Attachment 2LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Matthew Hudes, Chair
Melanie Hanssen, Vice Chair Mary Badame
Kathryn Janoff
Town Manager:Laurel Prevetti
Community Development Director:Joel Paulson
Town Attorney:Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 2
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR HUDES: Now we move onto another town wide
amendment, which is Item 4, Town Code Amendment –
Demolition Regulations. Town Code Amendment Application A-
19-003. Consider amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning
Regulations) of the Town Code regarding demolition
regulations. The applicant is the Town, and Ms. Armer, I
think you'll be giving us the Staff Report.
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, good evening. Good evening,
Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. The item in front of you
is consideration of changes to the definition of
"demolition," as recommended by Town Council Policy
Committee and the Historic Preservation Committee and
forwarded to you for your recommendation to Town Council.
The recommendation from Policy Committee impacts
the current definition of demolition in two ways. One, to
remove the contiguity requirement from the demolition
definition for both non-historic and historic homes; and
two, to allow an exception to demolition requirements for
repair of non-historic homes that is currently only
available for historic homes. These changes are intended to
streamline the land use process and reduce costs for
remodels of existing homes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This concludes Staff's presentation, but I'd be
happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. Any questions?
I have one, and it relates to a comment that was
raised, I believe, at the Historic Preservation Committee
about the possibility that there would be slivers. I
believe Mr. Spaulding raised a possibility that we wanted
to avoid owners slicing and dicing small pieces to meet the
substantial exterior wall area requirements, and he
suggested to stipulate a certain dimension, such as nothing
less than 2'. Is that something that you considered, and do
you consider this slicing or slivering issue a way that
this might be abused as it's currently drafted?
JENNIFER ARMER: I would say that it is possible
that you would have fragmented elements of buildings in
remodel, but I'm not sure that there's a good, clear way to
easily set up a definition for that, unless you want to go
back to the contiguity which requires that connection
between all of the area to be counted towards the 50-
percent.
CHAIR HUDES: I think his concern was that you
could have a sliver that's the size of a 2x4.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: Yeah, and I think that goes
beyond the intent of the changes to the ordinance to
envision that level of, as you say, slicing and dicing.
JOEL PAULSON: And through the Chair I would just
add as with the previous item if we find that folks use
that type of scenario to not be required to go Architecture
and Site, then again, we would probably ask that both
Planning Commission and the Council revisit that issue.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. No other
questions, then I'll open the public portion of the
hearing. I have a card from Bess Wiersema, and then David
Zicovich, and Gary Kohlsaat and Jennifer Kretschmer. So,
Bess Wiersema, you're first.
BESS WIERSEMA: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm
sure you probably understand from seeing all of us at
different times that the whole demo diagram is a very
complex and unique thing we have to deal with on every
single project that we address in Los Gatos. I think one
thing that we all have in common, regardless of the
projects that either come before you or simply stay at a
level of Planning discretion, is that the demo diagram and
current policy is something that is extremely cumbersome,
does not protect the intent of what I think probably it was
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
initially meant to, and creates problems rather than
addressing them.
The strict policy around how these are policed
and monitored, both in drawing form and in the actual built
environment creates an extensive amount of problems ranging
from things that I think impact design overall, all the way
to not being helpful in terms of how we have to build today
compared to how houses were built that we are touching.
I think we could all probably speak on this for a
lot longer than the three minutes we're each allowed to do.
I did just bring a few pictures of some examples of items
that I just want you to understand are protected according
to the current way, and even the proposed way, of looking
at this that I think are not in building's best practices,
let alone code compliance, structural, etc.
For instance, this is a current project. This is
a cardboard wall that's currently being encased inside of a
home. Yes, a cardboard wall. There it actually is. That's
your demo plan at work. Doesn't work structurally, doesn't
connect to a foundation, but by God, let's keep it to
maintain the integrity of the house in the demo diagram.
Here's another house where I have pulled off the
skin on the inside of the building only to discover that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's rotten. Super-duper rotten. If I take the stucco off
on the outside, now I'm a technical demo and it's an issue.
I think what's important for you guys to see and
understand with some of these examples is that the policy
does not work, and the current definition, while a great
step forward, especially with the loss of the line of
contiguity from a definition, we need to also address the
skin of the building, what we consider to be 50-percent.
Today's building codes don't allow us to build properly by
keeping interior and exterior skin, both or individually.
CHAIR HUDES: Thank you. Are there questions?
BESS WIERSEMA: I have lots of other examples if
you want to see things or understand a demo diagram or what
a house looks like, but I know I don't have time to show
them all, unless you ask.
CHAIR HUDES: Thank you. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. What would be
your recommended solution?
BESS WIERSEMA: We believe the definition of
demolition needs to be addressed, period. I think we have
to look at it not in terms of skin on a building, whether
that's interior or exterior, and we have to understand that
project proposals sometimes require us, because of current
building code, to affect the structure within that skin and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the only way for us to get to it properly, whether that's
from a waterproofing or a structural or an intent that's
just to say hey, I bought this $2 million piece of junk and
I'm remodeling it for another $1 million, but you're going
to make me keep my whatever it is, rotten old XYZ, in order
to meet a diagram I think is the problem.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I understand the issue and
had a couple questions myself regarding what happens when
you do take off reasonably intact exterior or interior wall
board and find floating studs and whatever else. My
question to you was do you have specific wording that you
have proposed or can recommend?
BESS WIERSEMA: I don't believe that skin or
whether we keep the inside of a building from a surface
perspective should be considered at all at any percentage.
If we want to look at a building it should be about
potentially its overall mass. I don't know, I think we'd
have to look at that further. I think our concern is that
this is a giant, great step, but that that definition has
not been perfected in terms of what you're seeing here
tonight.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR HUDES: I might follow up with another
question. I assume you do work in other municipalities as
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
well, and is this draft getting closer to what other folks
are doing, or is this pulling us farther away?
BESS WIERSEMA: I think it's getting closer. I
think it's a step in the right direction for sure.
CHAIR HUDES: How would you characterize the
ability to deal with a demolition in Los Gatos as compared
to other neighboring communities?
BESS WIERSEMA: Antiquated and consuming.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. David Zicovich.
DAVID ZICOVICH: Hi, I'm just here to back up
what Bess has said. I have a hundred pictures that look
just like that; I didn't bother bringing them. A lot of you
have already seen them. Years gone by when we ran into a
problem like dry rot in a wall and we had nothing but
stucco holding it up we could call the Building Department.
They'd come out and they would say go ahead and take it
off, fix it, make it right. That is not how things are done
now.
I brought something into the Planning Department
a few months back. We had dry rot from the bottom of the
window sill all the way to the bottom of the floor, there
is no contiguity over the top, and they said come in for a
new house permit. Obviously, no one in their right mind
would do that, so we abandoned the dry rot in the wall;
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's in there still and we're finishing up the house now
and it's rotten and needs to be replaced, so I suppose when
we're done with the house, we'll go in for a separate
permit to repair it.
So, above and beyond what's going on with you
guys changing the ordinance, how the Building Department
and the Planning Department are dealing with this are to
the strictest terms of what you guys are putting into the
codes, so there has to be a little bit more flexibility
between what's codified and what is really, really
happening out in the real world. You saw the cardboard
walls. I can show you pictures of dry rot. We're entombing
walls that are completely junk. We have fireplaces that are
falling down but we can't take them down because it will
break the contiguity of the building. So, you need to put
something in there that will allow for these other
conditions. Questions?
CHAIR HUDES: Vice Chair Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Like was asked Ms. Wiersema,
do you have suggested language that we should be using
instead of this? You mentioned the way it used to be was
better.
DAVID ZICOVICH: If the Building Department and
the Planning Department had a little bit more latitude, or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were operated with a little more latitude, and a little
more common sense. In the past we've pulled the walls off
the inside of a house, and old lath and plaster building,
the stuff's breaking off the walls already because the
house has been neglected for a hundred years, and we tear
all the interior off to find out that there's no moisture
barrier on the outside of the house.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Right. I heard the concern.
The question I asked was do you have a suggestion about how
this should be written versus the way it is?
DAVID ZICOVICH: I don't believe the code has
changed any, I believe the way that the Building Department
and Planning Department are enforcing them are stricter
than it once was and they're following the rules completely
and not really applying any common sense, or not allowed to
apply any common sense.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. I see.
CHAIR HUDES: Any questions? Okay, thank you.
Gary Kohlsaat.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Good evening. I will use my time
wisely, I hope.
Number one, I applaud the abandonment of this
contiguity requirement. I think that makes it almost
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
impossible to conform. There are plenty of examples to
prove that; I'm not going to go into that.
I wanted to talk about what my bigger concern has
been for the last 20-25 years, that the definition of
demolition is removal of either or both the inside and the
exterior of the wall in line with each other, so you can
see right through the wall, but leaving the framing, but we
have to leave one of the two surfaces, right? Everybody
knows about that rule. Let me give you four examples, and
these are four examples that I have had in my projects.
One, we had a house that was all stucco and the
guy wanted to put shingles on the house that covered up the
stucco. We weren't even going to take the stucco off; we
wanted to just add shingles. Technically, that was a
demolition.
Number two, let's say you have a ranch house
that's built in the sixties and typically they did the
curbside appeal with siding, and on the other three sides,
on the back and the sides, they did it in stucco for cost
reasons. Well, let's say we do some remodeling in the back,
we want to add siding to match the front. Now we have two
sides without siding. We want to add siding on the sides?
Nope, that's a demolition. Not going to work.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
These are two instances where the client was
penalized for trying to make the house look better, and
where is the demolition involved in that? It's not.
Two more, really quick.
A lot of older garages do not have drywall; they
just didn't finish out the garage. But many times, we're
using that space for a family room or whatever or adding on
through the garage, so now we can't take off the outside
surface of the garage, because there's no inside surface.
We're actually telling our clients, to be candid, to
drywall your garage before we apply, so now we have drywall
on the inside, so we can take the outside off. Pretty
ridiculous, right?
The fourth one is I have a current project where
we've demolished the outside of the house, the outside
skin, we left the drywall in, and we did the demolition in
December. We covered up the walls, we covered up it up in
plastic, the contractor took great care in doing all this
stuff. They pulled the plastic off in April after we had
some sun in March and he's got black mold on the drywall.
So, I go to the Planning Department, I ask what do we do
about it? Well, you have to take off the drywall, that
means it's a demolition, and now you have to go back and
get it approved.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HUDES: Thank you. Are there questions? I
had a question and I don't know whether it relates to other
points you'd like to make, but we've heard now from several
folks that there are challenges with the concept of
demolition that go beyond what's in the proposed ordinance.
So, my question is, is this something that you believe
could be addressed by better definitions of demolition, or
that the concept of demolition needs to be abandoned
completely?
GARY KOHLSAAT: I would not want to give up the
concept of demolition completely, however I think that the
framing should denote what's there, what the wall is. It
should be the framing portion, not the finishes.
A case in point is Saratoga now accepts that, so
there's your local example. There's a new planning director
that's come in and they basically have decided that we
don't have to keep the interior or the exterior. They
realized they want a better product in the end. They want
the houses to have all the waterproofing and the
insulation, and they want the building officials to be able
to inspect in proper sequence, because if you leave your
inside on and take the outside off and then you do wiring,
it throws off the whole sequence of building inspection, so
the Building officials I think would be in favor of this.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HUDES: As a follow up to that, would that
suggestion apply equally to a historic structure as a non-
historic?
GARY KOHLSAAT: I have sympathy for the historic
structures and the Preservation Committee that we do, but
I've seen plenty of old homes that don't have any water
vapor barriers and I think the lead in the paint is the
only thing that keeps the moisture out, and there's no more
lead in paint. So, it's too bad when I've got a client on
Glenridge that's spent $2.5 to $3 million and he doesn't
have a vapor barrier on the outside of his house because
they had to leave the siding.
CHAIR HUDES: So, there might be…
GARY KOHLSAAT: My thing with historic structures
is, and we've seen it time and time again, where we can
recreate exactly what was there with new material, with
matching siding profiles, matching stucco, matching stone,
we can do it. Dave Flick did it. Dave Zicovich has done it.
If Dave Zicovich can do it… (Laughs) No.
I think that we get hung up on something that is
old just because it's old. Look at the Steinbeck House in
Monte Sereno, it caused a huge…because the wood was rotten,
and the City made them Bondo it back. So, what are we
saving? You could have done a much better job taking it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
off, put shear plywood on the wall, put the waterproofing
on there, waterproof the windows correctly, matching siding
on there, or matching stone, or matching materials; it's
not that difficult anymore. We do it on purpose; we try to
make a home look old and distressed. I mean, we can do it,
and it makes just a better product.
In today's world they talk about build it green,
we have green rules and we have energy compliance and we
have everything else, and I think that we need to take
another look at this. I mean, if you have an old home, an
historic home, I think maybe you replace it in-kind, but
you get away from the slivers, and you have siding that's
old and siding that's new and you can see that seam. Why
would we do that when we have the ability? We do.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Yeah, thank you.
CHAIR HUDES: Jennifer Kretschmer.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Hello, good evening, I'm
Jennifer Kretschmer, AIA. I am a resident and an
architectural business owner here in town. I'm also on the
AIA Silicon Valley Board of Directors, although I am not
speaking on behalf of the AIA, I'm speaking solely on
behalf of myself and my clients.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In general, I'm wholly in support of removing the
contiguity rule. It does help us become more in line with
local communities as well as getting rid of a big issue of
the front door/back door demolished house rule. What that
means is someone wants to change something to the front of
the house, maybe put in a new window or a new front door,
they want to do something nice to the back, and as soon as
they do that and that's it for the scope of work, through
the contiguity rule that's considered a demolished house.
So, I'm really glad you're getting rid of that part.
My colleagues have said some really good examples
and so I'm not going to bring in any of my examples. What
I'm going to bring in is that I did write a letter and
submitted it on Thursday, May 16th, so hopefully you guys
received that.
I did have an idea for a way of addressing the
repair statement, although I don't think it's wholly
fleshed out yet. I'd like to propose that that would say in
the non-historic section, "Repair: The removal and
replacement of in-kind, non-repairable exterior or interior
wall covering resulting in no change to its exterior
appearance and/or approved design character if approved by
the deciding body." Now, there are a few definitions in
there I'd like to go over and clarify.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
By "deciding body," I don't think it should just
be the Planning Commission or the Planning Department. I
think we definitely need to have the Building Department
and the Building official and the Building inspectors be
able to chime in so that we do not have any more health and
life safety issues, because just like my colleagues, I've
had to leave things in walls that I wake up in the middle
of the night sweating that this is going to be a health and
life safety issue for their family because mold has been
left in the walls, creosote in old chimneys have been left
in the walls, and those sort of things.
In my statement in saying approved design
character I'd like to say that what I meant by that
definition is that the Planning Department has already
approved a design. Whenever someone is remodeling their
home, they're really trying to make it better than it was
before, and so the approved design character would mean
that it would say in conformance with the design character
that the Planning Department had already approved in the
set of plans, so therefore if you have to remove a section
of wall it does go back in-kind as the approved design
character.
That's about all I'd like to address right now.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HUDES: Thank you. Questions? Yes,
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I thought that
the language proposed in your letter is actually very
constructive.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That's for you guys. But I
do have a question, given that we're talking about exterior
or interior wall covering and it sounds like it's exterior
and/or interior.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: I think it would be best if
we were allowed to have that kind of flexibility, and of
course working with the Building Department for those life
safety issues, and as well working with the Planning
Department as long as we do not have to go back as a tech
demo and go back through Planning hearing and Commission,
because of course that could stop a project for three to
six months.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Okay, thank you.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: You're welcome.
CHAIR HUDES: Vice Chair Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I read your letter and thank
you for your comments. If we were to change the repair
definition to what you suggested with the understanding
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
behind what you suggested would that address the
deficiencies of this building and drywall, or are there
more changes that we need to make?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: I think it's a really good
start. I feel very comfortable with that language, but I do
also think that we need to include some language about
items that are projecting from a wall or items that are not
contiguous with the wall, for example, the chimneys, bay
windows, a lot of those things are not addressed, and we
have policies of how we deal with them but nothing is
written down or nothing is very specific, and so I would
also want to see that addressed in this policy so that it
is very clear what are the guidelines.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I'm going to paraphrase that
although you and others said you applaud the removal of the
contiguity that there are at least a couple of different
things that need to be relooked at that would make it more
streamlined and address these impractical issues of
encasing mold into walls, etc.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Yes, yes.
CHAIR HUDES: I had a question on the deciding
body. I seems like you're proposing and/or Planning
Department or Building Department, and are you suggesting
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that there are criteria where it only goes to Building
instead of Planning?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Absolutely, yes. The
Planning Department is most concerned with zoning issues,
with locations of setbacks. The Building Department is
concerned with life safety issues. So, if it is a criteria
that has come up that's a life safety issue it really
should be addressed by the Building official. If it is
something that could disrupt the approved design character,
then certainly to go back to the Planning Department.
CHAIR HUDES: So that would be something that
would be stated on the permit application? Is it a life
safety or is it a design? How would that get sorted out in
the process?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: I'm not a policy writer,
but I would love to see that if it could just at least say
that the Building official has the authority, because right
now it basically goes to Planning, and if Planning doesn't
like it or Planning can't make it work with the rules the
way they're set it doesn't matter what the Building
official was.
And as some of my colleagues mentioned, when we
used to have this in the past with different Staff members
at the Town the Building official did tend to take
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
precedent over life safety issues and did sometimes
override the Planning Department.
CHAIR HUDES: We'll get to questions of Staff
later, but to come back to that would it be feasible to say
that it goes to the Planning Department and if there is a
life safety issue it also goes to Building Department?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: I'm not sure. You guys need
to hash that out.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, so that's part of the
discussion. I think it has to be clear, in your opinion?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: It should be clear though
who is the deciding body.
CHAIR HUDES: Right. Okay, thank you. So, that's
all the cards that I have, and we would now close the
public portion of the hearing and ask if Commissioners have
questions of Staff or wish to comment on this proposal?
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Would it be possible to
make the sort of changes recommended by the architects, in
general changing the authority for approving the repair
without it triggering a technical demo? Would it be
possible to include that in this ordinance, or does that
happen someplace else?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: Based on that concern and that
question Staff would recommend that rather than saying the
deciding body that it could be changed to the Community
Development Director who is the head of both the Planning
and Building divisions, and so that decision would be made
in consultation both with Planning and with the Building
official.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If I could follow up, would
that in effect provide sort of a check and balance as to
whether it is a technical demo or it's a repair situation
or a health and safety situation?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. At this point for non-
historic homes there is no way to address this type of
situation, and so the proposed revision is allowing that
flexibility that has been requested here this evening.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, thank you.
CHAIR HUDES: So, you said that it could be
accomplished that way. It does seem as though we've added
some complexity to this process, is that correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: There are two parts to what's
proposed: The removal of the contiguity, which I think
we've heard reduces the complexity of the process, and then
codifying an opportunity to address these situations where
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there is some repair needed to allow some flexibility and
judgment by Staff.
CHAIR HUDES: But I was specifically asking about
that second part where there is repair needed, and that
decision goes to the Community Development Director. Is
that making the process more complex and taking more time?
JENNIFER ARMER: No. No, it would be an internal
Staff discussion.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay. What about the idea of
requiring the application to state whether there is a life
safety issue involved?
JENNIFER ARMER: When somebody comes in stating
that this type of repair is needed, we would be asking them
to provide an explanation of the situation, and those
details would be considered. As I said, if the decision is
going to the Community Development Director, he would have
consultation both from Building and Planning.
JOEL PAULSON: And through the Chair, I would
just say that's not something that we would add to an
application. We would just take those facts and then make a
determination.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. Other questions?
Vice Chair Hanssen.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: This last issue that was
mentioned by Ms. Kretschmer about the items projecting from
the wall that would interrupt the contiguity, what could we
do about that?
JENNIFER ARMER: The question of chimneys in
particular was actually discussed, as it was part of the
discussion with the Policy Committee, and that actually
does not require a change in the code but would just be a
change to the details in the demolition affidavit to
include chimneys along with the doors and windows that are
currently exempt from being part of the existing wall area,
and so that's something that could be done without
requiring code change.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: And that's not something
we're considering tonight. We're only looking at the code,
right?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. There was a
question that was raised in some of the testimony about
perhaps using framing rather than surface or exterior to
define demo. Does Staff have an opinion about using framing
rather than exterior surface?
JENNIFER ARMER: That discussion isn't part of
what was proposed by the Policy Committee. The
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommendations were pretty specific to these two items to
try to really move this forward quickly to try to simplify
the process, so a larger discussion, if the Town Council
wishes to direct that, could a follow up.
JOEL PAULSON: And through the Chair, that also
could be part of your recommendation. If you believe that
if someone just leaves the framing then that should be okay
for either historic and/or non-historic, that definitely
can be part of any recommendation to the Council.
CHAIR HUDES: I understand we could make that
change, but before I would support something like that, I'd
really be interested in Staff's opinion on making that kind
of a change as to whether that would result in abuses. It
sounds like it's something that's been accepted in
Saratoga, but beyond that evidence I have very little data
to try to make a decision on that particular point.
JOEL PAULSON: And neither does Staff.
Ultimately, I would imagine, and I can't speak for the
majority of the Council, but if that was included in the
recommendation, I envision that there might be a sending it
back to the Policy Committee to have that discussion and
then subsequently sending it to HPC if it impacts the
exterior coverings of historic buildings, and then we'd be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back here before you with all that information and start
the loop over again.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you. Other questions?
All right, discussion. How do folks feel about this?
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I'm really sympathetic to
the public testimony, having gone through the nuances of
Santa Cruz County's regulations in terms of demolition, and
so I'm very much in favor of the changes that have been
initiated already, and I'm also in favor of augmenting the
changes with the following.
I think that the definition of repair that Ms.
Kretschmer offered is a very constructive one, but I would
also include exterior and/or interior walls so that it
allows you to take off both surfaces if you do need to make
a repair, and I can't think of why the definition for
repair would be different in historic and non-historic, so
my thinking is it would be the same.
I also am strongly in favor of letting the
Building official determine whether or not you've got a
repair that needs to be made, whether it's health and
safety. I appreciated how Ms. Wiersema said that how houses
are required to be built today versus how they've been
built in the past and having it touch old and new and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
trying to make that work it would be very challenging, so I
think we need to be sensitive to that and letting the
Building inspector or the Building official make a
determination to help the process move along in a way that
allows the integrity of the structure to be maintained or
recreated at the highest level and absolutely avoiding
situations where we're just working around existing mold or
unsafe construction; that makes absolutely no sense to me.
So, I think those changes do go in a positive
direction, and I think also looking at what Saratoga has
done to modify their ordinance will be very constructive,
so I would recommend that this go back with those changes
and looking at what Saratoga has done and see if we can
learn from that.
CHAIR HUDES: Question for Staff as a follow up
to that, which generally makes sense to me. Is there the
need for language about historic properties to talk about
matching or in-kind materials?
JENNIFER ARMER: Changes to the repair section
for historic structures is not part of what's being
discussed tonight. What's in front of you is the addition
of this repair section to the non-historic structures as
well as the removal of the contiguity from both the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
historic and non-historic, so that would be opening up a
different part of the definition.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay. The reason I asked, I think
Commissioner Janoff mentioned historic as well.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Yeah, and I think as the Chair
is aware, in historic the HPC has the ability now to review
the condition of the exterior siding and make a
determination that it needs to be replaced in-kind, and so
that would stay the same; they have that ability.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, so that would not be needed,
in your opinion, to include historic in the scope of this
change?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Right.
CHAIR HUDES: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If historic isn't included
in the scope of changes that we're talking about, in
Staff's opinion will the problems that the architects have
described, having to button up poor construction and other
problems, will that be solved by the latitude HPC has, or
not?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Well, a couple things maybe I
should clarify. Of course, the contiguity would change with
the historic, and that's what the HPC looked at and
discussed as well. You're talking about the issues with the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
framing itself, the dry rot of the framing itself? Which I
believe the HPC can look at that.
JOEL PAULSON: I would just add, current process
for a historic house, you find dry rot or something that is
irreparable that you think needs to be replaced in-kind,
you can go to HPC. Depending on what it is you sometimes
don't even have to go to HPC, you come to Community
Development, we talk to the Building official, he makes a
determination. All we're doing in addition to the repair to
the non-historic is allowing that opportunity for non-
historic buildings, so that doesn't really change. We
already have that process and that's the process we use for
historic currently. Sometimes they do have to go to HPC, it
just depends on the circumstance, but this is offering that
same opportunity as a work-around for those types of
situations when they come up.
JENNIFER ARMER: And I would add that for non-
historic homes of course we're not going to HPC, so it's
actually an even simpler process.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, other questions? Are we
closing in on a motion? Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I'm just going to comment
that I'd like to see Commissioner Janoff go ahead with a
motion; I think she'd get our support.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I move that the Town Code
Amendment Application A-19-003 be forwarded to the Town
Council. I can make the required findings for CEQA and I
can make the required findings for the General Plan,
specifically to Chapter 29 of Town Code regarding
demolition, and that with that recommendation that it go to
Council the changes that I previously summarized are noted
or incorporated, however that process happens.
CHAIR HUDES: Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Second.
CHAIR HUDES: Question for the Maker of the
Motion. With regard to the decision process it's been
suggested by Staff that a way to involve the Building
Department in the decision was to have the deciding body be
the Director of Community Development. Is that what you
intended, or is that what you'd like to include?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay. Seconder?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: So accepted.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay. Sounds good. I will make one
more comment and then I'll call the question.
I will be supporting the motion and I wanted to
thank, very much, the professionals who have submitted
information and showed up for the hearing and provided in a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/22/2019 Item #4, Town Code Amendment – Demolition Regulations 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somewhat constrained setting the ability for us to take
input and to have some dialogue, and I think it's one of
the things that makes the Town great and I really
appreciate the involvement. It would be very difficult for
us to come up with something good without the involvement
of the professionals who really know the issues that we're
facing, so thank you for that.
I will call the question. All in favor? Opposed?
Passes unanimously. And this one, I believe, is no appeal
since it's a recommendation, correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: That's correct.
CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.