yeah, sure. It's going to be uh Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. Friday from 9 to 6 pm and then Saturday from 9 to 4 pm.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions for the applicant? Okay. Uh if not, uh we'll move on to uh open the public portion of the public hearing. And I don't have any speaker cards on this item. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? There are no hands raised on Zoom. Thank you. Uh there being none, um I'll invite uh the applicant to make a further presentation of up to three minutes if he wishes, but you can wave that Mr. Solus.

Yeah, I I don't have anything to end for that. Um just thank you again for the time and opportunity. Hopefully, you know, uh we get this approval and going. Okay. Thank you. So, I'll now close the public portion of the public hearing. ask if commissioners have any questions of staff wish to comment on the application or introduce a motion. Commissioner Thomas. Um I have a question about the ATM. Um obviously even though a person won't be there operating it if it's like available 24 hours for use. Does that apply to this? I mean does the CU apply to that? How does that work?

It's a great question. Um the actual building is not open during those times of operation, but I believe that the ATM is open 24 hours a day. Okay. Because it's Yeah, it's one going to be one of those that's like on the proposed not like inside a door, but on the outside and that's fine. That doesn't need to be included in this cup in any way or at the planning commission's discretion, we could add a condition that allows that. Okay. I I would just add that, you know, it's not necessary. That condition does not exist at any other Okay. bank conditional use permit. It's more understood. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Other comments or a motion?

Mr. Sordi. Yeah. Thank you. Um, yeah, I think this is a great location for the community bank branch and I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve the conditional use permit U26-005 subject to the findings under SQA and uh in compliance with the required zoning regulations and subject to the findings for the conditional use permit included in the staff report. Thank you. Is there a second, Commissioner Bernett? I'll second that. motion. Is there any discussion? If not, we'll have a show of hands of those in favor. And it passes unanimously. Thank you very much.

Through the chair. Would you like me to recite the appeal right? Appeal rights. Yes. It's on my list. The decision of the planning commission can be appealed to the town council by any interested person as defined by town code section 29.10.020 within 10 days on forms available online with fees paid. The appeal is due by 1 p.m. on the final day if it is a Friday. Thank you very much. Okay. So, let's proceed to item five to consider a request for approval.

Oh, I didn't have we skipped four. What happened? Sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. Okay. So, we come to item four to consider a request for approval to demolish a single to demolish an existing single family residence. Construct a new two-story single family residence and site improvements requiring a grading permit on properties owned R110 located at 116 Valistos Way. APN 40713018. Architectural and site application S25046 categorical exempt pursuant to SQA guidelines 15303 new construction or construction uh conversion of ex small structure excuse me property owner is Ael Tman applicant Michelle Miner and the project planner is Ryan Safety show of hands with those who have visited the site and are there any disclosures okay if not uh Mr. Safety, do we have a staff report?

Sure thing. And uh thank you and good evening, commissioners. Before you tonight is a request for approval for construction of a new two-story single family residence at 116 Valisitos Way. The existing singlestory home would be demolished um and the proposed site work would trigger a grading permit. The application has been forwarded to the planning commission due to concerns related to the project's consistency with the residential design guidelines in terms of neighborhood compatibility with massing and design. The property is located at the terminus of the Valisitos Wake Culdeac. Uh the subject property and surrounding neighborhood is zoned for and developed with single family residential. The project proposes a new 27 foot 5- inch two-story residence and attached garage. The residence would be in a modern Spanish revival style with an off-white smooth stucco finish, black clad windows and French doors, stone veneer accent siding at the front and rear porches and brown clay tile roofing with decorative corbals under the roof eaves. Um, a Juliet balcony is shown on the front elevation over the garage and a 70 ft balcony is proposed on the east side elevation. The applicant provided a privacy study for that side balcony showing potential impacts to the adjacent neighbor at 112 Valisitos Way and that's included in the project plans. The town's consulting architect reviewed the proposed residence and noted that the property is located on a short culde-sac in a neighborhood of modest one and twostory traditional style homes. The consultant noted that the proposed house is designed with a traditional architectural style with details authentic to the style and sees only a few elements of the proposal that would not be consistent with the design guidelines in which he offered five recommendations. The applicant incorporated some of the recommendations but did not modify the front entry and uh the only height and mass reduction done was a one- foot reduction to the second floor plate heights. Uh the applicant's responses and justifications were provided for

these items uh that were not fully addressed within exhibit 8 of the report. Although the proposed residence would comply with applicable town standards, the home would be the tallest and largest in terms of floor area in the M neighborhood, which is not consistent with our residential design guidelines. The proposed 3561 ft residence would be the largest by approximately 500 square ft in our um defined immediate neighborhood. And additionally, it would be about four feet taller than the other two-story homes in that culde-sac. It is worth noting that the plans also show a future ADU on the ground floor, which is not a part of this application per state law, and is also not included in the floor area ratio numbers when looking at the proposed home size consistent with town code. The applicant provided justification for the proposed home size, massing, height, and design within their letter of justification. in exhibit 5. Public comment was received in opposition to this project following publication of the staff report which was provided to you in yesterday's addendum and today's desk item reports. The concerns are generally related to massing and privacy. And this concludes staff's presentation and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Safy. Questions for staff? Mr. Rome. Yeah. Um Mr. Safi, so it looks like there is uh as you mentioned an attached ADU which we are not reviewing. Um so can you just clarify that the ADU portion doesn't count toward the F? It's fully exempt from the F. Correct. And that 3,500 number I just quoted does not include the ADU. Got it. And is the does the house not including the ADU conform with the F? It does limits. Okay. Other questions for staff? Commissioner uh Stump,

could you remind us of the neighborhood notification requirements for a project of this type? Yeah. The town sends out notice cards to the neighbors within 300 ft of the subject property. That's um so that would include people on Bicknell as well. Correct. Okay. Um one other question if I might. One resident requested the town require the applicant to install story poles. Um, could an explanation be made about our use of story poles at this point in time?

Um, I'm happy to take that. So, up until I want to say 3 years ago, this project would have required story poles and it's very um the the public in this town is used to seeing them. The story pole change that occurred stated that if you're adjacent to a two-story home, you're not required to install the story poles. Um, so in fact, the policy says they're exempt from the story pole requirement in this instance. Thank you. Question question.

Excuse me. I'll open the public portion of the public meeting and u uh ask that the applicant approach the podium and make a presentation up to five minutes please.

Some pictures if you guys could open.

Good evening commissioners and thank you for taking the time to review our project. My name is Michelle Miner and I am the designer on this project. Uh, as stated, we are proposing a modern Spanish revival home on this uh, twotory on this property with the integrated ADU. We carefully tailored this particular style um, in this in this neighborhood. One of the things that was brought up is um neighborhood compatibility and how did that fit? And while there are not other Spanish homes on this street, uh there are I don't know if there's a named style on the street. You said traditional or contemporary. I say ranch, but they're all very different from each other. Um, so there wasn't one particular style that we would match to to fit in or be comp necessarily compatible. We felt like with the stucco and stone that were on the street and hipped roof, gable roofs, the pitch of the most of the roofs were appeared to be around four to five. This one is 3 and a half and 12. Uh, which also helps to reduce the massing. So we we chose the Spanish style because it is less of a prominent you know and bulky style house. Um further the architectural style of this uh this home has many offsets to reduce the bulk and massing and the articulation of the roof styles um also reduces it the massing as well. We also were careful with our design considerations in the corbals underneath

that would help um soften the appearance of this house. Um next slide please. Hard to see. Um we did extensive studies. I don't know if you can tell, but I actually did a 3D of the entire street to fill to get the feel of how this was going to fit in. Um, what you're seeing on that slide is our house at the end of the street and you can see kind of between the two trees. That's where our house is um fitting and there the two-story homes showing up next to it. The house on this next to the right is a singlestory home. Uh, next slide. Uh, oh, this is just a sorry, this is just a pulled back view of that same picture. So, next slide. Okay, so this is an overview. Doesn't show up very very um very big on this screen, but this is kind of looking at the top. So you can kind of see the massing and and the size of the homes um in that neighborhood. If you could get if that was a little bit closer, you could kind of see that our house does not feel different in scale um from an overview of the um rest of the neighborhood. Um also the slide below is the red dots are the two-story homes in the greater neighborhood. Next slide, please. Um, so this is a home that's probably closest to like a Mediterranean style. This one has a nod to Mediterranean. Has a large stone entrance um that we kind of were able to, you know, fit the neighborhood compatibility with that one. Um, next slide. Okay, this one, this slide is here to kind of talk about this privacy issues.

As you will notice, any way to make it bigger? Um, as you actually this slide's easier, but as you notice our most of this entire perimeter, at least the the back side is filled with trees. And so, as we were designing this twotory and placing windows, privacy was of the utmost concern. So, putting the bedroom windows on the back where the tallest trees, the tall trees were was a great consideration. the front where kind of to the right of that uh red dot. That's where we put our family room where the best the most visual space would be. And that's the family room overlooking our own driveway that does not look into the backyard. And then the balcony on, as he stated, we did a whole visual study uh on page 21 to show that we've been careful with privacy plantings to make sure we take care of the privacy of the neighbors. And I think my time is up. So, thank you for your time. Any questions?

Thank you. If you Yeah, let's ask Commissioner Bernett. Yes, thank you. I know there are trees that are removed. So, could you would you be able to point out what tree on that?

Yeah, I actually tried to put a heavy X, but I should have made it a different color. There are two. The big one on Yeah. Could you point to them, Ryan? Thank you. So, that one and that one. The one on the back was suggested that it be removed by the consulting arborist. Um, our arborist that we brought out to look at it said that one of the there's three trunks. one is cut off and dead. One is really needs to be removed and the other one could stay. So, um we actually would be willing to just clean up that tree and leave it. However, you can see that there's huge trees behind it and more visit uh vegetation. I think in another the next slide if you want want to look at it it'll show all the a picture of like that whole back fence and the next one does it too is completely covered with trees like that was very specifically why we chose where we were putting things

you can I have a followup question sorry can I have a followup question absolutely please thank you so um grading ing on this does does the grading on this property make any difference on the height that it's going to be the 2T addition? So, I had noticed that it said that we needed a grading permit on this um agenda. Um our lot is almost dead flat. So, um I'm not sure that a grading permit I was going to talk to Ryan about that later, but I'm not sure that's going to be um needed, but there's no grading differences really.

Thank you. Other questions by st commissioners commissioner Thomas I know that this isn't really the time to ask staff but I feel like because there's the discrepancy could Mr. Safy you clarify the grading permit. Sure. Um, so it might not make sense, but our town code does say that replacing a driveway counts as both cut and fill. That's triggering the grading permit as the driveway replacement. Thanks.

Um, question about your neighborhood outreach. Um, on one of the documents in your package, it showed you reaching out to eight neighbors or your team reaching out. Five were supportive or no comment. Three, no contact was made. Where were these eight neighbors in relation to um the the project location? I'm going to let the owner answer that because he was the one who did it.

Hi, my name is Al Dukman. I'm one of the owners with my wife. Uh we knocked on eight doors in total. Four on Valicitos, two to the right, two to the left, and all the bordering neighbors. So two on Bnell and one I don't remember the name of the street. That's the total of eight. Thank you. Hold on. Yeah, I I do have a question. You know, obviously uh concerns have been raised about height and mass of this project. Question about the foundation. The foundation itself is 2 feet above grade if I've got that correct. Um

about 24 in above grade. I don't believe that is correct. Um, unless I have an error somewhere, it should be 15 in. Okay. Specifically, I'd keep them at 15 in. So, and part of the issue, of course, is that um two floors were both going to be 10 ft 10 ft ceilings and one has come down to 9 originally. Yes. Right. One has come down to 9 ft with leaving the current height still at 27.5 ft. Correct. So my question would be what else would you consider doing to reduce the height of this project?

Uh we had not considered doing anything more. We were already uh 2 and 1/2 ft under the maximum height and it was seemed to be acceptable to to the consulting um architect and staff that we were able to to do that and reducing to the nine feet. um as people like as people are building new homes, they're not building them with short ceilings and so we feel like this is what is expected of the home homes these days and what the clients would love to have. So we had not considered lowering it any further than that. We felt like with it at the end of the culde-sac we have the the narrowest frontage on the on the entire culde-sac street. Um, so the frontage of our house is very small and very not visible can uh when looking at all the rest of the houses on the street plus quite a few trees that help um shield that.

Yeah, I' I'd like to continue just on with the mass of the home. as we heard, it's going to be about 500 square feet larger than any of the homes in the immediate area. So again, my question would be as we're looking at our residential guidelines related to height and mass and neighborhood compatibility, what considerations could be made to reduce your square footage? Um we had not we had again not looked at trying to um reduce the size as we were fitting within the um the floor area ratio. We're a little bit under that. Um and so that with we were wanting to build the home that would fit you know the growing family and multigenerational family.

Thank you. Yeah. Other questions? Commissioner Bernett? Yes. Um, would you consider a setback on your second story? You could take about you could remove about 200 square feet if you did do a setback on the second story. Are you saying on the back of the second story?

The front of the house, I'm sorry. above the garage across the front setting back the second story. You could approximately 200 square feet could be reduced in mass and I think the the town architect did did um did comment on the the height. Yes, he did. He did comment and we did reduce it after his comments.

One foot. Yeah. Yeah. Um that would greatly 200 200 square feet would like make that upper family room which is their gathering room almost non-existent.

Well, if you did the whole the whole second story set back. Well, I can't do the part where the stairs are because that has to be floors have to line up at stairs. I couldn't do that. It would have to be at the, you know, family room. I mean, the the family room is the only that front area is the only one that makes any sense for reducing visual massing. As you go back towards the master bath or primary bathroom, um, that's way back in the lot. So, that doesn't help reduce the the visual massing at all. Um,

and I noticed you have the attic there, which is approximately what I how much square foot. I'm just trying to we're just trying to look at ways that the bulk and mass could be reduced. Still, I I think the home is a beautiful design and I think you did a great job on that, right? I'm just saying that uh with our residential design guidelines and the comments made by our town architect,

I think we could do we could do something in we have a Juliet balcony, which is something that we really would like to have there, but we could look at doing uh like a partial partial roof across there that kind of breaks up that v that mass there. um to you know I think that would would break up the the look of the the bulk of that house but that would be the the only thing you mean the patio off the back the balcony yeah the Juliet which I you mean the front balcony or the

it's a Juliet balcon it's not a it's just a railing it's just a Juliet balcony so unfortunately would have to remove that which I don't think the owners would be happy with he's probably

shooting daggers about right now. But that is the only thing I can think of that um you know pulling that family room back. It's 17 by 18 for a family room isn't grand. So trying to reduce that down. Um first off it's just a a small bump out from the from the stair that that wall. So that's used as the articulation there too. So pulling it back too much would ruin that look and articulation. I see. And maybe our town ar our our commissioner architect could speak to that. I'm just I think we need to finish questions first before we have a discussion. Is that correct?

Um yeah, I was just looking for ways since we had many comments from the uh neighbors about bulk and mass and Right. I understand that. Yeah. Thank you.

And I think I was probably more looking at Yes, it is a larger home, but I'm looking at making sure that it's not a perceived mess with the articulations and whatnot. Other questions? I don't see any. Thank you very much. So, we'll now uh invite comments from members of the public. Uh we have several cards. If you're not already done so, please turn in one. And when called to speak, remember to uh please state your name and address if you're willing and adjust the microphone so that you can speak directly into it. And you have three minutes to speak. And we'll begin with Margie Edington. Hi, welcome. Nice to see everybody. Thank you for giving us this opportunity. I grew up in that home. Um, my parents bought it in 1961, so I've watched the neighborhood develop. And um they were when the people next when they bought it the house they said there would be some remodels and I said great and we were not expecting the mass and size and scope um to be so huge. The second story just to say the ad so I'm 112 Valistos. So I'm that second story house but the second story is over the garage and it's an ADU. The primary house is a 2200 ft² ranchstyle house. Um, and we have a tenant in there who's been living there for 8 to 10 years, and she is terrified of losing her privacy. The balcony looks directly over the courtyard into her window and into her living room bay window and her her bedroom window. It also the balcony on the east side also looks into our

courtyard and the front door. Um, so that's a concern. The proposal to have 6-foot trees planted there does not really do anything to take care of privacy issues. It will take at least 10 years to grow. Um, our proposal would be to to plant at least 12 to 14t trees. That might be helpful. So for us, it's an invasion of privacy. Um, if you extend something in the back, the pool is there as well. Um, another issue is obstruction of views that we've had there since I was born. Um, and that the neighbors have enjoyed. Um, our neighbors, everybody's really good friend. I mean, we're friends and we're cordial and we try to do things that are respectful of other people with their um, additions. um the excessive size it's going to be looming over us um and over neighbors behind on Bnell as well. And to see that at the end of the culdesac would change the nature of that culde-sac that I couldn't go past the light on. We had definitely you can't go past the the edge of the the light. Um the I'm we didn't have sufficient um notice in a sense the tenant that was spoken to as a tenant who is moving out um at the end of this month and of course she has no concern but the tenant who is staying uh does the noise traffic capacity for the ADU I'm concerned with um because it's a three-bedroom ADU and I know we can't talk about it but the square footage is going to be the footprint is going to be over 5200 square f foot. It is an interesting lot size. It is at the end. It's a corner. Um and it's placed in such a way that

invades our privacy. Um we would request that the balcony be remaster balcony be removed. The sliding glass doors opening to the balcony be changed to windows that go up or transom uh to keep mature trees to plant ones that are 12 to 15 and reduce the overall height. Thank you. Other questions from Miss Eddington? Mr. Thompson. So, sorry, just to clarify, you're the house like facing on the one to the left, correct? So, the garage and then ADU above and then the house is like the house is to the left. Totally to the left. Yeah. Okay. But, so the house is here, the ADU is here, there, the balcony is here, and it looks right into here. Okay.

Right into the windows, right into the front door, right into the courtyard. Okay, other questions. Commissioner Stump, were you one of the neighbors that were contacted? I was not. I was not. It was sent My brother and I own it. There was something. The only thing that we got was the um the card. Mhm. That was sent to him in LA. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Sorry, Commissioner Thomas. Sorry. What was your You are one What address were you? 112. 112. Okay. Yeah. Any further questions? No. Thank you very much for call coming and thank you. We've read all these.

You'll probably see me up again to represent somebody. Thank you. Uh we also uh want everyone to know that we've received all of the um addendums to the staff the um uh desk items and um uh we appreciate um your understanding that we do have that information and considered it. Okay. So Okay. Okay. So, we'll get back to Miss Edington regarding uh Heather Akens's uh matter and then Mr. Bound, please.

Hi, good evening. My name is David Bomb and I'm here with my wife tonight, Sally Bomb, and we live at 105 Valistos Way, which is about three houses away from the subject property that is being discussed tonight. Um, if I could, I just would like to recognize all of the neighbors that are here tonight and ask them to stand up. Um, who are here, Sean? Um, I mean there's there's great concern about this project and there's great uh collegiality in our neighborhood. You know, my wife Sally and I have lived there for 33 years and we've enjoyed um the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood. I could reiterate the points made by Miss Eddington and she did that very eloquently. I don't know that I want to do that. But what I would say is that the neighbors there, they tend to these properties, they they live in them forever. Um the person at the the mouth of the culdeac ward, he's lived there since he was the original owner. Like Margie's parents were the original owner from 1961. And we realize that these 60-year-old homes, they need to be remodeled, but they don't normally get scraped. We don't generally have people come into the neighborhood and demolish homes and rebuild them. I myself and my wife, we remodeled our home 20 years ago. We added 450 square ft and it took us several years to get our permit. It wasn't an easy process and it was it was kind of torture. Um but at the end of that period we realized that the city really and the town is really committed to historic preservation and um preserving the character of a neighborhood. And I can also just point

out that we worked with uh Greg Larson when he was the town manager and there was an incident with our neighbor at the end of the culde-sac and we worked with him administratively to solve that problem. So I and I I also would point out that I did speak to city manager Constantine yesterday. He was very responsive and also staff was good to get back to me um when I reached out to other staff on the city. So it's been a very good iterative process with the city for our neighbors and getting work done and having it be a great neighborhood to live in and that's why we've been there for 33 years. alternatives to the proposal would be I think to downsize it. Um I know that you don't have any jurisdiction over doing an ADU which is 1100 square f feet in this case but because there are traffic impacts and there are parking impacts um it's a problem and just finally I'd like to say that we're really strongly in support of personal property rights and we don't really we haven't met the owner but we certainly support him and his family and moving into the neighborhood and hope he can work it out um to the benefit of all of us. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Bel and uh for your comments. Any questions from commissioners? Commissioner Thomas. Um so I do have a couple of questions. Um so what I mean you just overall this size you think it's too big. So your specific ask is make it smaller. I think so. Again just to reiterate the largest home in the culde-sac is probably about 3100 square ft. this um

we have the we have the information but like we just you know uh when we're considering and making recommendations and um everything we uh you know like to hear what the specific ask would be. So it's make it smaller or well to keep with the character of the neighborhood. It would be more like a I think the term was modest ranch style home is is the typical um style of the of the neighborhood. Okay.

But it would also be you've heard it said 5100 square ft. That's that's nearly double the second the second biggest home on this on the street. So it's uh that seems to be a problem. Okay. And then um you said that traffic implications are a problem. So can on and parking can you elaborate on does it's a culdeac and and so there are probably I don't know nine homes on this culde-sac. Uhhuh.

And when you add even another car it it's an impact. And like when the garbage is picked up, people have to reorganize their cars and park not at the end of the culdesac, but bring them forward towards the the street that the culde-sac is is fed into the culde-sac because of the garbage trucks can't get through. Yeah. Okay. So, and then Yeah. And then traffic with young children, their young children on the street, it's hard to accept, you know, additional cars. Okay. Um, okay. Thank you. Um, I think that's my only question.

Other questions? Mr. B. Thank you, Mr. B. Thank you.

And we'll move on next to uh David Forester. Excuse me. My voice isn't quite here either. I apologize in advance. Um, my name is David Forester. My wife Diane and I live right behind the property at 9006 Bnell and uh, we we have met. We've been very very cordial and uh, we each have a golden retriever. We look forward to them getting together. So, we we want to welcome you to the neighborhood. From our perspective behind the house, we've been there since 1984 and I'm probably the oldest in terms of age of all the oldies. You know, they're in the neighborhood or a lot of them. And we, you know, love the neighborhood. It's it's it's really wonderful. And uh from our perspective right behind it, true as the as the illustration showed, the photo showed that a good amount of of that the the foliage which is on their side of of the fence about twothirds of it is pretty well covered. And from our standpoint that uh black walnut which g we've been there since 84 and about 19 90 or so it was cut down to a stump and left there and it was never ground up and then the excuse me these shoots came up and that's what we have now that have grown 40 ft you know in every direction. So, I've wanted to reach over and cut that thing down, you know, the whole time because we have a tree behind it, which is sort of stunted because of that. So, that'll be that'll be great. And there's a couple more to the right actually behind our neighbors, the

dovers, I think, that are on on the list uh to be cut. Right behind our bedroom though, um the one of the remaining plants is a kind of a half dead. I don't know if there's two or one, but um it's sort of dead. Something I wouldn't have minded getting rid of either, but it looks like it's remaining. So, it it doesn't hide and won't hide much of that of the bedroom end of their house. And that's right behind our master bedroom. And uh we never minded really the the small setback to that bedroom corner right behind our back fence. It can't be much more than 15 ft or so. So, it doesn't matter when it's a one-story house, you know, we've never minded at all. Um, but once we have a much higher uh building behind us, then there would be the ability for us to look up at them and they could look up at me and, you know, um, probably not ideal. So our recommendation there in addition to and it was noted that we just we just redid our backyard the entire thing and we put up oh about 6 and 1/2t fcuses all the way around three sides. So a number of them are right behind and in time and a number of years should grow up and I think in the plan there were six foot a few sixfooters planted behind us but that will take a number of years. Understood.

So, um, that's your time, but I'll ask if commissioners have a question for you. Yeah, commissioners don't. The other voice impaired person here. Yes. Um, what I wanted to ask you was you talked about sightelines uh from what you would perceive to be a second story u behind you and into your bedroom. Is that so? Is that a sight line you're concerned about? that and just that whole area down below because at the moment it it's not blocked by trees. That part's open. The rest is blocked, you know, and that's great, but this part is not. Okay. Thank you very much.

So, it's really for the convenience, I think, for for both for both of us to get that block. Recommendation would be to bring in 12 14t trees right there and and then that'd be fine. And the only other thing, you know, squeeze it into my negative time left is the removal of that wonderful Douglas fur. That's what we I and I have spoken about is removing that. Um our common agreement was about I don't know six months ago now that it not be taken down. We we both hoped that it would not be taken down. I see that it's planned to be taken down and I think that's, you know, a visual disaster for the neighborhood. We love that tree. Thank you very much,

Commissioner Thompson. Again, sorry. Which tree was the one that you said that or the bush or shrub that's like a half dead situation? It it's just straight straight behind well the two bedroom windows upstairs. It would look right down at it. Just this this real scraggly thing that's there, but it looks like it's left. It didn't didn't have an X in the plan. Okay. I'd love it to be removed. Okay. So if I is is I don't think it's I just don't know which like tree you're describing. But do we think we I think it's called a privet. No, it's a private. Yeah. Do we know which one he's maybe talking about dying or just we can make sure that we're all on the same page

close to where you know the ivy was was coming up. Just that that thing right there. Could you speak on the into the mic so that it's recorded? Oh yes. Yeah. We were just discussing where that is and he mentions that one is dead. I think there were two of them kind of wound together. One's dead and the other still alive but not so great. Okay. Thank you for that. Other questions? I'm not seeing any. Thank you very much, Mr. Forester. And our next speaker is Eileene Gulerian.

Hopefully I got your name right, but please correct me if necessary. Good evening uh and thank you for um taking my comments. My name is Eileen Goloserian and I reside at 111 Valisceto with my husband Sam. Um, you have our letter outlining the major issues that impact us and the and it's basically the design inconsistent with the neighborhood character, size and height, excessive F, inadequate environmental review and lack of story polls. I will address some other issues. We want to welcome the family into our neighborhood and we want them to be a positive part of our um circle, but the size and scope of their project is very very concerning to us. Uh we moved into this neighborhood in 2003. While we made improvements over the years, we purposefully wanted to retain the mid-century character of our home. We viewed this home as our forever home. Perhaps that's not the view of the Tokmans. Whatever drew them to choose this neighborhood, this culde-sac, and this property, they have decided that they want to transform it completely. That decision does not impact only them, but we, the neighbors, immediately adjacent and in the surrounding streets will be forever impacted by a project that is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood's character. So, um, you know, in reality, they're raising it completely, removing two healthy, mature trees, roots and all, and placing all of that debris in a landfill. Um, you know, we we're worried about the height. We're worried about the excessive amount of windows. And actually, it's kind of misleading when you look at it in that picture, but really the house is going

to be like this, looking straight at us. I have floor to ceiling windows and I'm worried about a 27 foot 30 foot house looming over me and staring into my home. Um and also um contrary um to the you know written submission um there will be no improvement to safety circulation or traffic for the culde-sac. There's limited frontage. That does not change. Other than exclusively parking on their own property, both guests and residents, there is no added benefit to the culde-sac or the neighborhood in the way of parking improvement, circulation, or traffic by this design. In closing, an alternative acceptable to us is a singlestory or a split level or build a basement, but keep it within the F. And I consider that the ADU is part of the square footage of the house because it's misleading to say it's not part of it. Examples of successful and beautiful recent remodels can be seen at 259 and 263 Old Adobe 702 more and 145 via La Posada. And I invite them to go and have a look at these homes. They're gorgeous. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'll ask if there's any questions. Seeing none, thank you very much. And we come back to Margie Eddington on behalf of Heather Aken.

Um I'm sorry chairperson. There's no trading of speaking time and so if there's someone who need it needs to be a new speaker, not someone who's already spoken. Oh, I see. I misunderstood the commission. Speaker can represent. There's no trading of time. Okay. Thank you, Miss Whan. So, I don't have any further cards. Is there anyone on Zoom? Uh, yes. Cliff, you can unmute yourself.

Hi, everybody. Cliff Forester. I've been at the 112 Valisitos uh address since 1970. Um, love the neighborhood, love the house. Uh my concerns are echoed uh with the height and the you know the size of the property. Uh but one also one concern that hasn't been mentioned is the fence line and I'm unclear in the plans. It seems like the fences are changing and I would oppose that. I'd like to keep the dimensions and size of all the current fences. So, um, as well as losing some views of the mountains that I've had, you know, if we could limit that, that would be ideal. Um, and I think that's about it. I appreciate everybody's time. Thank you very much for those comments. Questions from commissioners? Don't see any. Thank you, sir. And now I do have another card um for Sally Bomb to speak on behalf of Heather Egan. Hi, I'm going to read what she sent to this that she's a neighbor that lives also at 112 Valistos Way. I live at 112 Valis Way and I will be directly negatively impacted by the proposed project. My issues with the proposal size. The project is massive and will loom over my home. Privacy. The windows and proposed balcony on the second floor will look right into my bedroom, living room, and private courtyard. Obstructions of views. This project obstructs my views of the mountains that I have had for the last 8 years of

living at 112. The removal of mature trees and replacing them with six-foot trees will do nothing to prevent the invasion of privacy that will occur with the construction of the twostory home with windows and a balcony facing 112 Valisto's Way. I would propose they build a basement rather than a second floor to prevent the invasion of privacy and the blocking of my views. If they are allowed to build a second floor, I would further lower the height of the building so that it does not block my views and allow windows or a balcony on the second floor to face 112 Valisceto's ways as they will invade my privacy if constructed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your comments. So, I don't have any more cards. There's no one else on Zoom, I understand. Uh, so I'll now give the applicant uh up to three minutes to respond. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll talk fast. Could you put my slides back up, please? The clock's running. Um, could you go to the next slide? I'm not sure where we left off. Uh so privacy um this was part of a privacy study that I did. If you can notice on the top one, this is a view of what we took from the house that it looking into the 112 Valistos. Again, hard to see, but you can see they have a bay window on that upper floor which actually looks into this current um our current project. And you can see that we could see into the lower floor. So those trees um that we're showing are mature podacarpus. Um podarp we're stating 6 feet. We would be willing to of course plant taller ones um 6 to 8 feet and podarpus grows 2 to 3 feet per year. So we could get those planted sooner so that they would have time to grow during the um construction. Um also wanted to note that um so I I don't believe actually after the the planting the screenings in are in we will have any issues. Um we also have show on the site plan where the walnut is proposed to be removed. We would also have uh we had four fast growing pod carpus trees planted there. There is a break further down where the neighbor had already planted some privacy screening. So, we didn't propose any there, but if we needed to, we'll we will plant privacy screening wherever is needed. Um, one note is that um this ADU was intended for um multif family for themselves.

They have no intention of renting it. There would be no extra cars that would be um used by this family for the ADU. So, that should not be a problem. Um the removal of the Doug fur is um removed for the fact that it is um very close to the foundation. Um the neighbor to the right also was happy about it because he says he can't even park in his driveway because it dropped sap on his um his cars. That particular neighbor actually had already gotten the approval to build a 4200 foot house there, but he ended up not building it. Um, and then one note was that our house is tipped so that it's facing the front of the property. The house currently is facing the front of the property. We have fixed it and it is now parallel with the back and it is facing less to the front and more tipped towards the backyard. So, it that that's actually um better for this neighborhood. Um, let's see what else were needed to be. Uh, the fences will remain. The only fences that we're removing are ones that will be required.

Well, thank you for those comments, Miss Miner. And I'll ask my commissioners again if they have questions for you. Commissioner Thomas, can um we see the slide with the where the the two X trees? Yeah, it's probably right there. Um, okay. So, this is like the current Yeah, the current position of the house and then the tipped version of it. Yeah, if you can see that there's a blue line. I should have made it red, but there is a blue line that shows the current the new house. It's actually doesn't have much more of a footprint than the existing house.

Um, okay. And um my other question so my question is um are you amenable to uh removing changing some more of that landscaping some of the maybe I don't know if the neighbor was referring to like the pitisporum or the other shrub the non-shrub whatevers to like replace with some Absolutely. We'd be happy to to work with the neighbors to do whatever is needed for for privacy or plants that may be a nuisance or whatever. Okay.

So, absolutely. Amenable. Um Okay. And then the Oh, yeah. So, the fence. So, can you just repeat the part of about the fence again just because I can actually. Slide number one um shows the the new fence is just a short little stuckle fence that we are replacing. Currently there's like a a picket fence, but it goes into the right of way. So it has to be removed because it's actually in the right of way. Okay. And then we'll just we're just proposing a short a short fence that um fits in with the architecture.

Okay. And then but the sideyard fences and the backyard fences are not being changed. No, they're six foot wood fences with 1 foot privacy lattice I think all the way around, but Okay. But they they'll be remade. Okay. Commissioner St. We've obviously had some discussions about sightelines and some of the neighbors concerns. Do you really feel that um most or all of those concerns can be dealt with through landscaping?

I do. I like I said, we worked pretty hard to to look at that. Um uh the owner had done drone footing, drone recordings to get up there and turn around and look at what we could see at that level. Um, and then, um, you know, we we have a bathroom on the front, um, that's facing the 112, um, which will have some opaque windows at the front. Uh, so that wouldn't be a privacy. Actually, they're not in the front. They're the there's a there's a one window that is not opaque that we'd be willing to put opaque that so that it would help with that consideration. Um but no we we think that with the fast growing uh podarpus or pitisporm whichever anybody likes it they state 2 to 3 feet per year. So if we started with a 7 to 8 foot or 6 to 8 foot tree whichever you get specified that's 24 inch box tree um is what is required that we think that within a couple of years that that all of that would be gone. Please

um we see over and over issues with balconies u becomes a big concern with two-story homes. This balcony is open three directions, side to side and then front view. Um, is there anything that could be should be done to block one or more of those views?

Could be, I suppose. I don't know about should be. Um, like I said with our on page 12 of the plans, we did, like I said, extensive studies to show that we could, you know, like I said, drone footage is everything that as as long as we can get the privacy planting, that should mitigate it all together. Um, it's not a the balcony is intended for just their private private use. It's not deep. It's not meant for entertaining. It's off the primary bath or bedroom. So, it's not like some we're going to go have a part, they're going to go have a party up there. It's just meant for them to go out maybe, you know, enjoy the the morning coffee. Um, we also did intentionally study that we did a stuck a wall with just a short railing above it. We placed a chair and a person sitting at it and looked at like all of these things. We were like, "Okay, how we don't want to to have a privacy issue." So, everything was designed to let them have this small balcony. A lot of people would love to have a balcony. Um, and then looking to the back, we felt like that's right where trees are. There was like nothing to see off of that balcony. So, the right side of the balcony would be all trees. the well we we call it the backyard because that's where their backyard is. So looking out the left would just be them looking at their their own and then we feel like we had mitigated the part left looking off to the left but I would welcome your insights

please. You talked about use of drone. Yeah. Um how did you determine obviously drones are smart things but where did what level did you take those photos from with the drone? How many feet up were you? Were you at window height? Window height. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. And actually even higher so that we could be like, okay, well, what's the really worst case scenario? Commissioner Thomas, you had another one. Um, yes. I um have a qu a clarifying question for staff that relates to the tree, you know, the tree plings or whatever.

Question. Yeah, it ties back into a question. So, um the it's like a privacy shrub more. Is there is this problematic with any of the tree replacements that need to happen because it's like they're really they're not really trees I don't technically think, but they provide you know they're serving the function that the neighbors want.

So, I'd say there's really two options. one um we can confirm with the arborist and make sure that they do um that whatever they plant are actually trees. Um but the other option is that they're removing two trees. They're required to meet a replacement requirement on site. That doesn't mean that every single tree or shrub they plant has to therefore replace a previous removed tree. So they could plant as many trees as they want beyond what these replacement requirements entail. Right. And so then do you know what the replacement requirements are for the TRA two that they're proposing to remove right now? So it depends if the walnut's coming out or not. Um okay

cuz that's the first I've heard that it might not come out. But um if you give me a second I can try to get those numbers for you. I believe it was like 18 or 19. Yeah. Give me a second. I can confirm though. Okay. Um, while Mr. Safety is looking that up, followup question. Is that okay? Okay.

Um, okay. So, I understand that privacy is a concern, you know, for all parties involved. Um, and I appreciate wanting to plant, you know, hedges and things that grow very fast. Um, we are also in an area that, you know, we don't always have the most water, etc. So, um, is there a possibility that you're open to planting some native trees that are more drought tolerant than some of these hedges that you know will likely stay healthier for longer with less water requirements?

Absolutely. Be happy to work with the town um, arborist or own arborist to determine what that would be. We specifically chose the podacarpus because of it spreads its great privacy. Um it does you'll see pocarpus as stated as a shrub and a tree. Yeah. It grows very large. Yeah. So um uh it's it's hearty but we'll we'll look into whatever whatever we need to be. We would like privacy on our side as well. We're not intending to want to look over.

Yeah. And then I just had a follow sorry I had a follow-up question not about trees but about um the architecture at the beginning you talked a little bit about why you chose the initial architectural style with the like slope of the roof roof and it made it seeming less um you know to reduce some of the the mass but um some of the you know neighbors have stated that that style doesn't necessarily fit in with the neighborhood. ood. Um, so I know that you know there's the next door has the above the garage edition

and then it is mainly ranch style homes. someone uh that something that we deal with a lot is looking at how we can't you know we're we're not in a place up here to say you can't build a two story like twotory isn't allowed or that's not you know it's not you can build a 30-foot house according to our guidelines but fitting it in with the neighborhood is where it becomes tricky so I don't believe that a ranch exists in a two like once it becomes two stories It's not a ranch anymore. Is that your interpretation also?

Yeah, that's kind of what I was kind of trying to nicely say. There was not a defined style. Um, probably what most people would want to do is like a Craftsman, but then it's going to have much steeper pitch roofs and be much taller just by its style. Yeah. Okay. So, um, and then someone said split level, mentioned split level. I know there are some split level neighbor homes and that and more off of on old adobe and everything, but um it would a split level home be something that you could build on a lot like that? I don't know how that work.

We never entertained it. It I very rarely see split levels over here. I don't can honestly say I don't think I've ever designed a split level in my 30 years. So I had not explored that. It's not the most more desired Okay. floor plan. Yeah. I mean, I know that there are some over there because there's like some hilly areas, but it's more of like it doesn't look like a split level necessary from the street, but this is that's not in part of that neighborhood. Okay. And the basement was not on the on the um books either because basements have no light and they wanted to light their bedrooms to have light and egress and all of the things that we all enjoy. Okay. Thank you,

Mr. Stafy. Do you have the information now? I do. So, it's actually 13 trees. Um, I was mistaken. That black walnut the consulting arborist determined that is dead and needs to be removed. So, there's no replacement requirement and also doesn't need a permit to be removed. They can just remove it. Thank you. I have one question. It in your initial comments, I thought you said that the reduction of height of one foot was satisfactory to Mr. Cannon. Can you elaborate on that or did I miss your

Yeah, I might have misspoke. It was I I assumed it went back to Mr. Kennon and maybe don't no understanding the process. Maybe it was a acceptable answer to staff as it went through our multiple iterations. I see. So your communications with staff did not bring again bring up specifically the recommendation of Mr. Cannon. That was the recommendation was to reduce it and we reduced it by uh the one foot and then we had a couple different tech review meetings after that and that okay appeared to be acceptable.

Thank you. Other questions? If not, Commissioner Bernett, can I have a question for staff? Uh after we close the public hearing. Okay. Thank you. Right. I don't have any other please

apologies um my let me just get back to the um page that this was on with regards to the um okay so if we're looking at the recommendations from uh the consulting architect. Um the for the simplifying the entry details. Uh no, sorry, that is not the the one with Oh, the eliminating the stone at the front facade entry. It seemed that the it I'm a little bit confused because it seems like that was the recommendation, but then the guideline actually says like it needs to be carried throughout as we're used to seeing. You know, it shouldn't just be in one place. So, um it was the stone added after that or were you just pointing out that it exists in other locations? a little bit of both.

Okay. So, it was on the front, it was on another side, but it wasn't carried out around. So, we did we did then carry out the stone around to the other sides. Um, we did also um note because he said it was not something that existed in the neighborhood and we just let them know that does exist in the neighborhood and another home to have a large stone entry. Um, so yeah, those were the responses to that. Okay. And Mr. Safy, did you have a comment about that or I'm happy to answer that now or after public comments closed? I'll leave

clarifying it now is like helpful just to make sure that we're all on the same page with it with that.

So, and this will kind of address both the plate height and the entry questions. Um, the consulting architect report is formatted in in two pieces. There's an issue and concerns section and then there's recommendations that address each of the issues and concerns. From staff's perspective, what we're looking for to call this a complete application is a response to each of those. You don't have to do every recommendation, but we want to see that you've justified and thought about it before we're going to stop taking you through these tech meetings. The specific recommendation for the plate height was lower the plate heights. They lowered one of the two plate heights. From staff's perspective, they addressed whether partially fully, they addressed that recommendation. The issue and concern section for the front entry piece gave them essentially two options. It said that residential design guideline calls for, you know, if you're going to introduce a new material to carry it on all sides. His recommendation was to eliminate it. That architect's response was, well, the issue and concern gives me two options. I'm going to then replicate it on the back side. Okay.

Staff felt that that addressed that comment. Okay, that's how I interpreted it, but I just wanted to to make sure. Um, so yeah. Okay. So, thank you. Are we exhausting our questions at this point? Okay. Thank you very much. Can can I make one statement about this mass? Um, we would love to get about everything actually. We would love to get a rec uh uh approval tonight and would love more discussion if we needed to go further with what is needs to be done rather than just denying. So if we need to come up with something or bargain, let's let's let's go there.

Thanks for that. Okay. So I'm going to close the public portion of the public hearing and ask my fellow commissioners if they have questions of staff at this time or wish to comment on the application or make a motion. Shakespeare said the rest is silence. This isn't the time for that. Commissioner Thomas first and then Commissioner Bernett. Okay. I was just going to actually suggest that maybe we take a few minute break if that's okay. Just bathroom break. My preference would be to complete this item and then take a break. Okay.

Unless it's a necessity. Oh, I just wanted to mention that project planner staff did uh answer my question that uh Commissioner Thomas asked. So, that was my question as well. Thank you. Okay. So, we're looking for comments, questions of staff, or a motion. Well, I'll make a motion. Oh, yeah. Okay. Go.

To continue this matter so that the applicant can consider in further detail the recommendations um that have been made uh implied by the questions of the commissioners. uh specifically including privacy, mass and height and um I'll look for a second on that and possibly modifications. Commissioner Stone by Stone questions or excuse me, comments. Um I yes I think that I am in support of that motion but I think that we should be specific with um what we expect to to happen instead of just continue you know continue. So um not that you not that you weren't but I you know just to get it on the record and make sure that we're clear. Um, so I think that from the tree and privacy perspective, I would also just like to point out that typically the person that's living in the two-story home also doesn't want the neighbors looking into their into their bedroom and bathroom and all of those things. So, um, hopefully there's, you know, a a compromise that can be made with some of those um privacy um privacy screening trees that can be used. And I would just encourage the applicant to if there's going to be 13 trees that need to be replaced to perhaps look into the possibility of doing some toons or bay laurels since they are native and evergreen to the area and um I think like fit in with that with the the general the general area. Um so that is is one

one recommendation. Um I also think that having um the making sure that that balcony situation is addressed and dealt with. I think that from my personal perspective of trying to like understand the law and understand where the house is now and where the other houses are, I understand the privacy concern. However, I do think that like the situ the way that the house is situated on the lot is ideal for for trying to reduce the privacy issues. So, um I I just want to point out that I appreciate that thoughtful part of the design. Um, and I also I just truly don't know about a different architectural style that would necessarily that would be twotory that would fit in the neighbor in with the neighborhood that's a that would be a new build or even an addition going up. So I that just I just want to say that for the record and um yeah

I don't think that conflicts with my motion but to the extent that it does I will incorporate those comments. Any other questions or comments? Commissioner Mayor?

Yeah I'll make a few comments about the architectural design. Um, I actually I don't have an issue with with the architectural style and I think the material pallet's nice and appreciate the designer uh responding to the town architect's comments especially regarding the windows um recessing the windows and so I think the material pallet's uh nice uh I think what the issue here is and I think the neighbors have made clear is that while the um design conforms with all the town zoning standards such as height limit, F lot coverage, etc. It it it is bulky, like the the massing is bulky. So, I feel like that's maybe trying to focus in on what why this feels maybe incompatible to the neighbors um at at at this moment. Um, and truth be told, I know we're not supposed to comment about the ADU, but you know, this is an additional thousand square feet to the house. And I understand um, you know, there it's allowable under state law, and I really do like the idea of multigenerational living. I think that's something that's evolving with the single family homes in California, and I appreciate that. But uh it does add this dimension of bulkiness to the overall proposal. So um I think you know going along with the motion just some thoughts off the top of my head. You know some things that could maybe help reduce the bulk are reallocate not necessarily even reducing the square footage but reallocating some of the square footage to the ground floor or perhaps even doing a partial basement half subterranean or something like that. Not a full basement. I know that can get very expensive. But instead of having so much square footage allocated to the second floor, somehow redistributing that and thinking about the the floor plan. Um, I know that's probably not what maybe the owner wants

to hear, but I think there can with with some creativity from the designer, I think there can be a way to find some uh compromise here so that the the the house doesn't feel so bulky. Um, but in terms of the architectural style and the material palette and and everything else, I don't have an issue with that. Thank you for that comment. I think uh if there's no other comments then I'll call the question and ask those who are in favor to raise their hand through and oppose. It passes unanimously. Thanks very much. And through the vice chair. Um it'd be real helpful if you could continue to a date certain.

Yes, please. Do we have a June 10th or 24th? 10th or 24th. Look for a suggestion from staff that would allow the applicant to have sufficient time. So, probably June 10th or June 24th and then we don't have any meetings in July. Okay. I suggest June 24th. I think 24th is well if unless it's like you know with our agenda unless is that enough time for the applicant the 24th?

Yeah. Yeah. I think the 10th is like pretty soon but I from my perspective I think the 24th would be needed. I don't see how they can turn that around and staff analyze and write the report in time. And if we need to continue again is that okay perfect. Okay. Um so with that uh the motion's been approved. We have a date certain for the continuence and are there appeal rights? There are not because it's it's a continuence. Correct.

Okay. Thank you very much everyone and let's take a break. um let's say 10 minutes and I appreciate everyone's patience and we'll um do our best to complete the rest of the agenda in a timely manner.

Thank you. So, the planning commission meeting is now reconvened. Um, I'm going to exercise my authority as chair to move item number six next. I think it'll take little time and then we'll be able to concentrate on five. And I know uh I appreciate all of you uh being patient and uh hopefully we'll get right to that matter. So if I can get to my notes go. Okay. So, as to item six, we're asked to consider forwarding a recommendation of approval for the to the town council of the draft proposed capital improvement program budget for fiscal years 2026-2027 to 20 uh 30 2031. And uh is there a staff report on this item? Perfect. Thank you, Sean. Good evening, chair and members of the planning commission. My name is Gary Heap. I'm the town engineer for the town of Lascatus here. And this evening, I've got for you a presentation for the uh 26 27 to 3031 uh CIP program. Next slide. So this evening, the planning commission's role and what we're asking for is that you review the proposed 26 27 to 31 CIP, which was linked in the staff report this evening. uh and that uh you find that the budget or the project itself is categorically exempt per section 15061B3 of the California uh environmental quality act and that the projects proposed in this CIP budget are consistent with the general plan, the North 40 specific plan, the Albbright specific plan which is the the Netflix

area as well as the hillside specific plan. Next slide. So the CIP itself uh addresses a number of projects uh really to the town's assets and and public infrastructure including those uh that include roads, parks, open space, public buildings, um retaining walls, storm drain, uh parking lots, etc. Um the total 5-year CIP pro uh CIP budget itself within the document is almost 41 million. uh in the the single year uh 2627 CIP budget is right around 5.9. There are several revenue sources that are uh basically fund uh the capital projects and feed into the GFAR project uh fund account. Uh and these include a number of cost sharing opportunities uh from various agencies, grants, um carry forwards, uh measure G, uh as well as other uh funding sources including traffic uh mitigation fees, grants, storm water impact fees, etc. Again, those then all feed into the uh funding for the individual projects. Next slide, please. So, the CIP projects are categorized into several groups. Uh, and those include street programs, uh, parks and trails programs, and then public facilities programs. Uh, within those individual areas, we have subcategories. Uh, within the streets programs, we have the street reconstruction and resurfacing, uh, street maintenance and safety, uh, street improvements and bridges. Within the parks and trails programs, we have the parks improvements projects as well as trail improvement projects. And then for the public facilities, we have infrastructure and equipment projects. Next slide. So the approach of the five-year CIP really focuses on um continued funding uh based on projects and project

priorities. Uh we've closed out a number of projects and those are listed in the CIP. uh very happy that we were able to complete projects last year. Uh as well as then continuing this trend that we did last year which was to uh tier the projects into tier 1, two and three projects uh so that we could better address those uh factors included uh in the determination of those tiers uh were funding grant deadlines and staffing. Uh the tier one projects are the ones we really want to focus on for this next fiscal year. The tier 2 projects are projects that were partially funded, but there was just wasn't enough staffing to actually be able to address. And next slide. And the tier three projects were just flatout unfunded and unstaffed. Uh, but are great ideas and we hope to bring those projects forward in the future. Uh, the CIP projects do align with the town council identified strategic priorities and when we bring those forward to council for approval, we make sure and identify those strategic priorities specifically. Next slide. So again, this evening, we're asking for you to make that determination that the CIP is consistent with the general P plan guidelines. Uh those that include both uh the mobility element, the public facilities and service and infrastructure element, the open space, parks and recreation element, environmental and sustainability, and lastly, the hazards and safety element of the general plan. Examples of projects that are um really supporting the mobility element, including our annual street repair and resurfacing project, our Highway 17 bicycle and pedestrian bridge and the Shannon road repair. Projects or examples of projects that support the public facilities and service infrastructure include our ongoing ADA compliance efforts uh and the parks playgrounds fire replacement which we do annually. Open place open space parks and

recreations projects include the sports court resurfacing oak and the oak meadow bandstand project which will be starting up after the July 4th holiday. The environmental and sustainability uh area of the general plan are supported by the annual storm drain improvements projects, our EV charging stations that we're going to be putting in at 41 miles, uh the storm water system pollution prevention compliance, and lastly, the battery PL powered uh supply that is being installed at our library. The hazards and safety uh sections of the general plan are supported by uh a high a real large number of projects including the roadside fuel uh reduction efforts, our vegetation management uh efforts, the Vona Oaks drainage failure repair, the 709 University work that we're doing uh to repair a storm drainage uh pipe out there, Loma Street drainage study and analysis that we're doing, IT disaster resiliency, as well as the Blossom Hill Road safety improvements. ments uh from Union out to Camden. So, this was an effort to address a question that I received recently uh about which projects specifically uh were addressed and and how those all tied into the general plan elements. And so, I did go through the effort and made sure that every single one of those was able to be tied specifically and directly to a general plan element. And I do apologize for the fact that this is somewhat unreadable, but they do tie. Next slide, please. So staff's recommending this evening that the planning commission find that the projects or the budget in this case uh is categorically exempt per section again 15061B3 of SQUA guidelines. uh find that the projects in the proposed 2627 to 3031 CIP budget are consistent with the general plan north 40 specific plan,

Albbright specific plan, and Hillsdale specific plan. And lastly, please forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed CIP budget to the town council. And that concludes my presentation and I'm available for questions. Thank you so much for that. And we'll start with Mr. Snow. I just want to say thank you for that last table, not the size of it, but going through that exercise because the findings do ask us to approve the projects and there are two full pages of projects that I personally thumbmed through but didn't really look through. So, thank you for connecting the dots. Absolutely. Questions?

I guess we'll call Commissioner Tones. Happy to do a motion. Yep. Okay, let's proceed. Make a motion. Okay, I move

through the vice chair. I'm sorry. We need to open the public hearing and take comments if there are any. I apologize. Uh so Gus, you're up again for three minutes. testing. Okay. Um, I've been to the financial finance commission meetings and some of this and I uh do have major concerns because uh the there's a lot of questions and if anybody I know one person here went to there and there's something called banking going on and I've already brought up Loma Street the the the and I can show you pictures um if you can pull this is because this is not the time to to just pass pass a a a budget. um because there's some major concerns and they're question the finance commission is questioning uh the the town and and how they're uh uh doing this budget and I didn't realize until you know just looking at this that that you guys are are are asking I mean actually looking at uh finances and I don't think that's your duty as much as it's because they're the accountants and so if if you to make sure they clear it or at least on the LMA street I can show you pictures and I I really question the the the you need to spend I mean like um the the soccer field was two 2.5 million which I brought up the replacement cost and it cost a million dollars to do it and it's and I'm I'm always saying this is that you know the the finance commission says

is talking about banking banking banking and you know because there's $6 million there. So unless you really know what's going on, just don't pass this. You should talk to them, talk to the finance people in the finance commission because they're they're blocking at what's going on. So please, you know, keep an open mind. Thank you.

Thank you for those comments, questions for the speaker. No. Or do we have any other speakers? No one on Zoom. Okay. So, um, I didn't open this as a public hearing. It was a public hearing, so I apologize for that. And I'll close the public hearing and ask if uh, commissioners have any questions or wish to propose a motion. Commissioner Thomas.

I'll um, make a motion then. Um, so I move to forward a recommendation of approval to the town council for the draft proposed capital improvement program budget for fiscal years 2026 27 um to 3031. and I can make the findings that um it is categorically exempt from SQUA and consistent with the general plan and all of the specific plans that are applicable and I think that's it. Is there a second? Commissioner Sordy discussion all in favor question

discussion anticipated discussion yeah I do support uh forwarding it to the town council but I do want to add that I am not endorsing um the projects themselves per se um uh so I just want to specifically mention that.

All right, other discussion. We have a motion and a second. All in favor raise your hand, please. And it's unanimous. Thank you very much. Okay. So now moving on to item five, which again is a um the consideration of a request for approval to modify an existing conditional use permit for expanded hours of operation in an institution for religious observant West Valley Muslim Association on properties zoned R18 located at 16769 Farley Road, APN 42421062. Categorically exempt pursuant to secret guidelines 15301. Existing facilities, property owner, West Valley Muslim Association, uh Osmer Gaffur, President Applicant, Razi Muin. I'm sorry if I got that wrong. And the plagic uh planner is Jocelyn Chman. Uh Miss Shman, do we have a staff report? Yeah, it's understood. Commissioner Thomas has to leave because she's in proximity.

Yes, I live in proximity to this um project, so I need to recuse myself. So, thank you. Yeah.

Thank you and good evening. Uh on April 22nd, the planning commission discussed this item and received testimony from both the applicant and a representative of the neighborhood group. Uh at the April 22nd meeting, the planning commission continued this item to a date certain of May 13th with direction to staff to bring back a revised resolution and conditions of approval that incorporated the modifications provided by the planning commission. Since the publication of the staff report, there has been an addendum and a desk item report with additional public comments. The desk item report provided this afternoon also includes alternative conditions of approval for consideration by the planning commission, including an updated draft resolution as well. This concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for any questions.

Thank you, Miss Shman. Are there questions for staff? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh I'm going to ask the town attorney uh to uh address the issue of the public meeting which was closed at our last session and um uh determine what recommendations are made at this time.

Uh yes. So, in today's desk item, there are um alternative conditions of approval for the commission's consideration. And the reason those are there is since the last planning commission meeting, um the town received a lot of public comment um on this issue. And so, um staff ran all those public comments through RUPA analysis. Um, and as the commission will recall, the RUOPA analysis consists of determining whether or not there's a substantial burden created by a condition. Um, whether what the compelling government interest is, um, and whether the proposed condition is the least restrictive means of addressing that compelling government interest. In addition, um the town needs to determine whether the conditions treat the use on equal terms with comparable uses and um do not discriminate amongst different faiths. And then in addition um with regard to each condition of approval that the town adopts, the town needs to articulate what the impact is that needs to be addressed and then um articulate how the condition of approval uh mitigates that impact. So, with that in mind, um staff is proposing some alternative conditions. Um and I'd be happy to run through those um if that would be helpful to the commission. And I also wanted to say that um based on due process concerns um since the alternative conditions do deviate from what was originally presented to the planning commission, my recommendation to the commission would be that the public hearing be reopened for the limited purpose of speaking only to those conditions of approval that have changed.

Thank you for that. So the red line showing the changes is exhibit 41. Is that correct? That's correct. And then in addition, there are some other changes to the conditions that were proposed in the staff report that are not captured in the desk item 41. And I can read those into the record as well. Uh this would be a good time to do that.

Okay. Um so the first one is condition of approval number 23 um in the desk item and it was number 25 in the staff report. Um and the condition previously read that uh parking lot monitoring training would be provided by the Loscatoos Monosino Police Department if available. And staff has confirmed that um training is not available from the police department. And so staff is proposing that the condition read instead with training as available by an entity that provides this type of training.

Thank you. The next uh change is condition 26 in um attachment 41 and it was 28 in the staff report. And the uh condition previously proposed that the parking lot um add a spec specific number of spaces. And the current proposal is that the applicant shall submit an application proposing additional parking spaces to the community development department within 6 months of the final approval date and complete the construction improvements within one year of the final approval date. The parking lot expansion shall add 23 parking spaces or up to as many possible based on compliance with town standards. And then the rest of that condition would remain the same.

Okay, thank you for that.

The next change is to condition of approval 31 in the attachment 41 and 33 in the staff report. Um, it previously said that the applicant would complete its building permit application process to construct a door to allow pedestrian ingress and egress. The new proposal is the applicant shall submit a building permit application and receive final inspection to construct an opening in the concrete wall in front of the property for the purpose of allowing pedestrian ingress and egress to the site without walking in the driveway within one year of the final approval date. And then the final one is condition of approval 32 in the desk item and 34 in the staff report. Um, and it previously read that all site and parking lot lighting shall be full cut off downward directed and at the building code minimum brightness level during quiet hours. Um, and staff is proposing to add within one year of the final approval date to the end of that sentence. So that is the those are the um items that were captured in the staff report but not the uh desk item. And so now if this is a good time I could run through the rest of the changes to the conditions of approval if the commission is interested in considering alternative conditions of approval. I think in the interest of u public communication and those for those who may not had an opportunity to look at the red line which was only recently produced that it would be good ideas for us to do that if you would.

Okay. Um yes.

Did you say as you go through these to offer alternatives or at the conclusion? Um, so I wanted to run through the new alternative conditions of approval um, so that the commission has a good understanding and also the public can hear what they are. Okay. And so the the first change would be to condition of approval number seven in the um in both the desk item and the staff report. Um so it used to say that there would be an annual compliance review in perpetuity. Um and the alternative condition would say for the 3 years following approval, the planning commission shall conduct an annual compliance review of the conditional use permit. This compliance review shall be completed at the applicant's expense. And the reason that this alternative is being proposed is that um staff is conscious of the RUPA requirement that uh religious faiths be treated on equal grounds um and that uh similar uses be treated equally. And so staff conducted a review of other conditional use permits um that have been issued by the town and uh we did not locate any conditional use permits that had longer than a three-year compliance review period. The next change would be uh regarding general hours which is uh number 12 in the uh attachment to the desk item. Um, it previously spoke to hours of operation in general and staff wanted to make a distinction between hours for

worship service versus hours for other activities. Um, and so the new proposed language would say that worship services shall not begin earlier than 1.5 hours before sunrise or extend past 10:30 p.m. daily, except as specified in condition 13, seasonal late hours exception. And then a new subsection B would be added to say other activities are limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Thank you. And then with regard to um condition of approval 14, it previously stated that vehicles would be limited to the number of on-site parking spaces and that the evening prayer service would be limited to the maximum building occupancy for the facility. Um we were not able to locate any other uh conditional use permits that had um a limitation on the number of vehicles. Um and we were also concerned that uh it would be difficult to enforce because um vehicles are allowed to park on public streets. Um, condition 15 addresses lot closure. And so, um, originally the language read that the lot was required to be vacated within 30 minutes of the end of, uh, the last service. Um, this would add a new sentence to say, "For all other activities, the parking lot shall be vacated by 10 p.m."

Yeah, that's the lesson. Thank you.

Okay. Um, okay. Food vendors originally is number 18 and that originally stated that only the interior of the parking lot would be used for food vendors. Um, we felt it better to have it be more specific. And so the pro alternative language would say food vendors associated with events shall be located at least 20 ft from the property line. The next one is 19 um high attendance guidelines. It looks like that was just relocated. And so that provides at least 30 days before any recurring or seasonal period of high attendance where on-site parking is insufficient to accommodate parking demand. The applicant shall provide members and attendees written reminders regarding respectful parking practices, including use of on-site spaces, car pooling where possible, and avoidance of spillover impacts on surrounding residential streets, minimizing congregating in the parking lot to adhere to quiet hours requirements, compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, documentation of this communication, eg copy of written notice, email, and posting on the facility's website shall be maintained on file and made available to the community development director upon request. Um section uh 20 addresses noise mitigation

um and staff is proposing an alternative condition that would provide that uh the applicant must comply with the town's noise ordinance. Um, at the last planning commission meeting, the commission was interested in prohibiting amplification altogether. Um, however, staff was not able to locate any other conditional use permits in town that prohibit amplification altogether. And so, staff is recommending being consistent. Um, parking lot monitoring is number 23. Um and the alternative condition provides that uh training by the Loscatoos Monosino Police Department will be provided if available. Uh number 24, driveway operations. um that's redlined, but that's not a new change. That is simply saying that the right turn sign at the end of the driveway can be removed. And then um 26 um the new language or the alternative language is proposed to clarify exactly what is intended by repairs to the parking lot. And so, uh, the last two sentences would read, "Within 6 months of the final approval date, the existing parking lot shall be repaired so that cracks, bumps, or other anomalies do not contribute to additional noise generation of passing vehicles. Thereafter, the parking lot shall continue to be maintained to avoid conditions like cracks and bumps which generate noise.

Uh condition 28 um has the alternative provides for different ways of providing sound and light mitigation. Um, the applicant is to fill in any gaps in plantings or fencing by either planting a hedge row to fill in gaps at perimeter fences, planting a variety of native trees and shrubs for the purpose of sound and light mitigation, or installing screens as approved by the community development director within one year of the final approval date. If plantings are selected, they shall be a minimum size of three gallons and the selected planting shall grow 2 to four feet per year. The specific planting shall be based on discussions with the applicant and the community development director. The planting shall be maintained at a height of 8 ft. Additionally, the applicant shall offer to provide plantings or movable barriers to the neighbor across the street in order to reduce headlight intrusion into the residential property across the street. Um, condition of rule 29 reflects what the commission discussed at the last meeting, which was um, obscuring vehicle headlights through the use of privacy mesh, wind screens, or portable planters or screenings as proposed in the letter that the commission received prior to its last meeting. Um section 30 is regarding fencing and it used to require that the applicant uh apply for a fence height exception um for the entire fence currently. And then the the alternative language says, "As portions of the fencing are replaced in the future, the applicant shall submit an application for a fence height

exception for the purpose of increasing the height of existing fences to 8 ft in order to mitigate noise and light pollution. Uh, condition 33, the alternative language provides that the applicant's online calendar will provide at least a 60-day notice in advance in advance of events and activities scheduled to take place. Um, so the change is to replace the word proposed with scheduled activities. And the intent was to make it clear that this notice is intended to be required for activities that are pres-scheduled. And then uh conditions. Condition 20 previously provided that um the applicant would provide written notice to members 5 to 10 days prior to a scheduled event anticipated to have an attendance of a 100red or more persons. um and to remind attendees of the of the rules regarding the use. Um the alternative language would provide that the applicant will provide a monthly notice to its membership. Um and the purpose of that is to avoid repetitive notices and all the admonitions could be given in one monthly notice to the membership. And then the conditions regarding having the applicant request um information from Santa Clara County Fire Department and the police department have been removed. And the reason that that alternative is being proposed is that uh staff will be requesting that

information rather than asking the applicant to request it. So that is um a summary of the changes that are contained in the alternative conditions of approval. Thank you so much for that. Much appreciated. And um with respect to your recommendation that the public hearing be open for the specific purpose of talking about those changes. Is that a decision to be made by the planning commission? Yes. As a whole?

Yes. Okay. So my proposal to my fellow commissioners is that we first undertake um we need a motion uh to reopen the public hearing for the specific purpose of discussing with the applicant and members of the public uh those changes which were just read by the town attorney. Commissioner Bernett, I'll second that. I didn't make a motion. You're making the motion. I thought that was the motion. Sorry. No, I'm waiting. Looking for a motion. Commissioner Stump,

just wanted to ask for a clarification. There are some things that may be changed by commissioners or recommended changes. Are we going to propose those recommended changes now or after we open public hearing? That's a good question. um that is at the commission's discretion. Um I do think it would be good to have that discussion now so that members of the public can react to the potential changes.

Okay, I agree with that recommendation. It makes common sense. Um Commissioner Stump, did you want to commence with your proposed changes that are in addition? Yeah, I'll be glad to uh start the process. Um, as you all know, at the last meeting, I proposed a couple of capacity measures. One was to take a look at the early morning service and the late evening service and specifically ask Rozie and thank you, you know, for giving me numbers and so tried to work through the numbers and then discovered that those numbers would not be fair, would not be used, would not be supported. So then you saw us move two vehicles. You know, you've got 180 spaces in your lot currently. So the number would be 180. My whole reason for doing this is because um I still have serious concerns about public safety on Farley Road, not only for the residents, but also for the mosque goers um and the traffic flow, etc. And just trying to put a capacity in here somewhere. So what did I do? So today, because we just found out yesterday that the number of 180 would not be acceptable and and to base it on parking, I did a deep dive into the cups for religious institutions in Los Gatos. I reviewed eight cups and that's really kind of the majority of the cups for religious institutions in Los Gatos and found that all of them had a stated capacity in their cup. four of them and that included um Calvary Church, Venture Church, Lascatus Methodist Church and Assembly of God had specific calculations

for their maximum capacity. And that calculation is very simple and once again it takes us right back to parking. Parking times 4. So for all of those religious institutions, their capacity is calculated based on parking spaces times 4. And so what I would be recommending again in the spirit of public safety, etc. that we do put a capacity number in on this cup as well to be consistent with the other religious institutions in the town of Lascatos. So, I'm not sure where it would fit here because we have obviously eliminated general hours vehicle limitation, but it might be general hours capacity and that capacity would be set at 720. That is 180* 4. Obviously, you've got a parking lot expansion potentially on the horizon. And it sounds like that's something that could be addressed in the next annual review if that parking lot expansion is addressed. my opinion. Um, at that at this point when we get to late hours, we've talked about needing a reasonleness to expand for late hours.

Commissioner Stump, pardon, I'm sorry. So, that would be Can you tell me how many do you have or because I'm wondering whether we should vote independently on each of them so we don't lose track? Let me just start with two and I'm on I'm on number 12, but I mean it's been eliminated. It says general hours, vehicle limitation.

Okay, thank you. Um, and then it's down below seasonal late hours vehicle limitation. I would change that to capacity. And so for the late hours, obviously there is a capacity that's been set by Santa Clair County Fire Department, which is 869 as a maximum capacity. And so that would be the maximum capacity during the late hours. 720 during general period of time, that's 11 months of the year. and um 869 during the Ramadan period. So that would read general hours capacity and seasonal late hours capacity. It probably could be merged those two items.

Okay. So we have a motion. Is there a second? I guess. Yeah. I move to set capacities for general hours and seasonal late hours of 720 and 869 respectively. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Is there a second? Commissioner Bernett, I will second that.

Uh discussion. Uh question for the town attorney. Um is Commissioner Stump's uh point about uh the calculation four times the uh amount of parking space. Is that consistent with the other religious coops that he uh cited?

Um we've done the math for I think two of the other cups and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was a ratio of 1 to four. That's correct. The ratio of 1 to4 is coming from the town code. The town code requires uh one parking space for every four seats. Um so that's where that's coming from. And we identified two conditional use permits um that this attendance cap was used for.

Um I I guess I would dispute that because I went in and researched today and came up with four that use that same methodology and I I named those. Calvary Church, Venture Church, Lascatos Methodist Church, and the Assembly of God. Okay. So, I'm pretty certain about that.

I We appreciate that. We did hear that. Um, comments by anyone else? I'd like to ask the town attorney whether those proposed changes are consistent with Rupa. Um, in my opinion, yes, because the uh faith would be being treated on equal terms with other conditional use permits that have been issued to other uh congregations in town. And is there a way to know under that law whether there needs to be uh unonymity among the other uh congregants the other in religious institutions with respect to that kind of a limitation on capacity? Um the law just provides that the a public agency can't discriminate amongst different faiths and so I think a court would say you know different faiths have to be treated roughly the same and of of course you can take into account different characteristics of different uses. Do we have a number of I guess there are a number of religious institutions on the comparison chart that do not have such limitations. Is that correct?

Um I think that's correct. Yes. Yeah. And so also another thing is whenever the commission is imposing a condition it it's good to you know specify what the impact is that needs to be addressed and how the condition will address that impact. Commissioner Stump, do you wish to respond to that recommendation by the town attorney?

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? Um, when it comes to a vote, it will be good to articulate on the record what the impact is that's being addressed by any new condition of approval that the town opts to impose on the permit. So, address what what impacts need to be addressed via a condition of approval and how that condition of approval mitigates the problem. I will state the impact to the mosque or the mosque will state the impact.

So the commission if the commission opts to add new conditions of approval as part of the discussion um the record should reflect what the impact is that needs to be addressed and how the condition of approval solves for that problem. I guess I would look back and say one, there's a consistency with other religious institutions in the town of Los Gatos, at least eight of them that um have capacity numbers that have been specifically identified that aren't necessarily set by Santa Clair County Fire Department and that um it's for their safety as well. Uh, and as I mentioned, um, just the overall, uh, you know, public safety, traffic flow, pedestrians, again, we've got 3,500 people a week traveling through that neighborhood. We have 5,000 a week traveling through that during Ramadan. This at least provides some target ceiling. And in fact, I I think what we're going to find, we've said 720, right? That's per service times five, they could have 3,500 people at their site a day. So what is really the restriction? Um it really comes down to this is a capacity number that's established in consistency with other religious institutions in Loscatoos.

Okay. So, let's assume that that's part of your motion. Um, is there any further comment at this point? I I'd like to express my strong opinion that we're religious uh interfering with the first amendment and relupa rights of um congregants to attend the u institution of their choice to express their um to exercise their religion. And uh those points are made by legal counsel in the staff report. Um and um I think that those need to be deeply considered because of the consequences of a violation. So I would be voting against that motion. Uh but if there's no other discussion, I'll call the question. Um, chair, my question though would be then I guess you're saying we're in violation with all the other cups that we have with religious institutions in the town of Los Gats.

I'm addressing the application that's before the planning commission. Yeah, I understand. And I guess I'm sticking with the consistency of what the town of Los Gats has done to date.

And by the way, I respect obviously I respect, you know, your opinion. I I desperately want to make sure that we do things right and I would never want to put you know the town at risk etc. Uh but like I said 720 people per service um that doesn't seem like a real capacity constraint. Uh, I'll just add before we call the question that um if we're not dealing with fire safety with an occupancy limitation, then we're looking at restricting someone's right to uh exercise their religious preference. Commissioner Sordy,

can I ask for clarification from the town attorney on that? I had thought and and forgive me if I'm getting confused here. I thought the question was put to you whether Commissioner Stump's suggestion as long as we justified it properly u by citing the impact um and the rationale for it would not violate our LUPA in your opinion. So, it seemed like your opinion is differing from the chair's opinion,

you know, and that's to be expected because the the courts go in all different directions on these cases and so it's just it's very fact specific. So, it's going to come down to the facts of what is in front of the commission tonight. Um, and so it's it's going to be, you know, those very same uh five factors that we always consider. you know, is it a substantial burden? What's the interest being solved? Is this the least restrictive means? Are we treating this use comparable to non-religious uses? And are we discriminating amongst faiths? And that's the same analysis that the court would do when it comes to a court.

The questions of staff or comments? Commissioner Bernett. Yes, I have a question. So these the four cups of of religious organizations in Lascatus was it identified why they the specific health uh calculations were made? Was it based on safety? Was it based on fire? What what was it based on? Um I don't think uh staff has that information tonight. And that and that didn't come up in um Commissioner Stump's uh inquiry.

Oh, sorry. I'm just speaking for staff's research. Okay. Thank you.

If there's no other discussion, I'll call the question on Commissioner Stump's motion. All those in favor raise their hand, please. We have three and those against do. The motion passes. Okay. Um, there were two parts to your motion. I just want to make sure that we we've captured both of them, right? Okay. Uh, does anyone else have changes to the proposed conditions uh that were presented and and by the town attorney? I don't see any. I have a couple on uh condition 26, the parking lot expansion. Uh it was always my intent that any of those cracks, bumps, or other anomalies be treated on a localized basis, not having a resurfacing of the entire parking lot. And so my provision, my proposal is to say within 6 months of the final approval date, the existing parking lot shall repaired shall be repaired on a local basis so that cracks, bumps, and other anomalies do not unreasonably contribute to additional noise generation of passing vehicles. Uh that's one. I have two more. On condition 28 relating to landscape plantings, uh the applicant shall fill in any existing gaps in plantings or fencing by either planting a hedro and gaps or

perimeter fences, planting a variety of n natural native trees, excuse me, etc. Uh I think that should only be at residential perimeters, not at uh all sides. And my third one was in 33 on activity calendars. Um I was persuaded by the applicants uh materials that that should remain at 30 days rather than 60 days. So I don't know if we want to discuss those individually or move for a I can make a motion to approve all those uh separately combined.

Commissioner Bernett. Yes, I have a question. Did you say on number 33 that you wanted um applicant online calendar pro shall provide at least 30 a 30-day versus 60 30 rather than 60? Yes. And there were reasons articulated for that. So, uh, I'll make a motion to approve those three changes that I just mentioned and looking for a second. Commissioner Mayor, I'll second

discussion. All those in favor, raise your hand. Show I. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. And I didn't hear other commissioners who had changes in addition to the staff's proposals. Can you give just one minute for a quick Sure. Just look it over. Thanks.

You have other proposals, Mr. Oh, okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So now we'll come to the question of whether or not to open the public hearing again for the specific purpose of considering the proposed modified conditions prepared by the town staff and attorney as well as the changes that were approved just now uh by Mr. Stump and uh Mr. Stump's motion and mine. And is there um is there a motion on that? Okay, I'll make a motion to reopen uh discussion based on specific questions that were related by the chair.

All right. Is there a second, Commissioner Stump? All right. Is there discussion? All right. Um, in light of the town attorney's recommendation in this regard, I'll call the question and have those, uh, in favor raise their hand. And, uh, it passes unanimously. So, uh, would it be staff's recommendation that the applicant proceed first, I assume, to address? Yes. To address those. Okay. if you please come forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there a question or should I just address? Well, my preference would be if you look through the red line Mhm. and articulate to us those that are acceptable to the applicant and those that uh are not and for those that are not the reason.

Okay. Thank you so much, Vice Chair Barnett. Uh and also I want to thank the staff and and the town attorney for looking through this thing and proposing uh an alternate set set of conditions. Really appreciate that. Um this is definitely in the right direction but we still have a number of objections to that and I want to highlight that and would like your consideration for that. Um the number one consider um uh objection that we would have is the three-year following approval of the planning commission the compliance review. Um we just went through two years of Ramadan uh just in the past past two years and you can see the the way that we have acted here and have improved our operations in a significant manner here. The amount of expense and the amount of uh uh things that uh our community has gone through over the last uh 21 months has been a tremendous burden for us. uh and we would not like to subject uh to uh again for another three years. Uh so we would like to request that we uh go back to and I have not seen any conditional use permit that has a three-year uh compliance review at least in my uh my uh analysis and I have looked through and spent a tremendous amount of time on every conditional use permit. So I'd like to request that that be scaled back to a single review one year uh from here. So that's that's number one. And I have a few more points over there but happy to answer any questions about that.

Um I don't see any questions. Please proceed.

Okay. Um the second uh one is um I want to come to the parking lot. um in in general the parking lot adding uh additional spaces is something that we would definitely like to do. Uh and however um adding spaces without actually going through fixing the root damage and reconfiguration uh is a um formidable cost uh for us. uh and um it is actually even more this is was something that has not been kind of even though we have been trying to figure out how to plan and fund this thing it has been in a bigger issue for us and um what we would like to do is uh recommend that we be given some additional time for that uh for for adding spaces specifically uh not for the we uh not for the changes that you requested which was to repair uh for from a noise perspective So for adding spaces, we would like to request um uh threeyear uh time period for that because it's not just a matter of adding spaces. We'll have to actually reconfigure the remaining lot and that requires uh the million-doll plus expense.

Understand that. Thank you.

Okay. Uh the third item is that um there was a significant change from our perspective in the language that was made uh for uh from hours of operation to worship of worship services and uh currently um the way that uh what we the way that we operate and this is something that we're already doing today uh is that usually there's always a prayer service and the prayer services immediately typically followed by a brief talk or a brief um discussion uh group essentially a a small discussion group that is handled over there. Uh and on some occasions like for example on Saturdays we typically have something we call fudger and coffee. What that basically means is that we pray the fudger and then we usually have a coffee uh among all of the things. It's the natural thing for us to do in order to uh have a community get together effectively, right? That's part of our normal uh services that we provide uh as part of that. One of the concerns I have is that as you as I have pointed out before um every little language essentially is being sometimes used against us effectively in order to call the police department or the fire department. I spent an hour on Friday with the uh deputy uh fire marshal uh you know because somebody called the fire marshall and said checked our space again as an example. So we are in under intense scrutiny and what I would like to do is request that the language be very clear so that we are not found in violation of small things that happen. So I'd like to make sure that we request that that be changed back to hours of operation ideally because I don't want to say that ah you you can only pray and you must leave immediately after. No you

cannot have coffee afterwards or you cannot have a small group discussion or a talk by our uh religious leader uh there. So I would really appreciate if that can be changed back to the hours of operation. Uh or at a minimum it'd be clarified that worship services followed by any other related activities. Could you explain that last comment please? Uh oh you we're talking about item 12. Condition 12. This is condition 12. Yes. And your objection is to be other activities are limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Yes. So for example, if there is a small talk, a small u lecture as an example uh that's is that's not considered is that okay to have or not okay to have. We do that today. We have after prayer we will have our imam or religious leader um give a small talk for 10 15 minutes. On Saturdays we have like I said fudger and coffee uh where we get together and you know have uh sit around and have in indoors uh coffee. So I want to make sure that we are not in violation of the conditions of uh conditions of use by just calling it worship of worship services.

I understand. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. It's actually also applies to 15 uh sorry 14 lock closure rule as well. Notwithstanding the quiet hours limitation for worship, the parking lot shall be vacated. So that's kind of uh another place where uh the word worship appears as opposed to the hours of operation. The license for all other activities. The parking lot shall be vacated by 10. Is that

no? The first part of that uh I will come back to the last sentence that you highlighted in a minute here. uh lot. So, I'm looking at exhibit 41 um lot closure rule. It starts off with saying not with notwithstanding the quiet hours limitation for worship, the parking lot shall be vacated by 11 p.m. Right. looking I'm looking at 40 I think the marked up copy yeah 15 is a lot closure rule

yeah and just so I understand what specific language is it that you find objectionable based on the closeness of these activities or you might even characterize it as part of the worship.

Yeah. So I would class uh clarify that for worship and related uh related um services related activities. Okay, we can go on to your next one. On the LA lot closure lot closure rule. I have two other items.

Um I would like to request a resident exclusion on that. Uh currently the resident uh they are you know our imams reside there. Uh right now it does not have a resident exclusion over there. So uh would like to request that uh not extending the quiet hours limitation and uh for worship and residents the parking lot shall be vacated. Okay, so that's number one. And um the last one is the last sentence in that that got newly added. It says, "For all other activities, the parking lot shall be vacated by 1000 p.m." Um, I'll tell you the the challenge that we have with this one, which is I don't know uh the the the one of the biggest problems for for us is actually and the reason why we requested a flat 10:30 p.m. uh closure is because there is a tremendous amount of confusion. I don't even know right now there are multiple times listed here in this in this thing. Sometimes it says 10:30 p.m., sometimes 11:30 p.m., sometimes 12:00 a.m., sometimes 10:00 p.m. And it's very confusing and it's very hard for us to manage that. And I don't even know what it means by it says for all other activities, the parking lot shall be vacated by 10 p.m. Notice that in other places it says we will have 30 minutes to vacate the parking lot after the ser after our uh hours of operation. So there is a tremendous amount of confusion that exists over here and we would like that last sentence to be struck out.

Okay, I think we all understand that request. Okay. And then I have one um other final thing. Uh just to clarify um the building occupancy limit uh by fire code today is 869 with chairs and 1,27 without chairs. And we don't have chairs uh or pews uh in our uh in our facility. Of course we use it if there are seminars or things like that for prayer services. We do not use chairs. we have a standing and so the fire building capacity is 1217 at this point in time.

Yeah, if I could just ask a question I recall how many meetings ago now probably two meetings ago we had this conversation because I said please help me understand what happens in your prayer services because I understand obviously in your carpet you have lines that really identify where people will stand. So I said, "When you pray, are you standing the entire time you pray or are people kneeling and um you know prostrating themselves?" And I thought the answer was yes. And that takes up just as much space as a somebody in a seating and sitting in a chair as much as 7 to 10 square ft because a chair is tagged at 10 square excuse me seven square ft of space. So, that's where I'm kind of confused because I've always wondered what is standing room only because that would literally mean you've got people standing for an hour. You've got people standing two hours. And

I think he understands the question. Well, I I'm trying to get a clarification. I think he understands the question.

Yeah. So, I I mean I So, the way that I look look at this is the following, right? Yes. When we pray, we stand, we bow, we prostrate, and we come up effectively. So if I were to line up as as an example then it would be exactly how much it would be. So how much my width is approximately what I'm taking about a foot foot and a half probably and it's about a 4ft um prayer rug. So 4t* 1 and 1/2 is 6 ft approximately. Uh I don't know what the calculation 1217 is but certainly the chairs are much wider than that because I have hands and you know things of that nature and a walkway space and and and so on. So it's certainly uh more uh capacity would be more than 869. So my request would be that we uh look at the building capacity of 1217 and use that uh as a factor. Uh and if you uh uh that so that would be my recommendation for for that. Um

so are you referring to 11 on occupancy limits? Mhm. What that that provision refers to building occupancy established by the fire and building code but it's also in I thought he was probably again we did not have numbers for them chair because I said hour excuse me general hours capacity 720 seasonal a late hours capacity 869 was the number that I put forward and I think that uh Rozie is suggesting that number should be 1217. Is that is that correct? That's right.

Okay. Okay. Was there any further with respect to the written ones or the ones that uh were passed just this evening? Um by Mr. Stump in my motion.

Yes. So I think uh Commissioner Stump's motion was about the 869. So I re commented on that already. Uh in terms of your motion, you had three additional things um that uh I noted which I think um which was uh local uh fixing of the parking lot um

30 days. 30 days and um uh residential properties. Uh we appreciate that as well because one side of the property is on empty land. So we'd like to limit that on the residential properties only. So really appreciate all three of those ones as well. Um I don't remember if there was a second thing that Commissioner Stump had besides the H69 uh thing. Was there any another Yeah, it was setting a capacity for um general hours and that capacity was 720.

Yeah. Um appreciate that. Uh my uh suggestion is to instead of using a 720, use a 4x parking available spot including uh off-site parking that might be available. So if that's okay with you, we it'll come up in further discussion. Uh that's right. Thank you. Uh I don't think I have anything else. Anything else? Okay, that's all I had. We appreciate uh Thank you so much for your time. And thank you.

All right. So since we've opened the public hearing for specific discussion on the altered proposed conditions, uh we haven't had an opportunity to have cards submitted and staff have a recommendation in that regard. Um, I would recommend that people who are interested in speaking um, line up at the mic and then they can submit speaker cards after that. Or alternatively, the commission could take a break to allow for people to submit speaker cards.

I like the second suggestion. Okay, so let's What time is it here? We've got 10:42. Let's take a 10-minute break and we'll continue until 11. Is that correct? Unless there's a motion 11:30.

Um, the time at which a motion would meet need to be made to extend is 11:30. Okay. Thank you. We'll see you back in 10 minutes.

Thanks everyone for taking a seat. Uh so now we're going to uh commence um the further public hearing by hearing from members of the public who wish to speak with respect only to the modified conditions that have been uh proposed uh tonight by the planning commission and those that are in the staff report um in exhibit 40. That's right. or the exhibit 41. Excuse me. So, we'll begin with Lee Canana if she's still here. There you are. Okay. Lee Kintana. Um, I'm not sure I can speak to what you're asking because uh that's a lot of stuff that's been thrown at the the public sort of at the last minute. I never saw the copy of the red line. So, it's hard for me to even uh figure out right now what the changes that are being proposed. Um, I guess that's for you to deal with. However, I've heard um Commissioner Stump Stump looked at four or eight different cups. The the U planning department looked at two. Somebody else looked at I don't know how many. I've looked at some also and I came up with a little bit of different

ideas from some of the things. I really need think you need to see a table comparing all of the church cups so that you can see where there's a discrepancy and make it easier to figure out. Um there's one one church that doesn't have nearly the parking spaces that they had the capacity in the church. They may have spaces in the uh parking district, but I doubt it's enough to make up a discrepancy that you're talking about of of four parking spaces per person or whatever it is. Um to me this has been a very confusing and not well conducted process for a very important application that has lots of implications for everybody in this town. Um, and I'm not here to say what needs to be done, what you should approve, what you shouldn't approve, but I would tell you that on the whole, when I read these conditions, I feel that uh it's almost like you're trying to punish. Um, it's not it doesn't seem like a level playing field to me. And that's just my overall comment.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your one other thing I wanted to say. When there are such changes to have it I guess it was released uh this afternoon. I thought I checked to see for updates. I didn't see any. Uh, but changes like that really need to be available to the public early enough so they can really read them and and digest them and be able to comment um on them. Thank you. Thank you for that comment. Uh, Mr. Ratcliffe on Zoom.

Mr. Rackliff, you can unmute yourself.

Yeah. Hi. Um I'm Jim Rackcliffe. I'm the direct uh neighbor of uh WVMA and uh I wanted to talk a little bit about um the annual conditional use permit review. I think that's super important because um WBMA has doc has a documented pattern of violations of neighborhood uh impacts over the past three years. And this condition is both reasonable and necessary. Public records show 34 reported violations involving non-compliance with town ordinances. This is not isolated incidents but an ongoing pattern that has affected the residents and surrounding neighborhood. Uh and there there have been acknowledgements that rules were knowingly broken which raises serious concerns about accountability moving forward. Um the residents have been have seen little min meaningful enforcement or corrective action especially during evening hours in Ramadan when activity levels increase and many of the most significant impacts occur. Unfortunately reporting and enforcement after 6 p.m. appear limited leaving many neighbors feeling unheard and unsupported. An annual review is not punitive. is practical oversight tool that promotes transparency, compliance, and accountability. It gives the town an opportunity to evaluate whether um permit conditions are being followed and whether neighborhood impacts are being properly addressed. Um until there is a reliable system for compliant for complaint response and ordinance enforcement and annual review remains an important safeguard for the community and for restoring public trust in the process. Um and I would just like to point out Hillbrook um is another entity um and uh re reipa says says religious

and non-religious you can't discriminate. So, um, there's got to be perpetuity here. Um, and I just want to remind the the the planning commission that this CUP modification was about extending prayer the five prayer times and extending hours for Ramadan. Now, it's ex it's it's it's coming. There's so many different things that we're addressing here. It's like they're able to amplify outside. They're going to be able to rent the facility. They're going to have unlimited activities on the weekends. What is the neighborhood getting from all this? There needs to be a balance. Um I I want limited activities on the weekends. Uh I want a cap on the town on the cars um per day. I want some relief from this traffic. Um I just think there there needs to be a balance here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Radcliffe. My next speaker is Michelle S. or me, Michelle. Michelle, thank you. Michelle, thank you. Thank you for coming.

Um, I represent one of the neighbors in the Farley Road Neighborhood Coalition. And I want to make sure people understand that we represent and welcome all religions and cultures both within the people who reside in our space and those who visit our neighborhood. Um, I want to also say that the principles of justice, of having compassion and human dignity did not improve the outcome for the residents and we're very disappointed at the current situation. Um, I think the biggest concern I have with the changes that are being proposed is to revert back to an operating hours philosophy versus the creative idea that the staff came up with of separating out prayer services versus other activities. These new conditions have come so far from the original request from the applicant to have the ability to pray five times a day and extend the hours to support the lunar calendar for their religious practices which we support. Over the last several months and 21 months and four years of having WVMA as our neighbors, these new conditions are exas exacer exasperating the intensity of use. It's not five of prayers. It's coffee. It's social hour. It's food vendors. It's renting the halls for events. It's providing me a threegallon shrub to help me with light pollution. It's completely omitted the resident's mental health and well-being by not comprising any restrictions to the parking along the fence lines by providing meaningful

light and noise um pollution remedies. I would like to respectfully ask that we stay with the current prayer service hours and that the other hours of operation don't be one and all inclusive. I think they need to stand separate in order for us to understand what the rules are and how we can abide by those rules. And the lot closure rule is just piling on another half an hour of my sleepless night. So I respectfully request that we leave all other activities as part of the language and we keep the hours of worship services separate from all other events. Any questions?

I'll ask if there's any questions from the commissioners. I do have a question. Thank you. So if you had your choice of if you we were not able to give the things you did want, would you prefer not to then approve uh the modification based on the instructions for this part of the meeting? I was only allowed to speak to the new language and conditions that were brought forward, which are the three-year objections for the com um review, the parking lot, the hours, and the lot closure rule. And am I missing anything else?

If you want to open up all of them, I can stay here all night. I can guarantee that. Thank you very much. I did I answer your question, though? I guess I had to withdraw my question. I'm sorry. I would love to answer it. Yeah. Anybody else?

No, thank you. Appreciate your your coming and u providing those comments. Uh Mary Hogan is next all. Thank you for considering us again. My concern uh or to address An item that's tonight's topic was the hours. At the March 11th, 2020 planning commission meeting on CUPU20-1, Kareem Sed, community outreach outreach and youth director for WVMA. And the applicant representative stated, "As Diego mentioned, our request is to extend operation of hours from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. to allow the finish of service and people to exit the facility." The meeting was then opened to public comment. A neighbor asked, "How much extension are we talking about? How much more time activity are we talking about?" Commissioner Hood has responded, "Staff report says applicant proposes to expand hours of operation from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. during 30 days annually of Ramadan. Public comment was closed and the applicant was invited back to respond." Mr. Sed stated. So the hours of use that we're extending is from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. And for that amount of time, we're expecting maybe about 5 to 10 cars leaving prior to 11 p.m. around that time. So it's not extensive in terms of congregation that will be leaving at that time. Commissioner Hansen then asked, "And then could you clarify for how long is this going to happen?" Mr. Say replied, "Oh, it's going to be for 30 days starting around the end of April going into May." Commissioner Hansen asks, "So

then for the rest of the year, it would be 10 p.m." And Mr. Sed replied, "Yes." Tonight, regarding CUPU 2410 and the proposed modifications, I would ask I would like to ask the applicant the same basic question the neighbor asked in 2020. How much extension are we talking about? How much more time and activity are we talking about? Because tonight's proposed language appears materially different from what was discussed in 2020. The May 13 draft condition state services shall not begin earlier than 1.5 hours before sunrise or extend past 10:30 p.m. daily except as specified in condition 14 seasonal late hours exception. And under the seasonal late hours exception for a 30-day period during Ramadan, services may extend beyond 10:30 p.m. as follows until 11:30 p.m. when sunset is before 7:30 p.m. until 12:00 a.m. when sunset is after 7:30 p.m. So am I I am asking for clarification tonight. What exactly what exactly is being extended? Is it hours of operation? Is it the time of services may continue or the time by which the parking lot must be cleared? And what level of additional activity is is anticipated after 10:30 p.m.? Will it be 5 to 25 cars?

Thank you. Your time is up, but we are uh asking my fellow commissioner I'm getting tired. My fellow commissioners if they have any questions for you, Miss Hogan, I don't see any. Thank you very much. Can I ask the applicant to reply? What would No, you cannot. I understand your concern, but I'm sorry. Those are the rules. All right. Um, I believe Canon again, but she's spoken. So, Osman Gapor. Gapor.

That's right. Well, thank you vice chair and commissioners. So, I just have a couple of points I just wanted to address. So, again, it's to the the point that Reszi had made about the compliance review, but I just want to add something to that. Um, there's a sentence at the end of that that says this compliance review shall be completed at the applicant's expense. Um, that's a bit vague, so we just want to have a better understanding of what that is. Is it staff's time? Um, so we just want to point that out that the the ambiguity over there. Um and the other point I just want to address is um the driveway options. This is I think in the uh revised um number 24 driveway options. Again some just wording here. The last sentence here the applicant shall ensure that the ingress and egress to the neighboring driveways is preserved. would just prefer to have a bit more, you know, realistic words around that that doesn't make it again ambiguous, which is, you know, the drive the driveway is not blocked would be our preference for that. So, that's the only other two points I'd like to add.

I'm sorry. Can you identify that? Yeah, it's a number 24 of the uh you know, the red line. I still miss it. The driveway operations. Which number are we dealing with? I'm sorry. 24 24. The last sentence there says the applicant shall ensure that ingress and eress to neighboring driveway is preserved. So just again just to get more clarity we just say that driveway our preference is to say is not blocked. Just make it very specific on that. Okay. Thank you very much. Other questions for the speaker? Thank you very much sir.

Okay. Thank you. And the next speaker is Mr. Alahi. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair Barnett and uh planning commission members. Uh thank thank you for this opportunity and thank you for taking the time. I just wanted one clarification. the issue on the eight or 10 churches that have their parking uh ratio 4 to1. I think that's more of a building requirement when you're building a commercial property and there so many square foot for each square foot you have to have so many parking spaces. I don't think the other way works. So, a church has a thousand uh capacity. It it it may be required to have 250 parking spaces, but I don't believe there's a cup violation if,200 people show up for a service in that particular church. What you're asking us to do is to make it a violation of the cup. That does not apply in those eight cases. I don't believe I think churches or other places will have the number of cars based on the number of seat availability when they apply for the permit. But I I correct me if I'm wrong. Does the permit say that if the church goes over the four times limit, you're going to close the church down. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any questions for Mr. Lahi? See any? And the last card I have is for an British. Thank you.

Hi. third member of the bad voice club. Um, thank you, commission, and appreciate all of the time and obvious diligence you've put into this. Um, I live on Farley Road. I live in between Los Scouts Boulevard and the WVMA, so I am in a very, very hightraic area. Um, I haven't spoken yet at one of these, so I'm happy to be able to do so tonight. Um, in light of all the conversation tonight and the addendums that have been discussed around capacity, parking, and public safety, I would like the commission to consider adding permit parking to one side of Farley Road and making another side just no parking. Um, I believe the area around St. Mary's is a good example of this. I've been ticketed there before, so I'm pretty sure that's true. Um, I have a daughter who likes to run through the neighborhood. She does that training for soccer. She used to roller skate when she was littleer and her two older sisters who are now in college did the same. And we had um we we could be assured that they would be safe. Um and now that's just near impossible with the number of cars coming in front of my house on a daily basis. If we're talking 3,500 people a day, that's according to the calculations we've discussed tonight a minimum of 900 cars on any given day. And that's not high season. So, um I think that if we would look at making the street closed to parking to some extent, it would solve um problems around safety, capacity, and this general parking issue that's been at play. Thank you. Any questions? I don't see any. Thank you so much. I'd like to ask staff at this point to comment on two points that were raised. The first one was the uh cost of

presenting a cup through the vice chair. I believe there's another card up there. I I know I collected one from the gentleman in the red hat. Oh, miss. Okay. Thank you very much, Miss Gus.

Okay. Uh, first of all, I think the number of uh 3,500 or whatever. It's It should be the It's the same people. It's like 700. They're just going five times a day. So, basically, it's 700. I know you the trip. What the biggest problem that that happened was they turned into the they turned right into the neighborhood. If if at night they nobody turns into the neighborhood and just goes down and get things, you'll they the neighbors can't complain. Only six six houses can complain. The the rest of the neighborhood they if if anybody in the the mosque just if they had to go back into the neighborhood, they they can drive down Frank Avenue, but just get on Los Gatus Boulevard. And that's that's the biggest thing. Um uh another thing was uh what was I going to say? I forgot my my train of thought. Sorry. Um I'll I'll think of it later. So, you know, I think if you I know this is tearing up the town and uh a lot of people are doing it. This is also 11 11 o'clock at night. We're we're the public can speak when you have a the Brown Act or or something like that. Oh, I know what I was going to say. The um this is more between us and you guys with like uh there's off there's the what is there's um poptart, you know, he has uh parking in in his driveway and stuff like that. That should count or right in front of his house. So, you know, those those types of things. I don't think it should be tied to the parking lot. You know,

there's there's other ways, you know, the the capacity should be like around a thousand. And I think they know that. Thank you. Thank you, guys. And chair, we have a couple more hands raised to join the no voice club on Zoom. Um, first is Courtney.

So, can you hear me? Yes.

Right. Thank you. Um, I actually have uh two points I wanted to point out. The first one is the um annual review. Um, I did share that the cups for the Hillbrook School in Lascatos, the Muslim Community Association in Santa Clara, as well as the Islamic Association of Immigrants in Hayward all contain annual compliance review requirements. Um, so this goes to show that the town is actually not singling out um the applicant here. We're just mirling also um ensuring that it's just really neighborhood compatibility here. So I think that um there are other cups that require annual compliance review. So that's point one. Uh point number two is the application merely states that you know we're really extending of one hour and the key thing is that um to allow the five daily prayers um but as uh we've heard throughout the night um it's the intensification of the use and zoning is far from just the additional hour or five daily prayers. It's activities year round, every day, every weekend and there's no cap to it. Um, so that's some another point that I wanted to point out. And lastly, the third point is the financial burden that the applicant talked about. Um, we come to know that the applicant is in escrow to purchase a property in Certino. That's all was 16 to 17 million and planning to have half a million dollar in terms of um improvement there. Now, for the safety of our neighborhood and this this um and Farley Road um it's over a hundred years old and there needs to be improvement and to put a three years cap on it um is um I I feel that the financial burden is really a choice not a burden here. So those are the three points I wanted to to share with the commission. Thank you.

Thank you very much Courtney. Next speaker is just titled Zoom user. Zoom user, you can unmute yourself.

Oh, hello. Hi, that's me. I'm Kim Ratcliffe and I just wanted to say thank you planning commission for all the work that you have done on this and for reopening the public comments section. Um I wanted to address number 20 the high attendance guidelines. Um, and just let you know that this unfortunately does not address the biggest thing, the the biggest issue, the safety out on our street. Um, you know, it says that the mosque that the applicant is going to remind its members of respectful parking practices and use of onspace sites and car pooling when possible. And I just want to let you know that WVMA is already doing that and we've seen how it works out. There are up to 300 overflow cars parked on our streets during Ramadan. Um, you know, on Friday, a neighbor watched uh multiple people park out on the street and walk into the facility because it's a hassle for them to come out and wait in that long bottleneck uh line to get out. And um you know, I appreciate all the conditions, but it's very confusing and there's conditions on there that will not help us. The deliveries that won't help us. What will help us is putting a cap on outside events. You know, WVMA uses it for weddings and fairs and bizars every weekend. And for example, no other church in Loscatoos uses their outside parking lot for activities. Calvary does not use their parking lot. Faith Lutheran does not use their parking lot. St. Mary's uses their facility for an outside parking lot or for for an event

one time a year for the St. Mary's fair and I'm not even sure they get 5,000 people on one weekend which is what we get um during Ramadan one week. So what I am asking the town planning commission is to hold off on this decision. There's so much subjective information and Commissioner Bernett, last time you said we are just peacemealing this together and the real problem here is the traffic and the unsafe streets and that is not being addressed and I know everyone is trying their best but it's it's you know not working for it doesn't sound like for the applicant and it's definitely not working for the neighbors. I agree with the woman that spoke very at the very beginning. I feel that the neighbors are being punished and we've suffered long enough and we just want to enjoy safe streets and enjoy our backyards and not have to look on WVMA's website and say, "Can we have people over? Will people be able to park?" I don't know. Let's check it out. I mean, we're not asking for a lot for us to be okay.

I'm sorry. Your time is up. Okay, thank you so much. But thank you for your comments. You're welcome. Do we have anyone else on Zoom before 11:30? No more hands raised.

Okay, thank you. Um so with that I'm going to close the public portion of the public meeting and um I guess my proposal is to continue this meeting to a date certain for the purpose of deliberation by the planning commission uh hopefully including vice uh chair Burch uh and go through uh sequentially each of the proposed modifications to the conditions. and um uh hopefully come up with a a decision that's a that's um how can I put this as fair as possible we can be to the competing interests that are valid competing interests uh and deep ones that are at stake in this matter and I know we're going to do our best to try to achieve that

through the vice chair um in anticipation that this may be a possibility and knowing our upcoming calendars, we have three possibilities for a special meeting. Um, one is May 21st, one is June 3rd, and one is June 4th. So, I don't know how many of you have your calendar in your mind or in your pocket. Uh, but um, if one of those is satisfactory to at least the majority of the commissioners here, that would be helpful. You're suggesting that we not do this at a regular meeting because

absolutely not because we have a number of items that are coming up under regular meetings. Okay. So, let me take a minute and look at And maybe so we're not in such a rush, maybe we get a motion to extend the meeting for 10 minutes while folks look at their calendars and then so moved 10 minutes.

Second, Commissioner Mayor and unanimous and then recess. I could do that on my motion. Thank you. Can can you repeat the dates for all of us?

Sure. It's next Thursday, May 21st. 21st. Okay. And then Wednesday, June 3rd or Wednesday, June or Thursday, June 4th.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, reconvening. Um, why don't we start with Mr. Stump, Commissioner Stump, and U State your preference or preferences.

May 21. Okay. Commissioner Shorty. May 21. Commissioner Bernett. May 21. Commissioner Meyer. Um, I prefer June 3rd or 4th, but I could potentially make uh May 21 work, but I know oftentimes the special meeting start at an earlier hour, like 6 p.m. I wouldn't be able to make a 6 p.m. start time. I would be able to make a 7 p.m. start time on the 21st. We would be looking at 7 p.m. Uh, I have a conflict, but I can make it go away. So, uh, the motion, the meeting will be continue to, um, May 21st at 7:00 p.m.

There's a motion and then just need a second and then a vote. Second. That's a my motion. Yeah. I move to set the next meeting at May 21, 7 p.m. Second. I'll second the motion. All those in favor? Okay. Passes unanimously. Uh, is there a motion to continue the meeting past 11:30? We I think we already made that motion to add 10 minutes. So, okay, we should be good.

All right. Glad we did that. Very good. Thanks everyone for your patience and participation. It's it's very much approved appreciated and u perhaps we'll see you on the 21st. And with that, I'll call the meeting adjourned.