Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Here, Kauser, I'm ready to start when you are, but I also am waiting for Kaysar to start the video feed.

Okay. So should we wait for Kaysar then?

We yes. Let's see if can we get his attention up there? I think his name is Ted.

Just checking with Keza. Are you steady? Ready to go? Good evening. I would like to call the Planning Commission meeting for September 10 to order and start with the please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you. I would like now I'd like to ask Cindy to explain the meeting process and then proceed with the roll call vote.

Pursuant to Saratoga City Council's remote public participation policy, members of the public may participate in the meeting in person at the location listed on the agenda or via remote attendance using the Zoom information listed on the agenda. Public attendees participating by Zoom are automatically muted and are not viewable on camera. I will now call the roll. Commissioner Sreedharan? Present. Hassan? Present. Brownlee?

Here.

Zhang?

Present.

Jermarad? Present. Vice Chair Lee is absent. Chair Kausler?

Present. Thank you, Cindy. Going on to approval of minutes. Do I have an action?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Can we please call the roll?

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Aye. Is that one person?

No, I said aye.

No, it's all.

Thank you. Motion passes.

Thank you. Now, moving on to oral communications on non agendized items. Any member of the public will be allowed to address the planning commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding oral communications. Report on appeal rights. Any interested person objecting to the whole or any portion of the decision on this agenda may file an appeal application with the city clerk within fifteen calendar days of the date of

the decision. The city council conducts de novo review of

appeals. Opening for public comments, not on the agenda. We have a note here from Dwight Nixon. Are you Is it for an agenda item? Okay. Which item is it? 6th Street? Okay. Thank you. Frances, do you have any non agenda item speakers?

No. There are no hand raised. Just a reminder that if you're online watching and you wish to speak on an item, please use the tool in Zoom to raise your hand.

Seeing none, we will close public comments and move on to agenda item to public hearings, agenda item 2.1. Now I would like to ask staff to do a presentation.

Thank you. I'll go ahead and share my screen. Just give me a second.

The

2.9 acre vacant project site is located at 13947 Albert Court. The site has an average slope of 30.3% and is located in the Hillside Residential Zoning District, or HR. This is the site plan. Approximately a third of the western portion of the site contains an open space easement and fault setback zone, which is to be kept free of all structures and site improvements. A seasonal drainage swale is located along the southern edge of the site.

Six protected trees were approved by the city arborist for removal, which identified by the yellow Xs on the plan. Nearby homes are a combination of both one and two story structures. Constraints to development of the site include unstable slopes from historic landslides and fault zone setbacks that limit the residential development of the site to the narrow band in the center of the site, colored in blue. The fault lines are the solid black lines on both sides of the building footprint. The combined cut and fill and the grading for projects located within the HR Zoning District is limited to 1,000 cubic yards unless the larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission.

These grading quantities do not include excavation to construct the basement. The applicant is requesting a grading exception for a total proposed grading of 4,258 cubic yards of combined cut and fill. These are the front and rear elevations. The project architect has defined the architectural style of the residence as new traditional Italian Renaissance. The residence will include a 4,371 square foot basementfour car garage, a 3,713 square foot first story, and 2,799 square foot second story.

The proposed height of the residence is 25 feet. A covered loggia is located on the rear elevation, which is accessible from the great room. Exterior materials will include off white colored stucco with gray colored trim. Windows will be bronze colored. The roof will be gray colored slate.

Lees are the left and side elevations. Second story windows facing the side neighbors are relatively smaller in size. Nearest neighbor to the north, which the right elevation faces, is more than a 100 feet away. Proposed landscaping to extreme views from the right side windows will include six olive trees and a hedge planted at the property line. Second story windows of the left elevation are in the master bedroom and have a high sill excuse me, master bathroom and have a high sill height.

The left elevation is set back 34.5 feet from the property line. There are existing trees to block views of the adjacent property, and no additional trees in this area are proposed. This is the floor area floor plan, excuse me, of the 3,344 square foot basement, which include a ten twenty seven square foot four car garage. Uses in the basement will include a game room, dance studio, feeder, and gym. There are no bedrooms in the basement.

The square footage of the basement is not included in the maximum allowable floor area for the site. This is the floor plan for the first story. Floor area will consist of a 3,713 square foot of living space and a seven eighty three square foot de restricted ADU. The de restricted ADU provides the product with an additional 10% or six twenty two square feet of floor area above the 6,220 square foot of total allowable floor area, The total floor area of 6,842 square feet. Interior spaces include a guest bedroom, kitchen, great room, dining room, living room, library, and the attached ADU, which I mentioned.

This is the floor plan for the 2,099 square foot second story. Second story will include four bedrooms and a laundry area. No second story exterior balconies are proposed. This is the landscape plan for the project. The area around the project will be fully landscaped.

The front yard will and areas adjacent to the driveway will include red maple trees, flowering shrubs, ground covers, and grasses. All the trees and tall shrubs will be planted adjacent to the right side of the residence and along the northern property line. Additional landscaping surrounding the building site will include flowering ground covers, vines, and bushes, and grasses. The area at the rear of the residence will include a covered loggia, concrete patios, a swimming pool, spas, and a fire pits. Site fencing will include a six foot tall wrought iron pool safety fence encompassing the entire rear yard area, five foot tall entrance gates with six foot tall stone columns relocated near the driveway entrance.

These are the findings that the commission must make to prove the great exception of the combined cut and fill when the maximum is 1,000 cubic yards or more. Additional grading is required to repair unstable slopes from historic landslides to locate the structure further back on the site to avoid existing fault lines, which necessitates a longer driveway and locating the structure in areas of greater slope, constructing a level driveway turnaround for the fire department, creating level areas around the building for decks, swimming pool, and contouring the site for drainage purposes. Further details of the grading exception included in the staff report. These are the findings the commission must make to approve the project. Staff were able to make all design review findings to recommend approval.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 20 five-fourteen approving the application for design review and a grading exception for the project to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of grading. That concludes my report.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for the staff at this time? Seeing none, I would like to invite the applicant to please come up and make a presentation. And you have ten minutes for it.

There we go.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Michael Davis. I am the designer for Harvey and Al Wang. This is their family home that they've designed on Albarr Court. This is the last site to be developed on Albarr Court and in the subdivision.

Can you please speak closer to the speaker when you get back there? Thank you. To the mic, I'm sorry.

Thank you, Cindy.

Let me just figure this out here for a moment. Perfect. So I want to thank Christopher for his two years working with us on this project. It's been a long time. As he pointed out, there's been challenges with the site, with the geology of the site. We have two faults that go across it. There was extensive work done to find out where those were. The yellow that you see on the screen, that is where we can build a house. There is no living areas to be outside of that. Those are the setbacks for those two faults that we have on the site.

So I have a sliver there and then we also have some topography that we have to work with as well. That got us to design a two story home that you see before you, that's presented before you. The two story is narrow side to side. And with that narrowness, we put a full basement and a garage down below. When Christopher mentions grading and the grading quantities, we'll get to that in a second, but the garage at the lowest level is at existing grade.

The entry level, the back loggia that Christopher mentioned, that is at grade at the back. So any of the grading behind the house is dug into the hillside to create the rear yard areas for the pool and some patios and the like in the rear yard here. The front of the home, we have a driveway to access the site, but it is up a little steeper slope, So there's some additional grading there that is needed. Two of the things that Christopher mentioned on the grading quantities. We have an ancient landslide that has to be taken care of and mitigated.

That is about 1,700 yards of that quantity that was mentioned earlier. The driveway that we have here over the two years that we're working with planning, fire department was rather difficult and they would not allow us to widen albar cord at the top and put a hammerhead. So we had to redesign and put the turnaround, the fire truck turnaround on this site in front of the house. Of course, that took off all the flat area. And that's where the fill that you see in the quantities is for that fire truck turnaround because we can only be 5% coming across that fire truck turnaround.

So with those two things, it really added up in terms of getting us well over that 1,000 square foot of cubic yards for a hillside. So that's why we're asking for the exception to that. Some of the things on the design of note here, Go the other way. There's our fire truck turnaround that's dotted in red. You see that that takes up that whole front area.

The houses in the neighborhood, you know, one of the findings is, does this home fit with the neighborhood and designs of it? These are the houses right around ours. One single story is bottom right, but the others are two stories in the neighborhood, and our immediate neighbors. Here is the house that sits on the site. We have increased setbacks all the way around here.

The front, of course, is to get the driveway up to where we have to have our home located in that geologic safe zone, if you will. A lot of distance from us into the northern house, very little impact to any privacies. The south side of the lot has existing trees that cover that side. There is no privacy issues there. Open spaces up above us to the west and down to the street in the east.

This will be the least seen home on Albarr Court because of the existing vegetation. This is our streetscape as we go up Albarr. It's a sloping street as we go up. You can see ours is to the left and whatnot, and the height of the houses that are north of us. The reason ours looks a little lower, our roof pitch is designed to match the existing slope of the property, further integrating that into the hillside.

Floor plans that Chris went over. Our floor area diagram. Exterior elevations. One of the great things about this is, of course, we meet the height in the Sea Of Saratoga's hillside. But above the existing grade today is 23 foot above that at any point.

The highest point of this house is only 23 feet above that. Everything else is cut into the hillside basically, integrating the design into the existing topography of the lot. Side elevation, you can kind of see that existing grade line on the right side of this. You see where the garage is, that existing grade line goes up, and then we cut and we touch the existing grade on the back of the home. Rear elevation, the other side elevation.

And then the cross sections again showing where that line of the existing grade goes through the house. Again, the basement of course is fully underground other than the garages. And then the rest of the home is a two story. Landscape plan. We have additional trees. There is replacement trees on here by the city arborist. And those are incorporated mostly along the northerly property line to help any other mitigation. There is a pool on the northerly property line that we want to give some screen to as well. And some trees coming in on the driveway. That concludes my presentation. I'm here for any questions that you may have on the design of this home.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Go ahead, Barthi.

Were there any neighborhood comments?

We heard no neighborhood comments. When we sent out the letter, we heard no neighborhood comments that got back to us. Thank you.

Clinton? Okay. Anyone else? Thank you so much. We're going to sorry, we can't take questions from the audience, but you can be a speaker.

Now we're moving on to public comments. And Frances, do you have any online? I can start with the ones we have in the audience.

Yeah, please go ahead with the ones you have there. People online, if you would like to speak, please raise your hand down Zoom.

Our first speaker is Maya Utesis. And you have three minutes for your comments.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, everyone. I probably don't need three minutes. I am the house and I'm always confused if it's the right side or the left side, the house that was labeled as one story, but it's actually a two story house. And as neighbors, we're on the bottom of the steeper side of the new projection, new project. And we're really worried about the landslide and the drainage.

It's an area that's already been affected and we're literally on the bottom. And as the presenter mentioned, that is the steeper side project. And so we're just worried about protecting our house. And the second, about the trees, there are several trees that are being removed on the side adjacent to our house, and that's the house that has all the main living area, kitchen, and our terrace. And so removing the trees does affect our privacy, and so we're worried about the privacy. So that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker is Nancy Bosenberg. So. Please come to the mic.

I don't need a mic. I'm a neighbor across the street from the property that you're talking about.

Please speak in the mic because it helps with the recording. Thank you.

Oh, the recording. Yes. I'm sorry. And I am objecting to the fact that you're taking 4,000 plus cubic yards, is that it? Cubic yards?

Out of this hillside that I know for a fact I've lived across the street for thirty eight years. And I know that there is an underground water. I feel really sorry for mister and missus Wang because if you put a basement in that property, I don't know what's going to happen to that house. What I think is that it's great. I've known the Wangs for thirty five years.

And I signed the paper saying it's great, you know, live and let live for a house across the street. I wanted to be a good neighbor. But I didn't realize of the instability that's going to happen to that property when you put a basement in there. And I don't know of one house in Saratoga that has a basement. I'm sure there's some.

I'm engineers these days can do it. But I'm saying, I'm just saying, I'm worried about the stability of a house. And 10,000 square feet is huge. Why can't they just have a house instead of maybe 6,000 feet? But not 10.

Cutting through that hillside is going to be a disaster.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Davis.

That was me.

Oh, okay.

But am I available to talk again?

Yes. You'll have closing statement, five minutes.

Starting now?

No. We haven't closed public comments yet. Do we have any speakers online, Frances?

No, we do not.

Okay. So now we're closing public comments and would like to invite the applicant back to the podium for closing comments. And you have five minutes.

Thank you. Thank you for the neighbors with the comments. In terms of basements in Saratoga, we do it quite often. It is a concern with water and of course we designed to mitigate that with the basement design with the draining rock behind it. Of course the waterproofing behind it, drainage underneath and whatnot.

As I mentioned earlier at the start of the presentation, the amount of geology work that was done on this site, and I don't know if the neighbors saw the trench that went across this, Quite extensive, quite wide, quite deep to verify any of the concerns that we have, whether it's liquefaction, whether it was the slide, certainly the drainage issues. So, it has been studied ad nauseam and we're quite confident in the design structurally of this house. The landslide that was mentioned by the neighbor that's to the south, that is on the top right part of the property. So that's not going to affect her at all. And of course with the mitigation measures we have to do with all the grading, that would be solved.

The neighbor also downhill of us, in terms of the trees that are being removed there, One of them is dead. There are three others that she is correct that we're removing but they're not in good shape. They're rated at a two on a scale of four. And then the two others are higher up the hillside and there's also plenty of trees on our property line that would help with any type of privacy issues. But we can certainly propose working with a neighbor, any of the replacement trees to go along that southern side.

And we could work with the neighbors to find that out. But again, we're quite confident in the design. Certainly us as the designer, certainly as our civil engineer, our structural engineer, and how we've designed the basement and the size of the home. It fits well within the neighborhood because of the size and the massing of the other houses. And with the privacy that we have built in with our existing vegetation, we're quite comfortable with it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any, before we close this, any questions for the applicant? Go ahead.

So if I understand your statement correctly, you're happy to work with a downhill neighbor to put in additional planning for privacy?

The trees and locating those, any replacement trees we can put along that side.

Thank you.

Yes, Clint.

Yes. So, heard about the drainage system. I'd just like to know, it's on the very steep slope, right? So, you're basically the second house and you have another house that's down the hill. So basically during the rainy season, right, so how is your drainage system can take care of the flooding? In case there's a very big rain like in for a couple of days and do you have like some kind of temporary storage you can store the water Just let the, or you just let the water go and Can

you speak in the mic please?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So, yeah, my question is do you have a trenching system design which can prevent any of those flooding situation?

Most definitely. One of the trees that's being removed is being removed for the fire truck turnaround, but also our retention pond that's in the higher side of the property. So any of the drainage coming around the house goes to that retention pond and it's released onto the street and controlling that. And then of course, we do have that existing swell that's to the southern side of the property. But most of water will be collected, put in that retention pond, and then released. Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Clinton, you had a question for the applicant?

It was the same question about drainage and runoff from water.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Now we're closing public comments and bringing it back to the commissioners. Discussion? Questions? Go ahead.

I just wanted to lead off and say that I thought given staff's presentation and the other presentation that we heard that it looks like a well designed project for the site. It looks like there's a lot of really challenging architectural design issues with that site, but they've taken them into account. Citizens brought up a lot of important points about the difficulties of the narrowness and removing the fill. And there's been a lot of geological analysis to confirm that what they've designed is going to be sufficient. And there were concerns about water runoff and privacy.

And it looks like there's been, again, designs to help with the water runoff heading towards a neighbor's property to mitigate that and put it onto the street. And then also agreeing to work with the neighbor to do additional shielding and trees and plantations to make sure there's privacy between the properties. So overall I think I agree with staff's recommendation to approve the project.

Thank you. Any other comments or discussion? Seeing none, can I have a motion, please? Go ahead.

I have motion to go ahead and approve the apology.

And a second? We have a motion and a second. Please do the roll call vote.

Shriharan? Aye. Hassan? Aye. Brownling?

Aye.

Zhang? Yes. Jermerad? Aye. Chair Kauser? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you so much. Moving on to item number 2.2. Can we have the staff report, please?

Just one moment while I share

the setup.

Do we have to close that window over there? I

think it's that computer. Right? Is it that one?

Alright. Thank you, chair. For this project at 14650 6th Street, the applicant is appealing to the Planning Commission, a recommendation from the Heritage Preservation Commission or HPC to reject the proposal to remove the property from the heritage resource inventory. So some background, this property is currently listed as a historic landmark on the city's heritage resource inventory and is considered a historic resource under CEQA. The applicant is seeking to remove the heritage resource designation to construct an addition which would be reviewed under a separate permit.

So the property was added to the city's heritage resource inventory back in 1988 as the Nardi House as it is colloquially called. The basic historical surveying at the time found the property to meet two criteria of our heritage code. The property is located just below Big Basin Way. It is Zone CH 2. Surrounding uses are a mix of residential and commercial.

And no surrounding properties are designated heritage resources. This application for removal of the designation went to the HPC on July 8. The HPC recommended to reject the proposal for removal, finding that the property continues to meet the required criteria to be included on the inventory. And that recommendation is what's being appealed here. So subsequently, a further historic resource evaluation was prepared by Evans and DeChazzo for the property.

As noted in the evaluation, the house has been relocated to its original construction with many features removed, and it was further modified to be raised up to accommodate below garage parking. The evaluation described that the house has undergone significant alterations over time such that the current house is now considered to be a poor example of the Queen Anne design. The evaluation concluded that the house does not retain sufficient integrity for inclusion as a heritage resource with it no longer meeting the historic resource criteria, including criteria a and c, which were the basis for its original inclusion. So in light of the historic evaluation done for this property, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the property does not meet any of the required criteria to be included on the city's heritage resource inventory and adopt resolution number twenty five fifteen recommending that the city council approve the proposal to remove the property from the heritage resource inventory. And that concludes staff presentation.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? Go ahead. Yeah. Paul.

Yeah. A quick question. In the appeal letter that we got from John Dominique in the introduction, he says that the Planning Commission's first conclusion on the matter, was correct, was to remove the designation. I was wondering what that's referring to. I didn't, I'm not aware of the Planning Commission's first conclusion on the matter. I

think there was a separate application a while back. I'm sure the applicant can expand on that more. Okay. Ask it wasn't something recent.

I'll ask the applicant then. Yeah.

Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, I would like to invite the applicant to please come up. And you have ten minutes to speak. Can you please turn on the mic? I think it may be off. Try again.

Thank you. Hi. Good evening. My name is Kristen Maslich. I'm here joined by my husband, Ismar Maslich, and our two beautiful children, Dino and Amina. We're the proud homeowners of the beloved yellow house on 6th Street. And just wanted to kind of very briefly introduce, we certainly have experts here today, our lawyer dean and architectural historian Stacy to speak on our behalf. The house is very important to us. My husband has been a business small business owner on Big Basin Way for nineteen years. We're members of Saratoga Country Club for the past thirteen.

We've been together fifteen years and the house is we're thankful to friends and family who've come also and also to members of the community who quite possibly feel as passionate about the house as we do. Our plan is just to do a small addition and preserve what we can, but kinda do an addition to the side that is severely compromised and add some square footage. But I'll let our experts speak to that. And thank you so much for your time this evening.

Thank you.

A little shorter. This is Stacy DeSheazzo. Nice to see you, Commissioners. Hello, Cindy and Kyle. I don't know if there was a presentation that is available that was submitted that you could roll now.

So I just prepared a small presentation. I'm sure you got a lot of information from the historic resource evaluation. Yes, that one, correct. And then how do I, is this a, this just a regular computer, not a Mac?

All right.

We're just going to kick off here. Just a little background. We do recognize and don't take lightly requests for delisting as professionals. I've worked a lot over the years, many, many years in Saratoga on a lot of projects here. And this one took us for an interesting sort of wild trip because we found out a lot about Saratoga going through this movement of this house. So it was really fascinating actually. So it was a privilege to work on it. This house. Your slides aren't moving. Oh they're moving. Oh they're not. Maybe we'll just watch it

on the big screen. It's not coming on our small screens.

Okay. Sorry about that. So anyway, we do recognize that obviously being locally listed is a historical resource under CEQA. Often, as you all probably know, things that end up on like the 2,009 list are really often done as a reconnaissance survey. So there's some reconnaissance that goes on, usually a drive by, a couple of photos, a very small amount of research.

And this happens in every city in California, just about every city that has enough sort of resources there. So things get listed and are often not understood. So like this house. So a lot of the research, which is again I mentioned was an interesting trip for us, but we found out a lot of interesting things about this. We do recognize that the house we believe at one time likely did hold significance.

You know, when it was originally constructed back in its original location. We do not know what that house looked like. We only have the outline of it, which has helped us understand what's missing. And the sort of one third of the back end being lopped off, the porch has been reconstructed, things like that. The whole lifting of the building.

So it's gotten to a point where it does not convey significance for Queen Anne for local, state, or any other listing. So for the California registers, we know the HRE was done so that we could exclude it. We have to either include it or exclude it. So our questions to us as we do the research is to come up with findings. So California register not eligible.

Then we move on because then we have all cities have their own, or many cities have their own criterion that we have to look at. We work a lot in San Jose and they're very complex. We also work a lot in Berkeley and they are extremely complex. So we go through everything and take everything into consideration understanding that the city has its own set of criteria and things that are of value to them and things that are important. So a lot of times what we'll do is to find out what you have and what is significant and what's still available to convey significance for this style.

You have two really beautiful buildings, which we do something called a comparative analysis. It's something that's part of our guidelines and our instructions from the State Office of Historic Preservation. When we're wanting to explain why we would recommend something for delisting. And this is the reason. So not only is the integrity missing from the design, materiality, setting of the circa 1895 house, It doesn't convey that significance and it doesn't have that roof design that is what Queen Anne is about.

It's just not there. And there's been a lot of replacement information. The other thing I'd like to say, so these are two great examples. So this is something that the city obviously you want to consider as your delisting. So let's say it was the last Queen Anne in Saratoga. The last one, well that could be a value, but it's not. So one thing I do know that there's a plaque on there and that pains me because there's a plaque. But what you could do is use, still placard it, tell the story, delist it, still placard it, but tell the story of the history. Did it moved? Who owned it?

What happened to it? How it got there? Little things like that, I think are of great value for the community. And I think those things, and I don't know if that can be a condition of approval, but those types of things are of real value, think, especially when you're delisting. Because you do want to, we put some other signage up in other areas where something's no longer there, or you know, maybe its significance has changed over time. But, so I think, I don't know where we're at with time.

Oh, almost three minutes.

Okay. I'm going to conclude. And then I'm going to, if you have any questions just let me know.

Thank you. Dean Rossi. I always leave the attorney with the least amount of time here. I'll be very quick. I'm also a resident of Saratoga. I come to these things quite a bit. Never to Saratoga. Nobody wants to hear from a lawyer, but I'm also a resident of fifty years. I live in Saratoga now and have kids. I went through all the school system here.

And I appreciate, and the Maslachas appreciate it as well. I'm not sure how to get to the slides here. Well, I don't want to waste my time getting to it. If you look at what they're proposing, they're not changing the exterior of the home. What they're doing is they're adding to the side where the four car garage was already added.

This house was moved in 1925, lifted, and a four car garage was eventually put underneath it. What the proposal is, is not to necessarily change the exterior of the home, which the experts have shown does not meet the criteria of a Queen Anne home anymore, because of the changes to it. Not changing the exterior, they're keeping it, which I think keeps with the integrity. I think my clients recognize that there could be a public desire to keep the home as it is, and they're trying to do that. The question becomes, though, does it meet the criteria over this code of city of Saratoga to maintain it as a historical landmark or historical designation?

I don't think it does. And I think the HPC, when they looked at this, if they followed the criteria under Chapter thirteen fifty point zero one zero, what you'll see is the criteria aren't met. And I think here, you know, we have to keep with the integrity of what the code says, and not think about the emotional component of this, and look at the facts of what the building is, and what the code requires. And I think here the code unequivocally requires it to be delisted, not because we're making huge changes, but because we are also trying to endeavor to keep the integrity of this property. I think some of the things like adding the plaque, for example, could be a great step because, again, the house has changed both in appearance and also in use.

It's no longer a residential home. It's a commercial it's used for commercial spaces right now. So I think with all of those things, it's lost its designation. It's no longer the house it once was. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Go ahead, Badri. Once you ask the question, we can see who will need to come up and answer.

I have two questions. One may be for the city.

Let's just do with the questions from the applicants right now.

So the question from the applicant is, I think you mentioned that the house is not in the kind of condition that deems it to be historical. I mean, I heard about the condition of the house. The question is, does this indicate any degradation after the house was deemed a heritage house or was it always that way? Are you saying it was incorrectly marked as a heritage house or has the condition degraded over time?

Yes and yes. So, as I mentioned before, and this is sort of walks down that road or that path that you're going on, that a lot of the things that are listed locally in cities were done in a reconnaissance way. So a very quick, often without the knowledge of understanding of the building. And it's very common. And what you want to do is when a project comes up or a change or something happens, then you want to revisit it.

So we do the HRE to because now we have a project, right, to regather the information. The state does encourage that cities swoop through their entire inventory every five years, but nobody can afford that. So many, many cities are in the same same situation where, yes, it if I had been there when it was you were going on the reconnaissance and I knew what I know now, I would not have listed it or wouldn't have recommended for listing. Yes. And also other changes have occurred since the listing.

Got it. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant? Go ahead, Clint.

I guess just a quick one. There's criteria we're looking at in thirteen-15.010. And then we have the analysis of the project relative to those. And I think on one of the slides you were addressing them point by point. And but some of the language in it is something like lack of integrity with the Queen Anne design or retains low integrity with that style. Can you just elaborate on that type of definition? It sounds

Are you referring to the California Register evaluation?

And yours, I believe maybe two slides up you were going through the eight criteria in the city code and just touching on, you know, point by point. And I found that really valuable.

Okay.

And just wanted to look at those and also talk about some of the language where it might just be. Is there some within heritage designation or code meaning towards that wording of low integrity with? Or is it just some phrasing to say it doesn't really meet that anymore? Like what's the use of that phrase?

Yeah, love that you're asking this because this is a really, this is something, you know, we go through in our master's program. It's a very interesting sort of dynamic. Something can be significant or be of value, right, architecturally or for an event or something. But it also has to retain integrity to convey that significance. So something, let's say it's a ruin and then maybe it's no longer architecturally significant, but does it still have integrity to convey significance for an event, say, Gettysburg, right?

Things like that. So integrity, what we do is we try to avoid the word unless it's completely horrifying, no integrity. So we usually use terms like low or you know, some integrity, those kinds of things to let you know we do recognize that if a lay person walked down the street they might go, oh, that's an older house. So, it's that kind of thing and that type of term where we will put adjectives in it just to not be not not unless it's completely harsh and like this is hideous and what have you done? Then we do usually use those kinds of terms.

So Thanks, Rolla.

Oh, you're welcome.

Thanks.

Go ahead, Herman.

I have a question. Thank you, sir. Thank you, chair. So I was reading the can you hear me? Okay. So I was reading the peer letter. I believe once upon time, Can I consider read them the mic? Oh, sorry. On 07/08/2025, HPC used to consider the criteria, the applications they consider the house is not really meeting the criteria or to be included into the inventory. So they actually, once upon time, they decide to remove it from the inventory. So is that true? And if that's true, what actually happened? They are turnaround to not approve the application.

Adam, just so I make sure I understand your question, in July 2025, did they use the criteria?

No. They actually can't they did some preparation before the hearing, right? There's a hearing on the 07/08/2025.

That's correct.

So, they think okay, they had some kind of discussion. They think the house is not really meeting the criteria, which is supposed to be included in the inventory. And, they actually want to remove it from the inventory. So, what happened during the hearing? So, why the outcome is totally different?

I don't know what changed at the time in July 2025. There was the public outcry. I'm not sure if some people stood up and assuade the members to change it, but I think the recommendation was accurate at the time that they were going to delist it. For some reason, unbeknownst to us, they decided to change it. And that was kind of my point is I don't think, the criteria were followed.

If you use the experts' reports and talk about whether the criteria met looking back historically, either at Section A, a special element of cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic engineering. If it met that, it was a no. And Section C, distinctive characteristics of style, type, and period. And then, in addition to that, if you read the code, it also has to retain a substantial degree of architectural and structural integrity, which I don't think it's met pursuant to the experts, to experts reports that get there. Now, again, I think the issue here is, is it old?

Yes, it's old. It was moved. It was built in 1995 and moved in 1925. But the question becomes, does it meet the criteria? And because it changed so substantially, it lost the back half of the building when it was moved from it was the existing location of the current Saratoga Library, is where it was originally. And I think it moved across the street for a little bit, and then back to 6th Street. So it lost a lot of its integrity. And then the fascia, and as Nachaise talked about in her report, changed considerably. So why they changed that recommendation initially? I do not know why. Okay.

So, you think the outcome from that meeting was the decision was a subjective decision, it's not an objective decision. Is that correct?

Yes, it is mine, only because there was no objective criteria to show that the criteria under the code section 15.01 was met.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead, Paul.

I'm trying to create a timeline of what's gone on here. Could you please talk about when the property when the house was built again? I didn't quite hear the dates clearly from you. And also when it was moved. And then would you go through each of the criteria on the board and tell me at what date the house no longer met that criteria?

So I'll, yes, I'd be happy to let you know. So the building we believe was constructed in circa 1895. And that's just based on historic Sanborn maps. We did, drove over and found even new, really fantastic city photos, black and white city photos. We've got a lot of, we've got a trove.

I'm going to be sending it to you guys just so you have it in your archive. It was moved in circa 1925. So at that time is when they pulled off or left behind whatever happened to the last I've never seen that happen though, by the way, in a moved building. Because there are buildings that retain integrity that are moved. The back third was pulled off. And then the garage, was that 2000 or 1990?

Think it was Like, before '7.

Yeah. Think that was done before it was listed, which is right? Because it was listed in, was it 1990? Yeah. So that was odd. I can't speak, as we were talking about earlier, I can't really speak to how that ended up on the list. I think they were just recommendations and there was a group of them and they all just got listed. And and that's okay because that that happens in many cities. So, I think it did not retain integrity once it was moved. And integrity is setting, feeling, materiality, design.

They redid the porch as well, and I think the porch was redone in the nineteen thirties. So the the or actually more recently, the porch was redone. So the porch is not original, the front porch.

Which date?

I'd have to look on my document, but it is in the historic resource evaluation, Kyle, in that first paragraph, it should say it. I believe that was the same time they did garages, which is very I've never seen that done. Let's never do that again. That is lifting up all that stuff. It really just changes everything.

It also changes your entryway, like your stairs. We don't know what the stairs look like when someone approached, if they were really long ones or because once you change a porch, it changes the the number of treads you might have. It the railings are gone. Yeah. So you can see what tells you it's a Queen Anne is that bay in that front pitch. Right? And maybe the scales, but nothing else. There's nothing else there that's original. So it was a series of things. So our dates are 1895 construction, 1925, circa 1925 for the move.

And then the changes, there were changes, know, they're hard to track because there are no permits, things like that. So we're basically looking through records such as aerials or sandborns, things like that. But I think the majority of the damage that was done to the house was between 1925 and 1990. Yeah. That that that created the situation where it lost integrity.

So it's sort of just a and it was kind of a handyman thing, I think, that was going on, which a lot of people did. And then, Kyle, do you know what year it was converted started it was converted to office or when that zoning changed. Right? Or the when they allowed that. That was in that same time period of the nineteen nineties?

Yeah. I believe it was around when the the garage was added. So late eighties, early nineties.

Yeah. So I hope that helps

a bit. Can you say that again?

The docs here say it's 1986.

'eighty six.

So it was listed in 1990, if I heard you correctly.

And Kyle can confirm that.

1988 it was Okay. Added to the Historic inventory, yeah.

Okay. And so if I

Paul, look at can we finish questions with the

Yes. I asked her for the dates of each of those eight points. I haven't yet heard the answer.

Do you have the dates on those points?

So these points that are up here? Mhmm. So the house there's no we don't put dates to we wouldn't break it out in dates in there like this date it lost this or that. What we look at is the overall building or property. So we look at the integrity of the overall building.

Criteria A, it's taught, you know, I'll just read the statement which is just the house lacks integrity to exemplify or reflect special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. One of the things, and as I spoke of before, one of the things we do to convey that is do those comparative analysis, which is at the direction of the California Historic Preservation Foundation. So it's a way that we can sort of explain why something isn't what, as good as you might think it is or, may not retain integrity. So but we don't necessarily say on this date, this is what happened. It's really sort of a cumulative effect for this house specifically.

Okay. So I'm going to put out a statement trying to help you answer my question.

Okay. Great.

I hear you saying that prior to 1988 criteria a was not met. Is that true or false?

I don't I would say no as an arc as a professional. I don't know if this was the same criteria written at that time. I don't know if if the city can confirm that. I don't know if these

No. I'm not asking for whether that was a criteria at the time. I am asking you in 1988 that house did not meet criteria a.

Not for California register. I can't Does it? Yeah. I'm not sure if this criteria was what they were basing the listing on. That's Right. What I'm

Yeah.

I don't know. If they were, no it doesn't.

Okay. So at what time was criteria A created?

Oh, I have no idea. I mean that would be something

Oh, you just said

that you

didn't think that criteria A existed in 1988.

No, I said I don't know. It may not have been what was applied to the listing. I'm not sure at that time. I mean, we work in

It should have been applied to the listing though. Correct? If it's a historic Well,

think Cindy wanted to add something.

Okay.

Yeah. So I I pulled up the resolution from 1988. Great. There were 80 homes that were added to the list at that time.

Mhmm.

This was one of them. And it listed criteria a and c in that document. Mhmm. As to how they made that determination, the records are not clear.

Okay.

Yeah. And just to be clear, you know, like I said, many cities have their own criteria and we have to have knowledge of all of them. And we have to apply them. And sometimes they really go beyond the bounds of what we would do as professionals. Sometimes they're poorly written, sometimes there's they're complicated. And that's why, you know, it's obviously important to have these public dialogues and what's listed and what what gets delisted because the values of the city are are what's important. You know, what's of value to the city. And we address that, you know, consistently in other cities. So it changes though in every city we go in.

Yeah. So then maybe not to you, but to the applicant. So since 1988 we think that criteria A and C were never met. The question would be why did none of the owners remove allow it to be listed in the first place and did not remove it since?

Well, that's an impossible question as to know what a prior owner did and didn't do and what their motivations were. I wish I could go back in time and figure that out. I just know right now, if you look at the criteria A, the experts here tell us that it doesn't meet it. And it seems pretty plain based upon the fact that the condition of the property has changed considerably. What the whether there was some other motivation in 1988, we don't know what happened in 1988. But we know now that it was improperly applied then because the conditions there were a third of the house was lost when it moved. The face

I understand change all that. I'm just trying to get to the dates.

I appreciate the desire to get the date. The problem I'm having answering your question is I'm not sure if it's a date issue. Because I don't know why someone did or did not do something in 1988, and between 'eighty eight and now, why no one previously tried to change things. Maybe they were happy with the designation. I don't know. But I know now, looking at it, objectively, it doesn't meet the criteria for Section A.

Okay. So, at what date was the current house purchased by your client?

I believe in

February.

Yeah, February 1925.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, we're going to move into opening for public comments. And Francis, I want to go first and you can, anybody who's online can please raise your hands and Francis will call you after we're done with audience. Our first speaker is Dwight Nicholson.

On the

base. Hey. I support Ismar and his wife's request to take it off of the list. I first moved here from Oregon in 2006. I was counterintuitive. What can I tell you? And I moved into Congress Spring Springs Place essentially across the street from this house. When I first got there, this house was there and there were two really scruffy sort of cabins. And both those cabins in the meantime have left and transitioned into nice looking houses. So it has really kind of brought up the value of the area.

And I think what Ismar and his family wants to do is to improve the look of this house. And it too will contribute to the quote unquote beauty or however you want to look at it, neighborhood. So, because of that, I think it's a good idea to remove it from the listing and let Ismar and his wife improve the house for the community. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marilyn Marchetti.

Hi. I'm Marilyn Marchetti. Good evening, commissioners. I have been a Saratoga resident for thirty five years and I live three doors down from this property. I was on the Heritage Preservation Commission for eight and a half years previously. And I'm currently on the Saratoga Historic Foundation Board of Directors. But I'm here representing myself right now. And I have a lot to say about this property, living there for thirty five years and knowing previous owners. So I could probably answer questions better than there's anybody here. But the applicant has hired a company to convince, in error, that this home no longer qualifies to be a city landmark, even convincing an uninformed staff.

But it does continue to meet the Secretary of Interior Standards criteria, even though it's been moved. And even though it's been raised to allow for a garage and put right back down in its original condition. That home actually even still has the old pulleys that raise and lower the windows and has the weighty glass. That's how old that is. Previous owner took very, very big pride in that home and kept it in its original condition.

The DPR that archives and architectures did a while back proofs that it still qualifies. And they did that after the house was moved and after it was razed. The HPC recognized that and understood everything very clearly and appropriately denied the removal from the landmark list. I don't want to run out of time. I have some pictures I want to show, but you've already seen those so I'm not going to bother with that.

But I do want to show, I've reviewed the applicant's plan here very, very closely. And they can accomplish everything they want to do without removing the landmark status. So I don't even understand why they want to remove it from the landmark status. They even probably could qualify for the Mills Act if they like and get a significant tax return, even though they are remodeling and adding a portion and not disturbing the original look. I know you've already seen all these, but in the picture here that they're adding, I had a larger picture here.

Here it is so you can see it from where I am. They're not disturbing the original building. They're not disturbing this at all. They're just making a change on this place where there's a driveway and the garages. So, I don't understand why they even want to take it off the landmark status. And I'm hoping that they're going to reconsider and not remove it from the landmark status. Because all they need to do is maybe do a different kind of siding or something on the part that's the renovation. And it still would qualify for even the Mills Act. So, I do want to mention that I told you I live three doors down. It's a lovely plan.

It would be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. But it's not worth sacrificing the loss of a landmark. And I think I can answer questions. Am I allowed to answer questions they have? Any questions?

No. I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm not allowed to? I thought if you had questions I could answer.

No. Not public speakers. Only the applicant.

Oh, okay.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian Schutzler.

Yes. Thank you for considering this request. I'm a resident of Saratoga and since, off and on since the early ninety's. And I support the request. If anything, this may be historically preserved for the bizarre addition of so many properties to this historical list.

Just, you know, the reconnaissance that they did and added from listening to the testimony. But as we saw from the last speaker, I think the committee went against their own recommendation at the prior meeting in July and from outspoken people at the meeting. I think that's why you have so many people here tonight, maybe not all of them speaking, because people want, if we did a poll in the audience here, the vast majority of the people here were kind of offended by how ISBAR was treated at that historical meeting. And that's one of the reasons why I'm here, is because I don't like people shouting down and and overcoming objective logic here. This obviously is not a good example of any of the of criteria that you might find here.

If anything, the only historical thing would be to show that in 1988 so many properties were listed without a lot of research. This being among them. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Sunil Ahuja.

Thank you, Lee. Thank you, Chair Causer. Sunil Ahuja, Saratoga resident for thirteen years and one of your former commissioners for eight years as well. So, familiar with being on DACE for four years and then four years during the pandemic on Zoom. But, in any case, I'm here to speak on behalf of Ismar and Kristen's house.

And I want to emphasize the fact that staff had recommended to the Historic Preservation Committee that this house did not meet criteria. That it should have been voted to be taken off the register and that had not taken place. That was an emotional decision not based on facts, subjective than objective. The plans that I've seen in this house are beautiful. They plan to keep the basic look of the house as well as maintain it as a loving family home for that family.

Ismar has been a member of the community for quite some time on the Chamber of Commerce and has had his business here for quite a few years. So I would like you guys to look at it objectively instead of subjectively and take this off the register so that they can do and make this the loving family home they want to make it and continue to live in Saratoga. Thank you.

Thank you. Frances, do we have any speakers online?

Yes. Chair Couser, our first speaker. I'm sorry, I can't read your name but at the end it says iPhone. Please accept the prompt to speak. The person on Zoom who has their hand raised, would you like to speak on this item? Can hear me?

Yes. We can hear you. Oh,

okay. Yeah. I'm live next door on the condominium area. And then I think when I look on the house, the railing area, probably, they build without permit because it's kinda like the railing is totally different color. I mean, if you see from the facade, the whole building is white, but the railing is a brown color.

And then you probably were built by some kind of handyman only, and then do not reflect the the queen and character there. I think the original supposed to have a correct color, correct material there, but they probably build this one here without permit. And then for the historical, I think this one this house was this is a historical house here. And then I I don't see any reason to remove from the historical inventory. It it I will I will say in Saratoga, if you remove it, then we are gonna have a less and less of a historical house that we can remember.

The our ancestor used to be living here, and then it's kinda not it's not kinda put way to let us the next generation to heritage what happened, what what ever happened in this area here. So to me, I would say I if if you want to modify the house, I I totally agree, but can they just keep us a historical house? And then they modify whatever they can. And then if you look across, this zoning was as long as a C H 2. C H 2 is mean is a historical commercial area.

And based on the zoning, you are allowed to build a mother multiple housing here or commercial building. But now you want to build as a single frame house, and you want to add a ADU to it. So I'm kind of wondering, will it be allowed by call or yeah. I just kind of question for this one here. And then maybe someone can give me the answer.

Thank you for your comments. Do we have another speaker online?

No, Chair Kauser, no other hands are raised.

Thank you, Frances. We do have one more speaker in the audience. If you could come up and introduce yourself. And if there are others, if you don't mind coming up and filling out a sheet so then we can call upon you. Bill Cooper, go ahead.

Thank you. I'm Bill Cooper. I'm a Saratoga native. And a little over a year and a half ago, I was asked by the mayor to join the Historic Preservation Commission, which I did and it's been a fascinating experience. On July 8, this infamous date apparently, I was one of the people who voted to not permit deleting a historic structure, to later be replaced with a larger one because I felt it would be an irreplaceable loss of the community.

When you drive up 6th Street, you see the building, it fits in, it's historic. Whether it is Queen Anne or national style Victorian, from a resident's perspective, I'm I'm not on to to those little details. But the the appeal sort of hit me the wrong way because you heard the things it was a fist fight and things like that, which it was not. But the appeal claims that changes in location, function, appearance, and form justify removal from the historic resource inventory. I disagree with that.

Historic significance, the home is one of the last remaining Victorian farmhouses in the village. And there it is. Or whether it's Queen Anne. It's there. It's what we have. And I would like to see that's there. Therefore, it has it exemplifies special elements of our city's history. The location, the moving of the location is not true. That doesn't make any difference. The documented move of a historic building is permitted under historic preservation standards.

In this case, it was to build a library in that location. I'm impressed they took the time to move it someplace else. If they left half the building behind, that's okay because what we're concerned about from historic preservation, we're looking at the outside of the building. We're not looking at the staircase in this case or any of those internal things. That is not what was documented. It is what you see from the street. The function. The thing about business is not true. A building can maintain historic significance even if functional changes from residents, commercial or it goes from residential area into a historic commercial area. It's there.

It's where it is. It fits in where it is now. The appearance. And now whether the building is a national style farmhouse or a Queen Anne style Victoria, they both have historic significance and I'm hearing a lot of, well, they changed this a little bit, they changed that. The thing is, and they did talk about the big picture, the appearance, and it fits in our community the way it is. And form, they

Finish your sentence.

May I continue

your line? Just finish your sentence and then

Okay. Thank you. So, although the house has been altered with a new raised garage at the Ground Floor, it continues to retain substantial architectural and structural integrity. The original design, workmanship, materials, and residential setting remain prominent. Although it has, let's see, although the property, allowing the property to satisfy their criteria of historic preservation. And I really would like to see it preserved on our historic inventory. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mehta.

Good evening members. I'm Kriti Mehta. Thank you for your time to listen to us in the public. I'm here to support Ismar. I have been a resident of Saratoga for the last twenty six years and have enjoyed the beauty, driving around, dining, all of that.

And I did drive past where they have bought their new place. And, if anything is of landmark status, I think it's the library. And, the library was allowed to go through extensive remodel. Right? So, if this house has moved with others and they have been allowed to make their changes, why are the new residences more being penalized for bringing in their changes?

And, for that, I strongly feel that it should be removed from the heritage and the landmark status. They should be allowed to make it their beautiful, loving home, as all of us would desire for ourselves. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Shalom.

Good evening members of the planning committee. My name is Chris Chellum. I'm here tonight in support of Isma and Christian Maslick in the project in the 6th Street. My wife and I moved here to California from The UK in 1985. So we've had residences here for almost forty years.

Our two children attended local schools and I've been with the semiconductor industry for about thirty years in financial positions. While many of you know, he's much a dedicated local business owner and a long time member of the community, I want to talk about him as a person that I've gotten to know. I first met Isma in 2013 when I became a member of the Saratoga Country Club and Isma served on the board there. Where he's a unique individual is his very generous nature. So, two examples that I can share.

There's an annual event that raises funds for the Cancer Research for Children by the Lucille Packard Hospital. Every year without fail that I've attended, ISMA has totally funded the open bar. Secondly, more recently, I was at a charity golf event at the Catholic High School in Watsonville with Isma as one of my foursome. On one of the holes, being a great golfer that he is, he hit closest to the pin and was given a thousand dollar prize. Immediately turned around and gave that money back to the school.

So that's the kind of guy. He is very generous and so I'm confident that Isma and Tristan will honor the traditions of the village of Saratoga and remodel their home in conformance with whatever the planning department's input is. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Vikram Mehta.

Good evening council members. Myself and my wife, Kirti, moved here and have been living just up the street on 19002 And 73 Harley Drive, Saratoga. Cindy, other members of the staff, the progressive council members, had it not been for your forward thinking, we would never have been able to construct the house that we that we constructed on that particular street. So we know you're gonna treat this matter very objectively. I have known Ismar and Kristen for about twenty years.

You know, they not only live in the area, they conduct business in the area. Kristen does some wonderful work saving people from harming themselves. I don't profess to be an expert on heritage matters or whatever the experts have spoken. Let's please support the applicant. Let's be forward thinking.

They've invested a lot in getting the experts that understand what the issues are. As a resident of this community for twenty six years, as having worked with the planning commission over that period of time to get our project approved, I know you folks will make the right call, but let's make a decision because this wonderful family that really wants to be able to build and enhance the property. I walked around that property. I've spent an hour or so looking at this thing. And I think as being in the real estate business, if there's one person that really knows how to, you know, enhance this thing, I think it's it's the Maslik family.

So, thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Anal Patra.

So, me and my wife, Sonali, we actually moved here in the year 2000, and we live on Scotland Drive here for the last twenty five years. Our kids studied here at the Saratoga Schools. So, all I can say is that it is very necessary and important to support people who are really good at heart. And I've known Ismar and his wife and his family for many many years because I'm also a member at the Saratoga Country Club and he is an extremely generous and and a good man as you've heard about, but the fact remains that a lot of discussion happened around whether the decision of the heritage council was objective or was it subjective in July sometime, they made a decision that it should be taken off, and then obviously, there there is not enough clarity whether it really took place objectively or was it subjective. But the fact still remains, in spite of all that, that Ismar and his family wants to create this as their own home.

They want to retain the outer structure and appearance and want to modify it inside to make it more comfortable for themselves. So, I think given that, I don't see any reason why we should have an objection. There was a good suggestion that we could put a plaque or something outside talking about the the home and it's the past history, but things have been modified over time. And I think we can't just stay fixated on time. They are only making it better and we need to move along and get them to make it more comfortable for themselves.

So, I I would strongly request that we support this project and we make sure that the people in our community can be comfortable and live as they want to live. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Alexander Sasha.

Good evening. I'm Alexander Sasha Olginowicz, often a resident of Saratoga for thirty seven years, business owner for thirty three in the village. Passed by that house every day a thousand times. I am here to support the applicant, but I would like to bring to your attention one thing that I just did not see at the presentation tonight, and that refers to Bill and the gentleman that was on the phone. The big picture of this, they are not planning, and maybe I had the privilege to see the plans, maybe you didn't, but they are not trying to tear this house down and build some Swedish looking contemporary thing that's trending right now in Saratoga, Las Gatos.

They're they're going to preserve the the feel and look and the beauty of that Victorian, and they're just going to basically add the the separate the the, you know, second wing to to the left of that house. I saw the plans. It looks beautiful. I'm not an expert in Queen Anne, but I own several Victorians, and this is a beautiful project. It will enhance the village, it will enhance the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no more speakers, I will like to call the applicant for a closing statement. And you have five minutes.

I would like to address just some of the concerns raised here. I heard someone say that there's going to be an impassionate speech that's going be a reputable loss to the community. I don't think so. And in that same vein, he said, quote, I don't know all the details. And that's the problem with the recommendation, to go back to the HPC, is it's not based on objective criteria, but on things like, it's in our history and it's old.

That's not the criteria. And that's why we're here to have integrity with our codes here in Saratoga that state what items are required to meet the historical designation. And I fear that if we go back there we're not going to have the objective examination that I think is required here. Thank you.

I

would just like to sort of close out by saying that, you know, when we get started on these HREs and these local assessments, we don't have any predetermined ideas or anything. We follow the laws. So, and you know, those are minus our feelings. Because I can have lots of feelings about lots of historic buildings and structures and all sorts of things, but that's not what I do. What I do is I look at the laws, and then we follow what we were trained to do, just like structural engineers, or planners, or you know, commissioners, or mayors.

There are legal requirements that we have to make our way through. And we don't know the answer until we get to the end. And often, you know, we might have an applicant that's like, what did you find? What did you find? But we have to go through everything really meticulously and carefully.

And we don't, what we always try to do is have an argument that follows the laws, whether it be for listing or for delisting or California register eligibility or, you know, we don't, you know, it's not up to us to decide, you know, mitigation or what's listed or delisted. What we're doing is providing recommendations. So I'd like to say that there may be strong feelings, and I understand this because I do this every day. I have about 20 projects on my calendar right now. So, and we understand the passion that local folks have.

But what I would like as a professional is to consider, you know, what you have and what may no longer qualify. And to be honest with you, there's I think about 90,000 National Register eligible buildings right now. I talked to the National Park Service all the time. I just listed a district, and they have about 12,000 buildings that they know are no longer eligible. But they don't have the time or the money to delist them.

So, these are the same problems that sort of trickle down at the state level and at the local level. Things change or things are allowed to happen or things get missed. And you want to have sort of a corrective action, But that usually only happens when we have a project. So I hope you'll consider delisting this. I don't believe it's eligible for local or state listing. But I leave that to you guys to suggest and make that determination. So thank you.

Thank you. Before I close, any questions for the applicant? Go ahead, Paul.

I have two questions for the applicant and one for the applicant's legal counsel. In the appeal letter that was written, you referenced the Planning Commission reached a first conclusion on the matter. When was that done?

Believe it was informal discussions that the applicant had that was told to, given the recommendation to go to the HPC because the project has changed. I wasn't involved in that process, so I can't help you. I cannot answer fully how that came about.

But you wrote the letter. So what you, so your belief is that they had private communication with Planning Commission members?

No, I don't, think You I'm

can come up and

Yeah.

So, it was a recommendation by the planning

Department.

Department. And, it was written in the, on the agenda that was on the heritage preservation committee. So you You can look it up in your Okay.

So the, your letter to us is incorrect?

If that's what it says, it must be incorrect, yes.

Thank you.

It was recommended by the planning department. No decision was made.

Okay. And it did not come to any member of the planning commission or the planning commission?

I don't know. I don't know how.

Well, I'm just, that's what the letter said. I just was want to

a recommendation. Recommendation from the planning department, not the planning commission. There was a typographical error, I'm assuming.

Okay. Thank you. All right. And then,

I can think you he has another question for the applicant.

Yes. And as well as one, two for the applicant, one for yourself. So, is the legal rep, okay, either way. To the applicant, since you're there. What's the purpose of the delisting?

The purpose of delisting is to make an addition. If we do not delist, we have to go through a certain process, which I'm not sure what it is the architect can answer, which is extremely complicated. And here, Stacey, you want to address this sheet notes details?

So the, if it remains listed, it would have to go through a process that you probably all know, which is the standards for rehabilitation. And it would need to meet a criteria that we use to apply to National Register or California Register eligible or listed properties. Because it's local listed, we struggle as professionals to apply these national standards to local listed properties that don't even meet basic criteria for architectural design. So, it's quite complicated. It is a problem.

We're addressing it at the federal level now. There's lots of write ups in Congress about it. It's a little more complex. But it puts us in a situation where you may have a house that is beloved by the community and people love it in the neighborhood, but it's not eligible for the California Register or the National Register. But what the Planning Department will require that the applicant do is ensure that the new design meet the standards for rehabilitation, which is meant for more top tier architectural design buildings, such as the ones in my comparative analysis.

That would be easy to apply the standards for rehabilitation because it's something that from what I know those are both National Register and California Register eligible.

So a short answer is it's to save time and money?

No. It's that I I believe it should not be listed. That's just my, I'm just giving you

No, no.

For me.

The purpose of delisting though is, I'm just trying to get to, this is clearly bubbled up bigger than life. I'm just trying to get to the root. What's at the bottom of this?

Well, my job is just to follow the laws. Well, So

that's what was asking the applicant.

Yeah. So I'm just evaluating.

You would It

is. It simply does not meet the standards and should be delisted regardless of what the goal is.

Okay. So it's a matter of principle? Correct. Okay. And did you know it was on the list when you purchased the property? Yes. Thank you.

But I also knew that it was moved and raised. So that's the reason I purchased it.

Other questions for the applicant?

The other one for the legal staff, or the, in your, I was a bit, in terms of our path forward, I wanna make sure I clearly understand. Okay. You say that the that a few outspoken individuals spooked the HPC into retaining the historic designation. Can you tell me as a lawyer how you would use the word spook in any action that would follow?

Sure. I think that the word is an emotional one. In this situation, it seemed apparent that the HPC did not follow the guidelines, the objective criteria. The initial recommendation was to take it off. And then, after listening to some impassioned people in the audience, did an about face without any real proof otherwise, to objectively say no.

Again, there's been no expert opinion. There's been no analysis to show anything other than it doesn't meet the criteria. And so when you have someone, when you have recommendation, there's no concrete evidence to the contrary. And you have a motion at a meeting. Our conclusion as lawyers was they got spooked, or there was a motion. If that's the wrong word, it may be. But something changed, which I don't think was based upon an objective criteria.

Okay. So spooked relates to emotion. It does not relate to malice. And it does not relate to prejudice. Is that a correct statement?

I don't think the, I'm sorry. Don't understand your question.

You used the word spooked. Yes. Trying to get your definition of the word spooked.

Scared. Changed. Does not mean I don't intend it. It was never intended to be malice. No.

No malice and no prejudice.

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. It meant a motion.

A motion, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we're going to close the public hearing and bring it to the commission. Any questions, discussion? Go ahead, Parati.

I've got one quick question potentially for the city staff. Now we've seen the motion to remove this property from the heritage list and a proposal to build an ADU like unit next to it. Are these two related at all?

So tonight the Planning Commission is only basically electing to recommend or not recommend removal of the landmark designation. The application for the proposed work that the applicant is seeking to do, that'll be a separate application that'll be reviewed according to our usual design review processes.

So if we choose to remove this property from the heritage list and then they come back with, I heard, a Swedish design, that's completely up to them, right? Yes. Got it. I have one other question. I also heard a comment, I think, from someone who mentioned that in order to do the work that they're proposing, they don't need to remove this property from the list. Is that accurate?

So the issue is if it was to remain designated landmark, the modification would have to be reviewed under the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitations, as was mentioned. The initial analysis done by Bonnie Bramberg of Urban Programmers, I think recommended that the redevelopment that they're proposing would not conform with those standards. Because again, those are the Secretary of the Interior standards. And that means that it would be it would not be considered a less than significant impact under CEQA. Meaning that the project would have to go through a full environmental impact report for that impact.

So that's the main impediment to attempting to do the project while retaining it on the landmark designation.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Do you want to open it for discussion?

Yes.

Okay. Yeah. I'm really struggling with this one. It's clearly been really blown up. It's also, I mean, so tonight we're just doing the removing listing, it also has ramifications that we just

have heard. I

feel like we've received incorrect information from a number of parties, which also makes, I think, at least from my standpoint, the decision very difficult. A lot of the complaints and reasons pro and con were actually made prior to the to the 1988 listing is what we heard them say, the applicant. And then when it was put on the register, at that time, somebody, correctly or incorrectly, decided that they did meet the criteria. Although it's, there's certainly, we've been told that that was, at least in today's interpretation of it, an incorrect decision on that part. We've had It told us that at least one previous owner was keeping the house in its historic tradition, as they believed it to be.

So this was a property that was receiving, you know, the benefits of being a historical thing that's been transferred on. We've heard the owner say that he knew that that was the case when he purchased this thing. I'm really struggling because they're asking us to basically make a determine on whether this is meeting the objective criteria or not. They weren't able to sway our historic committee. And we've heard them say that it's not They don't feel that they The only reason why they couldn't do it was just because it was emotional.

But I'm having a hard time with them speaking for myself. Do I have the expertise better than our own historic committee to know whether to, you know, overturn this decision or not? I'm also a little bit concerned about the fact that this process has turned a little bit, has gotten as emotional as it has, that we've heard people describe that. Given the state of affairs and and and how much is involved in this particular one, I'm gonna recommend, not making the motion yet, but I'd like to discuss just tabling this into the next meeting, I'd like to get our city's council to provide an opinion on the proper path forward for us because I'm a little bit confused. We're asking to override a committee on objective criteria that I'm hearing even an expert say is somewhat subjective.

It's low, medium, and high in stuff like this. I mean, I'm going to have to educate myself a lot more before I know whether it's low, medium, or high, because that's what I'm being asked to do tonight. So I think, like I say, we just table it, get a, I'd like a clear path forward in decision criteria we should use from the city council so that we make a wise and thoughtful decision on this. And that's where I'm coming from.

Thank you. Go ahead, Herman.

Yes, I would like to make some comments. So I think it's very clearly, I'm not emotional at all. Today, listen to a lot of things, right? So first of all, so in 1988, okay, 60 houses was being characterized as the historical property. So but none of I'm not sure, okay, the other ones, but this one we don't have a strong criteria, see why we actually include them into the list, right.

So nobody can at least nobody can answer this question why, right. So that to me is very clear because I already have doubts, so why this house should be in the inventory. That's my thoughts already. Right. So I think, you know, how you gonna study if you if we postpone the motion, we're gonna, you know, we're going to postpone to another meeting, we're still going to have the same data, we're not going to progress to get more accurate data to decide what to do as planning commission.

Right. So I think clearly if somebody in 1988 is it correctly or incorrectly characterized this housing included inventory, I think it's already is a very big question mark. So based on that, know, I should I think my thinking is like we should take them out from inventory. That's my position. Thank you.

Badvi?

Sorry. I just remembered the question. The first question I wanted to ask was, is there a hierarchy among commissions? If one commission says no and the planning commission approves, then what happens? Does it go to the I mean, it goes to city council next with two opposing recommendations? How does that work?

Yes. So in in the code, you know, any decision of the HPC can be appealed to the Planning Commission. Got it. Just as any decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council. I also wanted to give some some additional context. The historic resource evaluation, the, you know, the 70 page report prepared by Evans and DeChazzo that we've been referencing mainly, That was only submitted to the city last month in August. So the HPC did not have the benefit of being able to refer to that when they made their decision. So that's just some added kind of context and analysis that you have the benefit of that the HPC did not at the time.

Yeah. Then I think I agree with Commissioner Zeng here that we can get more information, but we have the information we need, which is a report and which kind of describes how roughly ended up in this space and what the ask is. I am also cognizant of the fact that if we take this off the heritage list, then we're effectively saying we can do anything with this property. So I recommend we not be influenced by the design that they have recommended to us, but more like they want like should we I mean, this an independent decision irrespective of the proposal that they've given to us. And I've also heard from the neighbors, it looks like the majority of the neighbors have been able to do remodels in their property over the years.

And just looking at Google Maps, like this one property stands out, in my opinion, among all the neighborhood properties. So based on these thoughts, I feel it's we should approve their motion to remove this from the heritage list.

Thank you. Clinton, you had something?

I was just going to echo Commissioner Zhang's comments. All the way back at the beginning, we've heard from the two urban planning experts that it was a bulk add at the time. So to his comments of there wasn't something really particular about this space that had it added to the historic inventory at the time anyway. Since then we have these both of the reports of experts saying that even at that time it probably didn't meet the criteria, and it certainly doesn't now. And we have the two staff reports recommending delisting.

So you know, we know the criteria that we're trying to judge this decision by this evening. Two experts that are tasked with providing strong recommendations for whether to pass the criteria or not have said it doesn't meet the criteria. Staff is recommending delisting. Like all the information before us is that it doesn't meet these criteria. That's the decision we're trying to make tonight. So I would be in agreement with Commissioner Zeng and my fellow commissioner.

Thank you. Any other comments? Or would someone like to make a motion? Paul?

Just one other comment. I was surprised to learn that the report wasn't used by the historic committee in their decision. And I wonder to myself is if they had seen the report, would they have made a different decision? So, again, I'll restate my previous thing. I think we ought to table it for a month and get the historic committee to look at it, to get the city council to do it. City council for process. Not I agree with everybody. We've got more than enough data. That's that's not the issue. The data is what's the correct process to be using given the emotions and the kind of information whether it was correctly stated, incorrectly stated that was brought to us.

What's the best way for us to make a decision as a planning commission? And then actually I like give the STOR committee another shot at it given they hadn't seen the report because perhaps that'll just solve the issue right then and there. And in my mind, in the right way.

Go ahead, Sahir.

Yeah, I agree with Paul that they should see the report.

So we could do one thing as a commission. We could refer it back to HPC and not table it. Because tabling is not going to achieve anything in, you know, I don't know what new information we'll get. Or we could look at the information we have, and take the staff's recommendation, and pass it. I don't know if the city council gets into this, unless our decision gets appealed. Go ahead, Badji.

I think our process allows us to make a decision. And in the interest of, you know, saving a lot of people's time, we should just make a decision.

So I would recommend that we make a motion someone make a motion? Go ahead Clinton.

Move that we approve staff recommendation that the property doesn't meet any of the criteria to be included in the city's heritage resource inventory and adopt Resolution 20 five-fifteen recommending City Council approve the proposal to remove the property from the heritage resource inventory. I second the motion.

Thank you. So we have a motion. And Paul?

Yeah. I think if I'm going to do this right, I'm going to make a second motion. Yes. Which will get it voted on first. Correct. Yeah. Okay. So I'm going to move that we and you're saying I shouldn't table. I should refer it back to the heritage committee to make a decision based on the report that they haven't seen.

And then we need a second on that.

Yeah. I do. Okay.

So we have the second motion of referring it back to the heritage committee. And there's a second. So let's take a vote on the second motion first. Go ahead.

Commissioner Shidran?

Nay.

Hassan? Aye. Brownlee? No. Singh? No. Jermerad? Aye. Chair Kauser?

No.

Motion fails.

So, I just wanted to say one thing because I didn't get to say any comments when we are all doing this is that I agree with my fellow commissioners that we have enough information and a lot of time has been spent on it. So that's why I voted the way I did. And if you could please do the roll call for the next motion.

So the motion is to remove the heritage resource from the inventory. Sheerharan?

Aye.

Hassan? No. Brownlee? Aye. Zane? Aye. Germerad? No. Chair Kauser? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you. Moving on to the next item, director's item. Do we have any?

So I am filling in for Brian this evening. I just want to remind the Planning Commission that we have a special meeting on September 24. You should have received a postcard in the mail for the notice as have all residents in the city of Saratoga. And that meeting is to to do the cleanup of the zoning code. This is an annual cleanup with the zoning code, So you'll learn more about that when the pop packet gets published next week.

Also, I would like to highly encourage the planning commission to attend the second WUI community meeting on Thursday, September 18 from 6PM to 8PM at the community center. This is to discuss the wildland urban interface maps and the process. And then this concludes my report.

Thank you. Any reports, items from the commission items that we want to share? So we'll see you all on September 24 at 7PM and hopefully we can all attend the VUI meeting on the eighteenth. I went to it last time and it was very informative. I think it's a good one for us to participate in.

Did we get some more information on that eighteenth meeting?

Was it was like a citywide can you just send the information so the commission has it? But okay. With that, we adjourn the meeting. Thank you all.