Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. I will now call to order the town of Los Gatos planning commission meeting of September 9th, 2026. I will now call the role commissioner stump here. Commissioner sorting here. Vice chair Barnett here. Commissioner mayor. Oh, he's absent. Sorry. Commissioner Thomas here. Commissioner Burnett here. I'm here as well. And like I accidentally just said, commissioner mayor's out this evening. Please stand. If you're able as vice chair, Barnett leads us in the pledge.

Please join me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

As the Planning Commission conducts the meeting this evening, we encourage active participation by the public, which is essential to democracy and the important work of the Planning Commission. Public input is very much welcomed and always considered. The public can participate in a couple ways. Prior to a meeting, written comments about agenda items may be submitted to staff, and during the meeting, there are two opportunities for members of the public to participate. First, during the verbal communications period, an individual may speak on any topic that is not on the agenda. Second, during the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting, any member of the public may speak about an agenda item. If you are going to speak, please make sure you fill out a speaker card and hand that to staff. We will now begin with the verbal communications portion of the meeting during which members of the public are invited to address the commission on any issue that is not on the agenda for tonight's meeting. And I would like to add that we take no action about items discussed during the verbal communications portion of the hearing. I have one card and that would be Gus Hu.

Verbal right I earlier today a couple last couple meetings I've been turning in something to deal with the closure of the soccer and I've been doing this and I'm getting bad feedback from the thing but I don't have enough of these to give all of you two of you have seen this good thing and I just want to put it out there, you know, because I think there's a lot going the The closure was wrong. You can find this downloaded. I asked for a public records review, and there's a lot going on. But this came from page 121 on the agenda package of 8-3-26, and it's the last 40 pages. It's hidden back there, and it's about the GMAX test. And there's a four-page document. If you look at it, there's definitely two reports that are false. And on the back, on this back, you'll see, it'll probably get passed around, but it's 200% of, it says Las Gadas Creek. It was in that thing. That was on page 25 on the supplemental material on the second one because it's hidden. These things are all hidden. behind you know you have to just dig and uh it says 200 uh you'll you'll see the back page and it says 200 things it's uh at the sports which is wrong you know i was out there today you know it said 105 if you look at a thing it says and it got up to 200 that's insane you know the numbers don't add up i went out there today to the sports creek and and I have my cat in the hat guy, but it measured like 131 to 132, and it was a hot day. It was at 98. When I took this, it was at 238. I documented it. But it's come out on the third page. Los Gatos put it out the night before. It's August 2nd. They emailed it out to people. And it went to PBW. It says it went to town council. I don't think town council got any of this. But there's over 100 people responded. And I didn't know that until just two days ago. Because I'm just digging through this. Another thing is on the 15th, the police thing. Nobody knows about that. It's like an ultimatum, I think, what I'm trying to dig into. That and the WVMA is all coming up, all on the 15th. You guys got to be prepared for something, you know, a lot of people coming here because there's going to be a lot of protests on all three of those things. The cop thing is an ultimatum. Saratoga needs to know the next day. I'm gonna try to put something out, but I'm just a person. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? Do we have anybody with their hand raised on Zoom?

We do not.

All right, thank you. Tonight, we have two items on the consent calendar. The first is to approve the draft minutes of the August 26th, 2026 planning commission meeting. And the second is to forward a recommendation to the town council on an ordinance amending chapter 29 zoning regulations of the town code for Senate bill nine SB nine regarding urban lot splits and two unit housing developments in response to changes in state law. The proposed amendments to the Town Code are not considered a project under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act, and in accordance with Government Code Section 66411.7 and 66452.21 , Senate Bill 9 ordinances are not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Town code amendment application A-26-004. The project location is townwide and the applicant was town of Los Gatos. I have one speaker card for the minutes and that would be Gus Hu.

So, this 1, I'll keep short the, I sent an email and I just want to say that I think it's very important that we keep some minutes on certain certain topics because it's. It's important that it's easier to trace back when you just look through names and stuff like that. If you knew what they talked about, it's a lot easier to look at minutes and then because I do a lot of research and it just helps the people that want to, you know, want to help you guys out, want to help out other committees that that we, you know, at least have a topic, you know, it's a sentence or two sentences on things. Because before it went silent, you know, it's it's there's transparency issues there and I've been saying transparency transparency a lot of going on. You guys don't see it and it's basically I, I think there's a lot of hidden stuff in there. So it's a lot easier if you. From way before, I can read through the minutes and people were saying, you know, like on Loma Street and stuff like that, they were telling you what the thing is. Now, you just see a name and you have to look up who spoke on what issue. So, you know, it helps for anybody that does research and research. wants to try to correct mistakes that everybody makes. And in government, when you guys are sitting on the bench and you're, don't be afraid to say, okay, we made a mistake, let's re-look at certain things. Especially like when these big high rises go up, nobody wants that. Everybody knows that. And some people say, yeah, do this, do that. But nobody in town knows it's causing more traffic. and stuff like that. So I just want to try to maybe read, I know you have some poll and say we want to have minutes and just at least put a sentence in there. Thank you.

Are there any questions for the speaker? Yes, Commissioner Burnett. May I leave a comment? Yeah. For the speaker? No, let me ask. Comments or questions?

It needs to be limited to questions of the speaker.

Okay, my question would be that you enjoy doing this, and it's much appreciated by a lot of people.

Okay, thank you. I think it's a duty that citizens should do. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? No? All right. Do we have anyone on Zoom that, part of the public that wants to comment?

There are no hands raised.

All right. Do any of my fellow commissioners want to pull anything from the consent calendar or make a motion?

I WILL MAKE A MOTION AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, CAN WE MAKE, I CAN MAKE ONE MOTION ON BOTH OF THESE ITEMS EVEN THOUGH WE'RE CONTINUING. OKAY. SO, ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE AUGUST 26TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BECAUSE I WAS HOMESICK, I DID WATCH IT AND REVIEW THE MINUTES AND SO I FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING TO APPROVE THOSE. as written, and I also want to move to continue item two. No? Yeah. This is also... Wait, sorry.

So there is an item on for SB 9 that is on consent?

Yeah, that's in the consent calendar.

No, it's continuous.

No, they want to continue the item to a date certain.

Of October 14th, sorry. Clearly, I missed something in my notes. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas.

Yeah, no problem. Staff is recommending a continuance to that for that specific item to go on a future consent calendar, I guess. Okay. Thank you. No problem. So I move to continue that item to a date certain of October 14th, 2026 to allow staff additional time to prepare materials. And that is the update to Town Code Chapter 29 regarding SB 9 changes and updates. All right.

Is there a second? Commissioner Stump? Okay. Second. Are there any comments, discussion?

I'm going to recuse on item one, not having been here.

All right.

All right, then I will call the question for everyone else. All in favor? One abstained. We will now move on to our public hearing starting with item number three. Consider an appeal of a community development director decision to approve a request to construct a second story addition to an existing single family residence on property zoned R18. Located at 16717 Churco Drive, APN 424-20-014, minor residential development application MR-24-018, categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301, existing facilities. Property owner, Deepik Gupta. Applicant is Maitron. Appellant is... I'm going to say Zara H because I do not want to accidentally say your name wrong. And the project planner this evening will be Sean Mullen. Mr. Mullen, will you be giving the. Oh, I'm so sorry. Is there anything to state?

I live close to this residence, so I will be recusing myself for this item.

Mr. Stump.

Yeah, a disclosure. I visited the property on Saturday and I happened to bump into the owner at that point in time. And he did share with me that he would be seeking a continuance this evening. So that was mentioned directly to me.

Thank you. Any other disclosures?

All right.

Mr. Mullins.

Great. Thank you. Before you tonight is an appeal of the community development director's decision approving a second story addition. The minor residential application was reviewed by the town, including the town's consulting architect. It was deemed complete and approved on June 29th. This decision was then appealed to the planning commission by a neighbor on July 1st. In their appeal documentation, the appellant expressed concerns regarding privacy, height and shadowing, building character and massing, and the applicant's neighbor outreach efforts. Following the filing of the appeal, the applicant submitted a written response to which the appellant subsequently responded as well. An additional letter from the applicant included in your addendum to your staff report this evening requests a six-month continuance to allow time to evaluate the expanded concerns and design suggestions. The desk item includes a letter from the appellant indicating that they are amenable to the requested continuance. The decision to grant the continuance is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. A complete discussion of the appeal is included in your staff report and based on the reasonings provided in your staff report, it's recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the Director's decision approving the minor residential development application. This concludes staff's presentation and we are available to answer any questions.

All right, procedural question just for the sake of the rest of the commission here. I know we spoke before. As this is a public hearing, we are still going to call up the appellant and the applicant to discuss whatever they may want, and then we will obviously make the motion as we always do at the end. So I will now call up the appellant. You can come up to the podium, state your name, and you'll have five minutes.

All right, my name is Moha Hajirastam. I'm here with my wife, Zahra. So I read through my letter for the sake of time. Dear Chair and members of the Planning Commission, As the property owners at 15603 Benedict Lane adjacent to 16717 Chirco Drive, we are here to express our concern regarding the proposed second story addition at that address. We respectfully request that the Commission refrain from approving the project as currently designed until revisions are made to address these concerns. Before presenting our concerns, I'd like to acknowledge that the applicant, Deepak, has requested a six-month continuance of this hearing to consider our suggestion. We agree with this request and would like to have more time to collaborate with him in finding a mutually beneficial solution. Now, our concerns. Number one, privacy. The proposed, can you go to figure one, my presentation? Next page. So, yes, so the proposed second story includes two windows on the east and southeast and one window on the north. I have circled them by red. These windows provide a direct line of sight into our backyard and swimming pool. Given that our family, including our six and ten years old daughters frequently utilize the pool and backyard, these windows raise significant privacy concerns. height and shadowing. The proposed second story addition is among the taller structures in the immediate neighborhood. And current shadow study exhibits do not clearly depict the true effect on our property. Our backyard relies on direct sunlight to warm our pool and sustain the trees and landscaping. The addition of the second story will increase the shadow cast over our backyard, particularly in fall and winter when sunlight is most crucial for maintaining the yard and pool's warmth. This will restrict our use of the backyard and pool during those seasons, and the residential design guidelines emphasize the significance of minimizing shadows. Number three, character and mass. That's number, figure two. A further concern is the character and mass of the second story edition. This edition is completely out of character to the existing one story. It is not well integrated as the massing is completely lopsided. This goes against the residential design guidelines in Chapter 3. From our backyard perspective, it will appear as a substantial uninterrupted two-story wall. The addition should be oriented along the length of the house rather than the current perpendicular direction. Many of these points are highlighted in the peer architecture review conducted by Canon Design Groups. That's in Figure 2. Now we have some suggestions. Suggestion number one, go to figure number four. We noticed that in the plan, there is area A, which is shown in the figure. It is empty right now, adjacent to area B. So if area B is moved to area A, next to the windows, they can utilize the street-facing windows and thereby eliminate the necessity of having two windows facing our backyard. Suggestion number two, go to next page. Another suggestion to address mass and privacy concern is to construct the second story closer to the main house as shown in this. So instead of on the side, in the middle. This change should be combined with suggestion number one to address both mass and privacy concerns. And suggestion number three, I'm not going to go into the details. The figure is self-explanatory. So we provided these three suggestions just as an example. Please note that all the above-mentioned suggestions are merely preliminary proposals to demonstrate that our concerns can be addressed with reasonable modifications to the current plan. The precise changes and details should be determined and provided by the project owner. Several of our neighbors we have spoken with expressed similar concerns as our concerns, and I believe that some of them provided emails to the town to express their concerns and to support our case. Yeah, that concludes my presentation.

Good timing. Are there any questions for the speaker? No? Go ahead. Yeah. Vice Chair Barnett.

Thank you for your presentation and for your extensive documentation and hard work in presenting your appeal. That's appreciated. One question I have is, it sounds like you still have reservations or objections to the revised shadow study that was presented. And I wonder if you could provide any specifics, details about what in particular is objectionable in this second study.

I think I provided that in my letter in more details. I know that for the that is added. We don't need any shadow study, but if you consider the that is added on the right hand side of my backyard, and this 2nd story. addition, which is on the left-hand side, altogether we're going to lose a lot of sunlight. And that's why I'm asking that you consider the whole picture instead of just this second story.

Okay, thank you. And then I wanted to see what your response is to the applicant's Estimate that there would be minimal privacy investigation by virtue of the existing landscaping in your yard that faces the proposal.

I'm not sure if I am familiar. Where is that proposal?

response to your appeal. The owner has said that the existing landscaping provides some privacy to your yard.

Oh, no. The landscaping that I have, they are not very tall trees. So, you know, when the story poles are erected, I can clearly see them and I can clearly, you know, that the windows are gonna have direct line of sight to my, no, that's not true.

Another one, if I may? The owner also makes the argument that the pool is probably not used much in the winter time when there's the most exposure because of the lack of landscaping and that therefore there would be minimal decrease in the temperature of the pool. I wonder if you could respond to that.

Yeah, I think, you know, even in their current study, they show that there is some increase in the shadow over the pool. And that basically limits the time that you can use it. For example, if right now I can use the pool until end of September or end of October, you know, with this, maybe I will lose one month. And I think it also impacts, it shows that it also impacts towards the, you know, in afternoon. The shadow actually is mostly in afternoon. And that also limits the number of the hours that I can use my pool. So, yeah, that's my answer.

Okay, thank you for those responses.

Just want to add that like the number one.

I'm sorry with this is only able to do questions down But you will have an opportunity at the end to come back and speak again I don't think there any other questions. So now the applicant You will also have five minutes

Thank you for the opportunity to present.

Really quick, could you please pull the microphone up a little bit closer to you? There you go. Thank you.

We're the owners at 16717 Turco, and this is an overview of the plan we have presented. As stated before, it is generally a discussion about the second story tonight, but also there is included a first floor garage. Next slide, please. If we can go to slide four, please. I think a lot of the information is already included in your packets. And because I won't be able to get through 29 slides, I'll skip to some of the points already brought up by the appellant. One of the resolutions we had proposed was glazing for the windows. There are two windows in question. The north-facing window that he brings up doesn't actually exist. The circle on the plan is on a wall. And so that's an old version of the plans. So there are actually two windows. And let's go to the slide six, please. Of the two windows, I have two tables here, east and southeast facing. And I think it's important to consider what the angle of view is from the windows. And that depends on how close you are to the window. The closer you are to the window, the wider angle you have. If you press your face against the window, you could potentially see very far left and right. And this table just shows some simple triangles where only the east window, if you stand within one foot, has some visualization of the pool. Any distance beyond one foot away from the window, which is normal in my opinion, does not have any view of the pool or house, nor does any view from the southeast window. We can go to slide nine, please. Regarding the shadow study, this is the meat of the supplemental study. The first shadow study that was included was for the neighborhood, and this was a study that we expanded to focus solely on the appellant's property. And it shows only partial pool coverage, as was discussed previously, at 3 p.m. during the winter solstice. And so that's about, since sun sets at 4.52 p.m., that's roughly an hour and 52 minutes of sunlight during the coldest season. We can go to slide 10, please. Regarding the complaints about height and mass, I think it's also worth considering that the properties on the north side of Churco are a little bit different than the appellant's property and the properties on the south side of Churco. The properties on the north side of Churco are larger lots, and so accordingly, I think it is reasonable to expect that they may be larger floor areas. And we have met that guideline. Let's go to slide 12, please. This was one of the proposed resolutions I had made to the appellants. It does show that the rear of the proposed addition can be modified. The roof can be dropped from 26 feet down to 18 feet. And it also moves the peak of the roof, the ridge, forward 14 feet away from the appellant's property. And these designs were, of course, not accepted by the appellants. Let's go to slide 14, please. So those were all from the first letter, and these are some complaints from the September letter. It includes some major redesign suggestions, also brings in the ADU into the mix, which I did not anticipate. And then I had basically written an email this week saying that it would take a lot of time to basically be able to analyze some of these suggestions, which we're happy to do. Let's go to slide 26, please. This was the design suggestion that the appellant had presented tonight. It proposes moving the second story addition over the main house. It's a very significant redesign suggestion. It would be structurally very intrusive into the main house. It doesn't meet our goals. We kind of did want it separate, potentially as a quarters for an au pair one day, our sign is five. And so this was the one that was not presented tonight. And slide 28, please. Overall, I hope you guys understand that our project, I think, in my opinion, is modest. I think it's compatible with the immediate neighborhood. We've undergone extensive reviews and revisions, and also the recommendations from the town. We've tried to work in good faith to resolve some of the objections, which have not been accepted. request that the approval be upheld and the appeal be denied, please. I apologize for taking all the time.

Are there any questions for the speaker? Yeah, Vice Chair.

Thank you for that presentation. Of the two windows, I understand that you're agreeable that one should be frosted or otherwise opaque?

Yes.

And what about the other one? Is that the exit window?

My understanding is that egress is required, and I don't recall any glazing or transparency requirements in the egress, but I'm happy to be educated on that if it does exist. When we had the discussion in person and tried to discuss this issue, I was given the ultimatum that only removal of the windows would be acceptable to them because... they could foresee a situation where after finals I could deceptively break out the glazed windows and replace them with transparent windows, which I did not think was a fair statement.

Thank you. Commissioner Stump. So do we understand that at this point you are basically withdrawing your request to have a six-month continuance?

I'm happy to continue working with the neighbor. I was told that it would be in your discretion and that I would be required to present the project. So, of course, I would prefer the approval be upheld and the appeal be denied. But in the case that such a matter cannot be reached, I'm happy to continue with the continuance. Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you. I don't have any other cards. Is there any speakers on Zoom?

We do have one speaker on Zoom. Jeff's iPad.

Oh, there's another speaker here too, but we'll let Jeff first since you called on Jeff first.

Hello. Yes, this is Jeff. I am the neighbor immediately across the street from this project at 16712 Churco. We've taken a look at the project and we've had a lot of conversations with the project owner or the property owner, and we don't feel like anything in the project stands out that is unusual within the neighborhood. There are plenty of second story units, second story buildings, some that directly look into our backyard. So, you know, We don't feel like it's a great intrusion. And I think the overall scope and design of the project does fit in with everything else in the neighborhood and with the house. So I just wanted to voice my support for this project.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker, Commissioner Stump?

Did you say you were directly across the street?

Yes, directly across the street. So I am pretty much immediately in front of where this structure will be built.

So the new windows on the second story facing you are not a concern to you?

They're not a concern to me. I mean, I think, like I said, they're in line with all the other two story units in the neighborhood. I don't foresee anything being intrusive. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Troy Jaramillo.

Good evening. My name is Troy Jaramillo, and I live at 15589 Benedict Lane. I've been there since 1962. When I moved there, it was nothing but county. Well, I looked at the property, and it's too high, way too high. If you look at it from my point of view, I'm kitty-cornered behind the house, so I'm totally opposed to this. If you people like to come by on Benedict Lane and look at it from my angle, it's very high. So I'm totally opposed to it. Maybe we can negotiate something a little bit that is compatible with the rest of the area. So that's about it. I hope that he did not make the same mistake that that turnaround was put up on Benedict Lane. And we had this about 15, 20 years ago. But the city installed a turnaround on Benedict. It was supposed to go on Corinne. And it was discussed. They didn't have enough signatures on the Corinne side. And a gentleman who passed away came to their departments and said that all the people in Corinne wanted the speed bumps. It never happened, so we've been living with it. Turn around there, and when they installed it, I was there, and I told the project engineer, this doesn't belong here, because the mouth of Benedict Lane is too small compared to Corinne. So you can look at the police report, there's been more people AREA DOWN, PASTURE PEOPLE HAD A TREE THERE THAT WAS KNOCKED DOWN TOO. SO I'LL LEAVE IT IN YOUR HANDS AND I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR VOLUNTEER SERVICE. THIS IS ONE JOB I WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE. YOU REMIND ME OF A PRIEST LISTENING TO CONFESSIONS. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING. BUT I'M TOTALLY AGAINST THIS, I'M AGAINST THE HEIGHT OF THIS PLACE. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS?

Commissioner Burnett?

Yes, thank you. If I understood the applicant correctly, he did mention that the rear was going to be modified from 26 feet to 18 feet. If that is what I heard correctly, did you?

No, it's too high. The building itself is too high. It's not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood.

Okay, but I'm just saying the applicant when he did, was just here, he spoke about reducing the height from 26 feet to 18. So were you aware of that?

I heard it, but I still have to see it and feel it before I believe it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you again for your service. You volunteered.

Thank you.

I don't think we have any other speaker cards, so all right. I will now call the applicant. You've got three more minutes to come back and address anything or make any closing statements.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Carolyn Nguyen and I'm one of the owners at 16717 Choco Drive. I have not been the person managing the technical details of this planning process day to day, my husband Deepak is, but I'm one of the owners and this is our family home. I want to speak briefly from my perspective. I completely understand the changes next door can raise concern. We respect that, and then we have been willing to consider reasonable compromises, but some of the recent requests from the appellants feel less like a concern about guidelines, compliance, but more like strong personal preferences about how our family home should be redesigned. and now even at ADU, please keep in mind that the appellants do not live in the neighborhood the house have been renting out for several years. Major designs can change the layout, the flow, the cost, the time, and whether the subject still works for our family. They could have potential to displace us to be moving out and redesign our home. This is not an investment property. This is our home we live in. And we try to do that to hopefully one day to move our elderly parents and So the design reflects our family needs while minimizing the life disruption for both us and our parents. We're still open to reasonable compromise and neighborly consideration, but I hope the Commission will also recognize that we have tried to act in good faith and that our family needs and goals deserve respect as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the Speaker? Commissioner Sordy?

So just for the record, are you then actually requesting the six-month continuance? Because I know you're a signator on the letter that we got earlier today, the email.

I'm a little bit unclear if, like what the expectations are. I guess I would first request holding the approval. And if there's a strong reason to do so, I'm happy to work with the neighbors through a continuance. I think regardless if there's a formal continuance or not, I'm still happy to work with the neighbor on a couple of these design issues.

Commissioner Stump, did you have your hand raised? Okay, I have a question. How many times have you met with the different neighbors to talk through concerns and provide options?

It's variable. Some neighbors are more engaged with being involved, and some are less. I met some of them for the first time, some of them I've known previously. Some of the neighbors are like, yeah, it's your property. Do what you want. No problem. And so there wasn't a strong need to keep them reengaged. But for neighbors who did want to know more about the project, I think it's a two way street. Some neighbors reach out to me as well. We've been very forthcoming about details of the project, very transparent. And the goal was to avoid this situation. So I think it's variable.

And to clarify, It sounds like if there was concern with the east window, you are open to having a frosted window in that location.

That was the first resolution I had proposed. I mean, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding from a planning perspective and from the RDG perspective is that that's the standard way to address that privacy concern.

Often. The second window I do want to clarify is the egress window from a room, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Have you discussed options if there were continued concerns about privacy like landscape solutions that might be fast-growing trees or something that would provide additional screening?

I don't think we have. We've largely followed the guidance of the planning staff, so we're happy to introduce that as well.

Commissioner Stump, then Commissioner Sorting.

A question I have is what do you think would get accomplished during a six-month continuance, and why would you really request something that lengthy?

Well, the holidays are coming up. That will often put a pause on any progress for a month or so, a month and a half potentially. The other part of it is my design team, I think, is overwhelmed with projects. And it's been slow progress. at baseline. We started about two years ago. So I think just knowing on my side that it is going to be slow, I won't be able to expect a quick turnaround from my team is part of the reason for a six-month. And the third is I think it's complex. I mean, to move a significant amount of space over the main house is a big project. We have considered that. We've done a lot of revisions, a lot of thinking. There's a lot of stakeholders who have weighed in on this. none of us have identified a way to do that yet. So I think it would be a complicated ask, but I'm happy to do it and see what we come up with.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sordy?

He already asked my question, so yeah.

Can I ask a quick question that piggybacks on that? You reminded me of something. You had made a comment earlier that when you had looked at moving the massing, there were structural concerns. Can you share a little bit about what you looked into for that?

I'm not a contractor, but my understanding is that when you're adding a second story, often the first story needs to be retrofitted. So I think having to open up all the structure of the first floor would, number one, increase the time and cost complexity to retrofit first floor to support a second story would be a concern. And the second thing is, of course, our family would be displaced. Whereas the current project is a little bit less disruptive to our life. We could live in the house and have our project be adjacent to the existing residents.

Thank you. I'm going to Vice Chair Burnett and then Commissioner Burnett.

So If I heard correctly, the statement was made that the appellant does not live in the neighborhood. Is that correct?

That's our understanding. And it still owns the property.

It's the owner. Okay. So it's a rental property. Okay. Now I understand. Thank you.

Commissioner Burnett.

Yes, thank you. I do have a question, but I do want to thank you for going along with our town architect's recommendations, and especially with one of our residential design guidelines with the garage door not having a transparent glazing, but a solid panels, which would go with our residential design guidelines. But my question to you, I wanted to follow up on the height. You had mentioned that you were reducing the height and I know the appellant, that was one of his questions. Could you speak to that?

Yes. Can I bring up a visual aid, which would be slide 26? currently is determined by our existing residence ceiling heights, which is nine feet. And so a two-story structure would roughly be 18 feet. And the roof on top of that is determined to match the existing middle part of the house, which has a tall peak. And so that ratio was transposed over to the second story. And that was the guidance we had received from planning. And I think with the consulting architect to match architecture and to tie it together to the existing residents. So that's how the ultimate height of their residence was determined.

Thank you. But I do want to then clarify, so you said, though, with some revision, it was going to go from 26 to. 18 feet I just want to make sure that we're clear as we go through this.

Yes, and that is on slide. 12, this is a side view. The 1st, blue panel shows the current proposed design. The ridge is flat horizontal. The second one is a proposed modification where the back of the ridge drops down to 18 feet. And that drop happens over a course of 14 feet, horizontal length. So the ridge maxes out more toward the front. And the third design is a second alternative design where instead of a tall triangular peak in the front of the house, there are actually dormer windows in the front of the house, which also match the existing architecture. But it also drops down in the back as well.

And you had said one of these shifted at 14 feet away. Is that any of these or all of these? Yeah, just take the microphone with you.

This peak is closest to the appellant's property. We've dropped it down, and this length is 14 feet. So now this is the highest peak. So yeah, this length is 14 feet.

Okay, thank you. That's much clearer. Are there any other questions?

Commissioner Stump? Are you showing three different design options there?

Yes.

So have you got a preferred option or which one are you actually planning to move? What would you be moving forward with if this thing got approved tonight or the appeal denied?

The first column shows the current proposed design. The second column, the green design is a little bit more sophisticated than a wire box on the top row. And our preferred would be the second column. And the third column is yet another alternative design, would not be our preferred solution.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? No? Thank you very much.

I had one more comment about the roof.

We have to ask you a question first. So my question will be, did you have anything else you wanted to add about the roof?

The middle column was not proposed initially because our house is entirely gable roofs, and that is not a gable roof. And so the earlier meetings with the planning staff actually said it has to be a gable roof, which is why the first column includes that. And there's some decorative white wood trim at the top of that gable, which matches our current architecture. So that's another thing to keep in mind. If we were to modify to the middle column, our architecture would be a mashup.

Okay, that's good to know. Thank you. All right. Now call up the appellant. You will have three minutes.

So I have a few comments regarding the changes that we proposed. Can I go there and can you show figure four?

Yeah, as long as you just take the microphone with you, yes.

Thank you. Taking this time off my...

It's an AV system. It takes a second. So, yeah, your time is not...

So, the suggestions that we provided here are simply to say that this can be resolved without, you know, reducing the square footage or without requiring a major change. For example, this is the floor plan. We noticed that this area is right now empty. So the natural question is why not build this area, which is the living area, just right here next to these windows. So you have two big windows here and you don't require the side windows anymore. This doesn't require a major change, doesn't require reducing the square footage, doesn't require to shift this over the main house and all the structural problems that they said. So just shift this living area to this area. This area right now is empty. And you have these two windows, and you don't need this one. This one, it does not exist. So the other one, if you go, I think it's in figure six or seven, go down. Our third suggestion. So this one, again, it does not require any major change. It's just changing the shape and the roof, making it a slope like this to reduce the height. no reduction in the square footage or changing the structure or anything. And these are just simple, you know, that came from me. I'm not an expert in this. I'm sure if you talk to an architect, they have a lot more suggestions to make this easy happen. So we don't think our request is really a very big request. It's just concerning our privacy. Other comment that I have is regarding the neighbors. Actually, me and Troy are immediate neighbors and are immediately impacted by this project, whereas Jeff is across the street. And none of these windows, side windows, are facing him. In the letter that, actually three immediate neighbors is me, Troy, and Jean. And in the documents I saw that Deepak has tried to contact all these three, and none of them were available. The people who were contacted and provided comment are people are either across the street or, you know, a few neighbors further away. And regarding the rental, yes, that currently is rental, but I think that's regardless. This is still our house. At any time, we would consider moving back, actually. It's been on rent for only two years, and I think living there or being rental or not, I think it's irrelevant to these concerns. Yeah.

That's time.

Okay. We lost a few seconds for the... Well, I think there are questions for you.

Okay, sure. Commissioner Sordy, then Commissioner Stump.

Would it be possible to put up page 32 of the staff report?

What if I knew what page 32 was? I don't have the staff report.

Okay.

If you give me a minute, I can probably pull it.

Maybe we'll let Commissioner Stump ask his question while they look for that. All right, Commissioner Stump. Oh, no, not if you were gonna ask him to pull something up.

Okay. It was about shadow. And some of you, I can lead into my question while the staff. I noticed a significant difference in how the applicants study characterized shadow versus how yours did. And I'm interested to know if you used any software or, you know, how you came about the shadow that we're looking at right now.

This, as we say, no, we didn't use anything. This is just a conceptual. So this is actually the very first letter that we wrote. We just saw the project and we got surprised. And because, you know, there was a deadline, we had to submit something. So no, this is not based on any. Yeah, this is just.

So what it says that. In the lower left corner, it says low winter afternoon sun southwest. That's not based on anything other than your, because that's not even this time of year.

That is correct. Actually, this is showing the situation in afternoon. But how much shadow casting, that's not based on a software or anything. So that's what I mean. Okay.

So the shadow that we see going all across and kind of fanning out.

Yeah, so is not if I know if I guys best if I may so because in the shadow study, you know the Applicant did this study in morning morning Sun is on this side Which I don't have any problem with that. It's on the east side in the evening and afternoon.

It's gonna be on this side Okay, I'm just it's really more just speaking to the accuracy of it And I just want to use no software any technology for it. Okay. No, it's not accurate

Commissioner Scott. The brain fade is over. My question had to do with, in fact, I can't tell you, Mr. Paulson, which slide it was, and I don't think you need to put it back up, but it was really the east-facing windows that would be looking, obviously, to the east, and there was a window on the back, and you were recommending that all three windows be eliminated, and so you're basically suggesting a windowless backside of this house?

No. So if you go to, I think it's figure one, probably, Yeah, go back, go back. I think it's, oh sorry, next one, two or three. Next one, next one, yeah. So this one does not exist. We got this from an earlier plan. So updated plan, you know, does not have this window. So I think this is resolved. These two, again, as I'm explaining here, if we build this living area next to these two windows, you have these two big, beautiful windows facing a street. You don't need to have these two on the side. So we're not saying that build something without window. We're suggesting that move this to here, use these two windows for light, for egress, or any other reason. And that's natural. Every building, you want to have the windows towards the street, not towards your neighbor. Yeah, so these two windows will be the main windows.

So in essence, you're asking that both windows on the east side of the house be eliminated?

Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Commissioner Burnett.

Yes, just a question. Again, the applicant had mentioned that you need to be very close, one foot away, to even view your pool. So, I mean, isn't that a big ask? And aren't they gladly willing to frost the windows, cover the windows, do things instead of doing a remodel of an area. I mean, would you not be content with just some way that they would not be able to see out of the window for a frosted window or a glazed window? Would that not be okay?

When we talked, there was a couple of suggestions, one for the windows and one for the height, as he explained. And to be honest, I don't know all the technical details of his suggestion. I don't even know what he's suggesting, if it's going to be implemented in the final. Uh, construction or not, because in what, uh, it is approved. None of those is is there right? So I don't know if this is going to be implemented or not. Regarding the windows again, as I explained here, I think there are easy ways to just use those 2 windows. and not have the side windows, because side windows, the window could break, you know, people could open the window. I mean, they're all kind of, I mean, it's not a permanent solution. But we see there are easy ways to address that, and of course, we prefer that. That's our suggestion. But again, you know, anything that helps with the height, anything that helps with addressing the privacy. Of course, we would like to see that, but I don't know if any of those suggestions are already in the plan are going to be in the plan. I have no idea in the current plan that I see none of those exist.

So, if they were in the plan, if that was part of the. passage of their plans, would that be something that you could go along with?

I would like to know, and that's why actually I supported his request for six months' continuance. I would like to know, especially the one that I'm showing right now, I would like to know if that's something possible because I believe that's probably doable without a major redoing the plans or anything like that. If there is something really that, you know, technically or some other reason, I'm not a technical person, that this plan is not doable, then of course, you know, we can work together to come up with something that address this, you know, as, you know, as good as it can. Yeah. But my preference is if they consider my changes that I, you know, that I proposed.

Thank you. All right. Any other questions? I see none. Thank you. I will now close the public portion of this item and ask my fellow commissioners if they have questions of staff, if anyone wants to venture a motion, and then we can have discussion. Do you guys care if I ask a quick question of staff first? Although there has been a statement of a proposed continuance, should we decide to vote differently? We are not tied to that continuance suggestion, right?

Thanks for that question. The continuance is a request that can be considered by the Planning Commission or the Planning Commission could make a decision on the appeal tonight.

Okay. Thank you so much. Anybody have questions of staff? Vice Chair, then Mr. Stump.

Mr. Millen, we don't have the tenant attorney here, but would it be feasible to include a condition of approval, a denial of the appeal, that the owner frost or otherwise make opaque those two windows in question?

Thank you for that question. Yes, that would be a condition that could be added.

Thank you. That one caveat through the chair, because I know we have an outstanding question on another project for specific to egress windows. So we're waiting for some information from the building official unless Mr. Mullen already got that information.

I did. And the building official indicated that egress windows can be frosted or obscured.

I am surprised to hear that. Thank you for checking on that for me. Commissioner Stump, did you have a question for staff? That was it? Okay, all right. Does anyone else have other questions of staff or does anyone want to venture a motion? Commissioner Stump?

I move to deny the appeal of a Community Development Director decision to approve a request to construct a second-story addition to an existing single-family residence on property zoned R18 located at 1617 Sherco Drive, APN 424-20-014, minor residential development, application MR2417. Zero one eight categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act section 15 301 existing facilities property owner Deepak Gupta applicant meet wrong appellant Zahra Hasha Hemi and project planner is Maria Shabaran Further, I can make the finding that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the adopted guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15301 existing facilities. I can make the finding that the project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code. I can make the finding that the project is in compliance with the residential design guidelines for single-family homes not located in the Hillside area. THE MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS CAN BE APPROVED. SOME OF THE FACTS THAT I WANT TO REFER TO, IF I CAN, UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO FOR A SECOND FIRST ON THIS. I WAS GOING TO SAY I WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME FACTS.

LET'S GET A SECOND AND THEN WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION. IS THERE A SECOND?

Like the motion vice chair.

All right. Is there a discussion?

I guess, you know, as I have taken a look at the staff report and this project and the testimony that has been provided tonight, it's clear that this project being a single family residence, that it is in compliance with. OUR CODES, ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, BUILDING COVERAGE, HEIGHT, SETBACKS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED SURROUNDING PRIVACY, SURROUNDING SHADOWING, SURROUNDING HEIGHT AND MASS, SURROUNDING REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND THE NEW ATTACHED GARAGE, I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THESE ISSUES AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A LOT OF EFFORT TO ADJUST THIS TO MEET CONCERNS OF THE APPELLANT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMENTS? VICE CHAIR?

I WOULD PROPOSE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WE INCLUDE THE CONDITION THAT THE WINDOWS IN QUESTION BE FROSTED OPEQUE OR OTHERWISE.

ABSOLUTELY.

I will support the motion. I also agree that it seems like there has been a great deal of effort in to make modifications to design to meet neighbor needs. In addition, as stated by Commissioner Stump, this house meets all of our design guidelines. um it is um i actually live relatively close to this rather um the way the streets it's rather eclectic through there there are a lot of different architectural styles sizes and revisiting the area yesterday i feel that the design actually is compatible with that neighborhood and will nicely fit in commissioner sortie

I'll just comment briefly. I'm going to support the motion as well. I think that the argument made about the shadowing is it's a very high bar, for one thing, to support an appeal given the fact that it's just an advisory or it's something that you study, right? You don't have to prove that there's no shadows on somebody else's property. And perhaps the most compelling part of that was that there's no solar. That's being shielded and that would usually be probably the only instance maybe in which we would really take seriously of shadows casting across somebody else's property. But I think that even more convincing is that there wasn't a really convincing case made about the privacy. I think that, yeah, I just, I wasn't convinced about that and I do think that extraordinary effort's been made by this applicant, so I'm gonna support the motion.

Yes, and my comment is I, again, I also will support the motion. I feel that the appellant's concerns have been addressed. There's been five of them, and I think the applicant has really tried very hard to make all the adjustments and go along with what our town architect and staff recommended. So I will definitely support the motion.

Right, then if there are no other discussion, I will call the, oh, sorry. Sorry, go ahead, Commissioner.

I'm sorry. Commissioner Stump made an excellent motion, but I thought there was some conflation of the conditions and the plan, so I just want to make sure that we're approving the conditions on Exhibit 3 and also the amended plans. You said that, but maybe it was kind of jumbled, those two together.

CERTAINLY YOUR CLARIFICATION IS FULLY ACCEPTABLE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I WILL CALL THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ARE THERE APPEAL RIGHTS?

Yes, the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the Town Council by any interested person as defined by Town Code Section 29.10.020 within 10 days on forms available online with fees paid. The appeal is due by 1 p.m. on the final day if it is a Friday.

Right. Do we have a report from the Director of Community Development?

Thank you, Chair. So just quickly, just wanted to update the Planning Commission. The Council adopted the objective design standards of their last meeting last week, so that will be moving forward. We're still gonna be looking into a couple other items, but ultimately, the Council decided to get the new ones in place as they are, with some, I think, a couple minor tweaks that were recommended by the Planning Commission, and then we'll move forward from there.

Great. Are there any subcommittee reports?

We did have a Historic Preservation Committee meeting today at 4. I had to recuse myself for one, and so I don't know how that turned out. And the one I was present for, we did recommend a change to the shingles. We approved what they had planned for the house.

Great. Any others? Are there any Commission matters? All right, seeing none, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.