Attachment 6 - February 9, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim MinutesLOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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:
Melanie Hanssen, Chair
Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair
Kylie Clark
Kathryn Janoff
Steve Raspe
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 6
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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 HANSSEN: We can move on to the public
hearing portion of the meeting and we will be going to
Agenda Item #2, which is requesting approval for the
demolition of an existing single-family residence and
construction of a new single-family residence to exceed the
floor area ratio standards with reduced front and side yard
setbacks on a nonconforming property zoned R-1D. This is
located at 118 Olive Street. APN 410-15-022. Architecture
and Site Application S-21-013. Property owners Thomas and
Meredith Reichert. Applicant: Jay Plett, Architect. Our
project planner is Sean Mullin.
This agenda item is a continuation from our
January 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, however, I
will still ask if there are any disclosures that any
Commissioners need to make from the time that we had our
last meeting? And are there any Commissioners that visited
the site since the last meeting? All right, we have no
disclosures, so we can move on to the Staff Report. Mr.
Mullin, will you be giving a Staff Report?
JENNIFER ARMER: I will be making the
presentation on behalf of Mr. Mullin this evening. Good
evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
The item before you, as was just stated, is a
continuation of your discussion on January 12th. At that
meeting the Planning Commission considered the application
and directed the Applicant to continue neighbor outreach
efforts and contact neighbors that expressed concerns, and
provide a three-dimensional rendering of the proposed
residence.
In addition to the information that was provided,
in response to these two items as Exhibits 14 and 15 for
your Staff Report, a Desk Item was also provided today with
revised three-dimensional rendering with dimensions,
additional public comments, and the Applicant’s response to
public comments.
This concludes Staff’s presentation, but we would
be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any Commissioners have
questions for Staff at this time? Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair, and just
one quick clarification. Nothing substantively has changed
in the plans since we last discussed it, is that correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: That’s correct. It really was
just doing the additional outreach and providing the
additional information rendering that was requested.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you so much.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have
questions for Staff? I had one quick question about the
Desk Item, and that was we had a couple comments that came
in and I was curious as to whether or not those commenters
were part of the group that we asked the Applicant to
address that hadn’t spoken previously on the item?
JENNIFER ARMER: I’ve not gone back and compared
the names, but I think we can ask that of the Applicant to
let us know whether that those are people that they had
previously reached out to.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good, thank you. If no other
Commissioners have questions, then I will move on to the
Applicant, and the Applicant is able to address the
Commission for up to five minutes.
JOEL PAULSON: Mr. Plett, you can unmute yourself
and begin your presentation.
JAY PLETT: Good evening, Commission Members. Per
the instruction that we received we submitted a three-
dimensional diagram of the structure, and we submitted a
Desk Item that depicts the various dimensions from property
line that shows that this is not a flat façade of any kind
that might have been conveyed through just a flat
elevation. There is a lot of depth and back and forth on
the façade of this house.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
The change though that you spoke of, the balcony
over the garage, that is shown removed in the three-
dimensional depiction that you have as a Desk Item, so that
shows a sloping shed roof over the garage in lieu of the
balcony that was there.
We also did conduct further outreach to the
neighbors and they were able to walk around the property,
invited onto the property, could view the story poles close
up, and have the discussion with the owners of the
property.
I’ll turn it over to Thomas Reichert now to talk
about the one specific neighbor.
THOMAS REICHERT: I think the question was
specific around the people who signed the current letter. I
believe that there is only one person that signed it that
did not show up, and that was 108 Olive. I had not talked
about it here previously or to this point at all. Everyone
else who signed it I believe participated in the previous
one as well as showed up to the second open house to
discuss the project.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Are you finished with your
comments?
JAY PLETT: Yes. we’re open for questions.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Of course, and I will ask if the
Commission has any questions for the Applicant?
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. That was a very
brief presentation, but I’m curious to know from the
property owner what you included in your item; we have a
summary of the outreach. Can you summarize the summary and
let us know whether in your opinion you were able to
assuage neighbors’ concerns? You made a change to the plans
by moving the balcony. Can you just give us a quick update
on whether you found this to be an action that moves your
project along in the direction you had hoped?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s a great question, and I
would say the overall takeaway was it was nice to meet the
new neighbors, or as the new neighbors to meet everyone, so
I think that was really a positive point in the
participation. Everyone who came in that second session was
someone who I had not met since moving in. Because it was
during COVID we hadn’t met any of those neighbors and they
had also not reached out to us as the new neighbors, so it
was nice to have this happening to discuss that.
Another point outside of that, more to your
question was I think there was some clarity brought,
because not everyone is familiar with reading plans, so
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
when you see it just on 2-D paper. One of the specifics was
people thought we were going for more build, higher build,
more side build, more front build, and when they came and
they looked and could see it and we could discuss it in
person, the fact that we weren’t going for the maximum
height, the fact that we weren’t going for full length,
two-story, all the way across, those were points that we
came to a little bit of clarity on.
I think some of the issues with parking and the
fact that we were asking for exemptions were points that no
one changed their opinions on, but that became very clear
on the sticking points that we didn’t necessarily agree
with.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So that answers your question,
Commissioner Janoff. Do any other Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant? Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Continuing on that vein, I
tried to summarize your summary, and is it correct that you
had four neighbors who were unconditionally in favor of the
application and one neutral?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s correct. There are only
two addresses within the 5+2+2 that are opposed. It’s the
two neighbors I believe to the west, 120 and 122, which is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
the vacant lot. All of the other neighbors were either
neutral or supporting, that’s correct.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: And as to those who did not
support, their concerns were primarily the variances and
blocking views?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s correct. I didn’t touch
on the point that there was positive feedback on the fact
that we were switching from the balcony to the roof. Again,
didn’t dissuade the sticking points, but that was the whole
point of common ground.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, that answers my
questions.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I had just a clarifying question.
In the Desk Item today there was a couple of letters, and
in the first one a person basically said, “I wanted to make
sure that you knew that I was not in support of the
project.” I didn’t have time to go and check to where it
was relative to the last hearing. Had that person
previously voiced their disapproval of the project?
THOMAS REICHERT: Correct. I think you’re talking
about Jim, the neighbor at 110 Olive?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Well, they blocked out the
address; that was part of the problem.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
THOMAS REICHERT: Jim signed both letters, and
each time after he signed the letter I asked him what his
concern was, and both times he said that it was a
combination of parking and the contractor selection. I
don't pretend know what he signed with the letter, but to
me, both times he said he’s fine with it as long as we are
good with this parking situation and not using that
contractor that worked on the project next door to him.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Good. I think that cleared it up.
I felt like you did a very thorough job of documenting all
the interactions you had and reaching out to the people. I
wanted to make sure there weren’t people coming out of the
woodwork that we didn’t know about before.
THOMAS REICHERT: There was one person who did
not continue signing the letter; the person who owns 116
Olive refrained from resigning the newsletter.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, very good. I think
that answers my question. Do any of the Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant? We will have another chance
after public comments, if we have any.
We will move on to public comments, and this
would be a time for any member of the public to speak about
this item on the agenda. Do we have anyone that would like
to speak on this item?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Anyone from the
public that wishes to speak on this item, please raise your
hand. We will have the telephone number ending in 1501
speak first.
SHELLI BAKER: Good evening, Planning Commission,
this is Shelli Baker, owner of 120 Olive Street here again.
As a reminder, our property is directly next-door on the
west side of the proposed home to the left, and
understandably the most effected.
As noted at the last meeting, our expansive
mountain view will be completely blocked and we will be
looking out of our living room, kitchen, dining, and master
bedroom windows at tall walls. These same areas will loose
their incredible natural lighting, as will our entire back
yard, as confirmed in the shadow study provided.
Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do about this.
But, it gets even worse. The proposed exception
of reducing the side setback from 5 feet to 3 feet is
preposterous, especially when considering the stitch
piering process taking place just that much closer to our
80 year old constructed home on a sloped lot with sump
pumps underneath. Given the research we’ve done, the stitch
piering process is going to shake the heck out of our home
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
no matter what, but even more so if this reduced side
setback exception is granted.
Additionally, the elevation of the rear, exterior
walk-out decking requires clarity, as it appears that the
submitted architectural renderings don’t clearly depict the
height. If I am guessing accurately, not only will our
kitchen, dining, and back yard lack natural lighting, they
will lack cherished privacy as well.
We were not able to walk the property the evening
that we visited. It was 5:30 Friday night, it was very
cold, it became dark, and we had some interruptions as well
that did prevent us from even going down the side yard into
the back yard at all. Didn’t even come across the radar.
If this proposed plan is approved as is it will
be the beginning of the end for Olive Street as we know it.
The narrowest street with the tiniest lots in Los Gatos,
every cottage sale hereafter will be viewed as a tear-down,
land value, and as they turn over, more overbuilt homes
with exceptions galore, will prevail. That’s beginning the
domino effect. I believe in hindsight the Town and Planning
Commissioner will regret their hastiness in needlessly
granting these types of exceptions to the rules that were
set in place for valid reasons, but it will be too late and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
those who have lived here and loved their homes will be the
ones who have suffered.
As with most, our homes are our livelihood.
Planning Commissioners, we ask that you put yourselves in
our shoes, in our homes, and try to feel the situation as
it really is. Imagine if this were happening in your world
on your street, or even next door to your home. The
important decisions you make here regarding 118 Olive
Street will set a new precedent and expectations for the
future owners and/or builders on Olive Street.
That’s what I have to say this evening. I could
say more, but thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. I’d
like to ask if any Commissioners have questions for Ms.
Baker? I don’t see any hands raised. Is there anyone else
that would like to speak on this item?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, the next speaker will be
Bonnie Hurwitz. Bonnie, you can unmute yourself and then
you can speak.
BONNIE HURWITZ: Thank you for allowing me to
speak this evening. I agree with a good deal of what Shelli
said. A couple of areas of clarification.
The gentleman that owns the property at 108 Olive
is a surgeon and he’s often on call, so he’s unfortunately
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
unable to attend these calls, but he did sign both letters,
and I just want to make sure you know that it’s not for
lack of interest in the topic that he’s not on the call.
As for what Shelli said, I did attend the
outreach meeting. We were not invited to walk the property,
as she said. Initially it was very nice to meet the two
owners of the property, Meredith and Thomas, but shortly
after we convened there, yes, it was 5:30; yes, it started
to get dark; yes, it become cold, but we also were
interrupted by a neighbor that intervened and interrupted
the conversation and didn’t allow a productive conversation
to proceed, unfortunately, so that neighbor didn’t do any
good service to the ensuing possibly productive
communication that could have happened that evening. As a
result, I have to admit it really was a bit of a waste of
time, but on the other hand, neither was that neighbor told
to please be quiet and take his viewpoint someplace else. I
left there feeling that it was a decent attempt, but I got
nothing really out of the meeting. Again, we weren’t asked
to walk the property.
When I looked at the meeting, the renderings that
I saw originally, in my view and I’m not an architect, it
looks like a tear-down to me. It does not look like any
kind of addition being addressed there. They’re going to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
just dismantle the entire property, and basically when I
was asking questions about the garage and the property
itself, the feeling I got when I walked away that evening
was that they pretty much said we know what we want, and I
get that, they know what they want, and they asked for what
they wanted and nobody told them they couldn’t do it. There
was no pushback. They asked for what they wanted and it was
a bunch of checkmarks on a bunch of boxes, and check,
check, check and off they went. So, that’s why they
proceeded with the renderings that you guys are all seeing
today. They asked for everything and nobody said no, so I
agree with what Shelli has said.
And by the way, on the prior call, my
recollection was that one of the Commissioners, I don’t
recall who, said this area was in transition. This area, if
you ask some of the local owners, it’s not in transition
and many of us have owned our properties for a long time
and we intend to stay. I, for one, have owned my property
for 18 years, and I bought it as a single person, and I
intend to stay. Thank you very much.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you so much for your
comments. I’d like to ask if any Commissioners have
questions for Ms. Hurwitz. Vice Chair Barnett does.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: As I understand, there were
two opportunities to meet with the owners, and I was
wondering if you attended both of those or just the one
where it got dark and cold and you weren’t asked to view
the property?
BONNIE HURWITZ: It was the second meeting and I
had some personal medical thing to attend to on the prior
call, so I wasn’t able to attend the first meeting, but I
attended the second one when I felt better. If you need to
know that, that’s the case and that’s the truth.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I understand that. Thank
you.
BONNIE HURWITZ: You know, the fact that it’s
convenient for the neighbor, it’s not necessarily
convenient for everybody else.
CHAIR HANSSEN: We thank you for your comments,
and I think you answered Vice Chair Barnett’s question.
Staff, is there anyone else that would like to speak on
this item. I saw a couple hands.
JOEL PAULSON: Yes. The next speaker will be
Keith White.
KEITH WHITE: Thank you for the opportunity to
speak. When my wife and I owned 120 Olive Street about
which Shelli Baker spoke earlier, when we were looking at
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
buying 120 Olive Street we spent a lot of time researching
the neighborhood, looking into the neighborhood to see what
was going on, and trying to imagine what changes we could
expect going forward in the future.
It was mostly made up of a lot of smaller homes,
some remodels. Our house had been remodeled prior to us
purchasing it. It’s a very narrow street, very quaint, and
we thought this would be great for us for now, and the
change we could see would be some amount of turnover, some
amount of remodels.
We went so far looking into it as to review the
building codes and go down the Building Department and ask
them what could be expected, what rules would be followed,
and we were fairly much assured that the Town was a
stickler for the rules and making sure that everybody
follows them. And yet, here we are 20 years later, and it’s
not just the neighborhood changing, it’s actually the house
right next door, which we expected; but we didn’t expect
that it wouldn’t follow all of the rules, and specifically
the front and side setbacks are the ones that concern us
most as those have the greatest impact on our property
specifically, but also the floor area ratio being exceeded,
because we expected it to be smaller homes would remain the
norm.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
So, the rules as they were and the rules as they
still are, just not being followed, doesn’t seem to be
reasonable to me and I ask you why that’s not the case? Why
not follow the rules? I don’t fault the new owners, who
seem to be very nice and their architect has done a great
job presenting a nice home, but it isn’t that much
different to just follow the rules and this problem would
go away.
That’s my concern. Thank you very much for the
time.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. Do
any Commissioners have questions for Mr. White? I don’t see
any hands raised, so thank you for your comments. Is there
anyone else that would like to speak on this item?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, there is. The next speaker
will be Darren Carroll.
DARREN CARROLL: First thing, just quick
clarification, both meetings I think were at the same time,
at 5:30, so the getting dark and cold was the same thing.
The other thing is we weren’t invited to walk
around the house or anything of the sort.
And thirdly, we were not privy to any additional
information as we had assumed was part of the direction
from the Planning Commission to provide additional
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
renderings. Nothing was offered. No full size plans, no
renderings, no sketches, no nothing.
Then I’ll read as quickly as I can here. Olive
Street is a charming neighborhood with older, smaller homes
on a very narrow street. Unfortunately, several of the
characteristics that made this a nice neighborhood are also
the character (inaudible).
Parking is abysmal. Garages are often not used as
intended and driveways are rarely used for more than one
car, so ultimately the overflow turns into a game of
musical chairs for the permitted parking on Olive Street.
The losers end up on San Benito Avenue, and the residents
of San Benito that are not allowed to park on Olive Street
have no place to park. This is especially difficult for
those of us that have family members that are aged,
handicapped, or have health issues. Therefore, every effort
should be made to lessen the impact of the situation by
enforcing a full-length driveway that is not including the
public right-of-way, and installing the car lift that is on
the plans.
The homes are very close together and the
Applicant had a choice to remodel a cute home that allows
setbacks consistent with that home and therefore the
neighborhood, or to demolish the home and build in an
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
entirely different direction. The Applicant has chosen the
latter, yet proposes building a house that does not follow
either of those criteria, and even requests several
unnecessary variances. There are no inherent, compelling,
or logical reasons why this needs to be. Incidentally,
there has not been another home on Olive Street that was
demolished and then built.
Very slight modifications to the plan bring the
home back in line with the rules and lessen the concerns
many neighbors have without significantly changing the
design or integrity. Simply moving the house 5 feet back
from the property line and 2 feet to the east for the
garage will alleviate neighborhood concerns as well as
solve the problematic, sub-standard length driveway.
As for the size of the house, a nonconforming lot
is given the benefit of a higher floor area ratio than a
conforming lot to compensate for its size. This home not
only takes advantage of that, but it exceeds it by 308
square feet, or 23%. The building of a basement that did
not count allowable coverage was originally implemented
specifically to help nonconforming lots lessen the
neighborhood impacts, not as an absolute or an addition to
substantially passing allowable coverage, as this house
proposes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
There have been a few comments about the
participants being nice people, having kids that play
together, or about helping families as reasons why this
house should be approved or given special treatment. These
are all nice sentiments that truly have no bearing on the
situation. Any form of favoritism should not weigh in or be
a consideration any differently than if a decision was
based on age, sex, race, or marital status, none of which
are allowed. No one is telling these people that they can’t
build a house. The point is they should build a house that
follows the rules just like thousands of others in this
town have adhered to, and hopefully with a little respect
and consideration to the neighborhood and its concerned
residents, we will all benefit. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Is that all of your comments?
DARREN CARROLL: I hope so.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. It was very thorough.
I just wanted to make sure you were done.
DARREN CARROLL: The point being, if you’d allow
me just one second here, that that meeting served no
purpose. We had no suggestions for compromise or solution.
It was interrupted. We were not allowed to discuss
anything, and we were provided no additional information to
help process the thoughts or make any determinations or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
suggestions, or perhaps even consider the fact that some of
us may have been wrong about something. There were no
renderings, which is something that I believe was
instructed by the Commission, and no mention of that. No
full size plans, no survey, no color drawings, no walking
around saying see, this is where it actually is.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think we’ve gotten to your
three minutes.
DARREN CARROLL: I’ve made my point. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, and thank you for that. I’m
going to ask if any Commissioners have questions for you,
and it looks like Commissioner Janoff has a question.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Darren, can you
please restate your address?
DARREN CARROLL: I own the house at 546 San
Benito Avenue, which technically shouldn’t be involved with
this, because I’m not in that parking district, and 122
Olive Street.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Do any other
Commissioners have questions for the speaker? Vice Chair
Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Is it your position that the
setbacks for this proposed house must be in strict
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
accordance with the code? I thought you might have said
something to the contrary.
DARREN CARROLL: I don’t understand why they
can’t be, because it’s not going to change the integrity or
the design of the house by meeting the code. It would
follow the rules. If they want to remodel it, follow those
rules. If they want to build new, follow those. I’m not
opposed to either one; I just think there has to be
consistency here, because I think that’s what the rules are
for, first off. Second of all, the exact reasons that
Shelli Baker and Bonnie Hurwitz mentioned, that once these
people get five exceptions to the rules or variances the
next guy comes down the road and says, “Well, I just need
one more,” so pretty soon we’re going to…
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: You’ve responded to my
question. I appreciate that answer.
DARREN CARROLL: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Staff, is there anyone
else that wants to speak on this item?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Anyone else from
the public that wishes to speak on this item, please raise
your hand. I don’t see any other hands raised, Chair.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Then we will go back
to the Applicant, and the Applicant has up to three minutes
to respond to any of the comments that were just made.
JOEL PAULSON: Mr. Plett, you can unmute
yourself, and you have up to three minutes.
THOMAS REICHERT: I just wanted to say thanks for
everyone who commented from the public. I also wanted to
point out that yes; we invited people to our home. Those
were not the only two opportunities everyone had. We gave
everyone our phone number, our email, and invited them to
two times that worked for us. We didn’t receive any other
form of communication other than the one time they all came
together at once at the second meeting, so there was no
other outreach. If they had felt that the information they
needed wasn’t properly provided, they could have reached
out to consume or gather than information.
I also want to point out we didn’t necessarily
have all the doors and gates open at the house, but also no
one asked to walk to the back yard. They did walk to the
side yard from the neighbor’s spot, some of them did. They
were on our property looking at the flags. No one asked for
the plans. We had them all in the house. We talked for more
than an hour, and at not one point did someone ask to see
them; I had them right inside the door.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
I heard some of the public comments talking about
variances. We’re not asking for any variances, we’re asking
for two exceptions per the code that specifically allow us
these types of exceptions for nonconforming lots.
And we’re consistent with the neighborhood. I
just wanted to point out one specific thing with Shelli and
Keith’s home, which they talk about our setbacks and our
two-story, and I just want to point out that they’re
potentially the most impacted home, which I agree with, but
their home has a 3 foot setback, it’s two-story, it’s front
yard setback is less than 15 feet, and it doesn’t have a 20
foot driveway.
We literally are proposing the same house as
theirs, and with a compliant driveway. It’s basically the
same. I know our previous documentation has been clear that
there’s context to the neighborhood, and why the Planning
Department recommended for approval, and why in the last
meeting the Planning Commission mentioned it fits with the
context, but we wanted more time to have the neighborly
talks. I know we outlined all that, but I wanted to point
out the house that they say is the most affected has all of
the same exceptions that we’re requesting, every single
one.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
Jay, I don't know if you want to point out
anything else in the last minute?
JAY PLETT: I would say that yes, Staff found the
project worthy of approval, and that we are consistent with
the patterns of the neighborhood. We’re even more compliant
than most of the houses in the neighborhood when it comes
to setbacks, and we are not the largest and we do not have
the largest floor area. I would point you to look at sheet
A-1.1 of the plans, and if you go to the second drawing
down from the top, it’s Olive Street looking at the
project, it’s the street elevation and you can see the
house from San Benito, how tall it is and how things are
falling down, and the house at 120 Olive and its height.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Are you completed with your
comments?
JAY PLETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant? This would be the last
opportunity. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I actually have
several questions.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to step
through some of the concerns that were raised from the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
speakers tonight. There was one regarding the destruction
that construction would cause to the underlying soils
perhaps. It would be my understanding that the architect
and geotechnical planning for this would ensure that that
destruction would not occur. Mr. Plett, can you respond to
that?
JAY PLETT: The basement will be constructed with
stitch piers, which is a way of shoring straight down with
the cut for the basement, so there will not be any slope
instabilities that will be created with the method that
will be used to construct the basement. And there has also
been a soils report that we have produced ahead of time by
a very reputable soils engineer, and the soil is very good,
it’s very stable, it’s not loose, and it’s very conducive
to the construction of a basement on a small site like
that.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, thank you. The
next question has to do with the rear balcony, and I think
we heard that the neighbors appreciated the removal of the
front balcony. I don’t see a rear balcony on the elevation
that you provided that would impact 120 Olive. If I read
your plans it would appear that any second story visibility
would be on the opposite side and rear of that house, is
that correct?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
THOMAS REICHERT: The rear deck, it’s just coming
out of the sliding door on the ground floor. I think it’s
just a nomenclature that’s it’s called a deck. It’s just
where you walk off the back door.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So, it isn’t a second story
balcony?
THOMAS REICHERT: No, and that was also clarified
in the first Planning meeting.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I thought so, but because
since it came up again today I just wanted to further
clarify. This is for either of you. Do I understand from
reading the letter that you provided in the Desk Item that
the house currently has the same setbacks as the proposed
structure would have, did I read that correctly?
THOMAS REICHERT: No, the current house, the two
things that would change, it’s currently sited in the exact
place as the new plan, except for two: the garage being a
little wider to comply, and the front being extended for
the streetscape.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Let me be clearer. Is the
setback that borders 120 Olive currently 3 feet, or are you
changing it from 5 feet to 3 feet with the garage?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
THOMAS REICHERT: Five feet, and we’re changing
it from 5 feet to 3 feet only for the first level of the
home and garage.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just on the property side
that borders 120 Olive.
THOMAS REICHERT: On the first story next to the
garage it gets 2 feet closer, but not on the second story.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m going to keep going.
There was a recommendation that you move the house back and
over. Can you do that and stay within all of the setbacks,
or does that create an issue for the opposite side or the
rear?
THOMAS REICHERT: It does create one directly for
the opposite side if there were no changes, and for the
rear. I’m unclear what the rear setback is, but we are
siting it to be at the exact same position out of respect
for the back neighbor who talked to us at the beginning of
the process and asked us not to have a house that overlooks
their back yard, so that’s kind of the reasoning from early
conversations off the planning process.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, thank you so
much. I appreciate your answers.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant? Commissioner Clark.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. This is kind of
along the lines of Commissioner Janoff’s question, but it
seemed to me that clearly there’s a lot of public concern
about this, and a theme that came up was that they’re upset
about exceeding the FAR and reducing the setbacks, and
since it’s a demolition that would theoretically have been
possible to do at the beginning, and I understand that you
could leave the front setback and just have a smaller back
yard, I wanted to ask why specifically you chose to change
those and what kind of problems it would cause for you to
conform?
THOMAS REICHERT: Was your question why did we
choose to go from a renovation to a new build?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: The question is given that
you’re doing a new build, why was it necessary to exceed
the FAR and to reduce the setbacks?
THOMAS REICHERT: It’s hard to answer that
question specifically, and that’s why I gave the context in
the Desk Item of the history of the development of the
project. The entire project was developed as a remodel. As
we went through the process we didn’t necessarily want to
pay the prices and do the work to underground utilities,
put in fire sprinklers, lift the house, and do all this
stuff, so it became a discussion point with the Planning
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
Department of like what if we were able to do a new
project, what would be the things we’d have to do that we
wouldn’t be required to do as a renovation? So, the design
of the house as a renovation was completed and essentially
approvable to come to the Planning Commission, but there
were not changes from the design after we’d made those
decisions. I hope that answers the question.
MEREDITH REICHERT: I can add, I think the FAR
has more to do with the lot size, and that’s consistent
with other houses on Olive Street. So again, we just tried
to make that consistent with the neighborhood so it wasn’t
a big, mammoth house sitting in the middle, but a house
that would work for our family but still fit with the
neighborhood.
And again, yes, the 3 foot setback on the side
was because we started as a remodel, and now that we’re a
new build I get that theoretically you could think like
let’s change that, but to change that means either a
noncompliant garage or shifting our house in a way that
affects the setback on the other side, which doesn’t work,
or we build a narrow house, but that doesn’t work for an
actual livable kitchen, so it’s hard to come up with a
successful solution on that one.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
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
JAY PLETT: I’d also say on sheet A-1.1, if you
look at the neighborhood plan, the lots are small so no
matter what we do… If you look, there’s a 4-foot setback at
112 Olive, and 114 Olive is 10 feet. Across the street 133
Olive has a 7-foot front setback. We have a smaller setback
at 131 Olive. 125 Olive has a 5-foot front setback, no
driveway.
What we have done is we’ve designed a house that
is very much in the pattern of the neighborhood, and we are
not asking for the greatest floor area, the greatest FAR,
nor the smallest, shortest setback on a side, nor the
smallest, shortest setback on the front. The house that we
have designed falls right in the middle pattern of what the
neighborhood is like. That’s why Staff found the project
worthy of approval, because it fits in the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, and may I ask one
follow up on that?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I remember from our previous
meeting that the reason you reduced the front setback even
though you had a large enough setback was you wanted to
have a back yard area, and so would you consider
maintaining the front setback and having a smaller back
yard in order to appease some of the neighbors concerns?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
32
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
MEREDITH REICHERT: I think that shifts the
problem then to our back neighbor. That was a little bit of
the comment from Thomas to the previous question, that they
had requested that we don’t come closer, as well as
maintaining the space. If it meant we could build our house
or not, we would go back and revisit that conversation with
the back neighbor, absolutely, but we believe this still
fits the neighborhood as it is.
THOMAS REICHERT: And I think the back neighbor
is similar to us. They have kids and they play back there,
and we hear each other’s kids bouncing on the trampoline
and singing back there. Potentially our windows would look
over into their back yard, and I think that’s a valid
concern similar to how we’re making concessions with 120
Olive to not have our patio in the front. It’s really hard
to appease everyone that we’ve heard, there are a handful
of neighbors, so I think Meredith’s point is of course if
it only meant we can do it, I think there would be reason,
but I don’t think pushing one person’s problem onto another
was the approach that we were taking when we designed the
house.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I actually hadn’t realized
you had talked to the back neighbor, so that’s good
clarification. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
33
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 HANSSEN: Did you get your questions
answered, Commissioner Clark?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to loop back
regarding the setback on the garage side. As I recall, one
of the drivers for that was to create a conforming garage
to enable the cars to be parked in the garage or in the
driveway—well, that doesn’t affect the setback—instead of
being parked on the street. Could the Applicant please
confirm that that was the motivation for widening the
garage, so that you can alleviate some of the parking
issues?
THOMAS REICHERT: I would say I don’t know if it
was the chicken or the egg, but as part of the Planning
Department review before we even were up for Planning
Commission, it all happened together, yes. And the 3-foot
is only on the first floor.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant? Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I made a note that there are
four homes in the immediate neighborhood that have larger
FARs. Can you confirm that?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
34
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
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s correct.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I just wanted to confirm along
the lines of Vice Chair Barnett’s questioning. If I recall
from the last hearing, you had documented that there were
multiple other neighbors within the immediate neighborhood
that had exceeded the floor area ratio, and also I thought
that you had a chart with people that had similar side and
front setbacks, is that correct?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s also correct.
CHAIR HANSSEN: My recollection was that you had
established that there was consistency with the
neighborhood for the exceptions that you were asking for.
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s also my understanding of
the takeaway of the last meeting, yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant before I close the public
hearing? I don’t see any hands raised, so I’m going to
close the public hearing and ask if any Commissioners have
questions for Staff, wish to comment on the application, or
wish to make a motion? Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I think that the
Applicant did what we requested them to do, which would be
to provide opportunities for more neighborhood outreach.
They did make a couple of changes to the plans that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
35
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
enhanced the privacy for neighbors. That’s why I feel
satisfied that the Applicant conducted their work to the
satisfaction of the Planning Commission.
Regarding the concerns of setback, this is an
overly-constrained problem and any direction of improving
the setbacks to meet Town Code will create a problem for
another neighbor on one side or other or the back. Given
that the setback of 3 feet is on the side, one story only,
and it’s the garage side and it creates a conforming
garage, I’m comfortable with approving that reduced
setback.
I also don’t have an issue with the floor area
ratio.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Do any other
Commissioners have questions for Staff or wish to comment
on the application? Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I agree with
Commissioner Janoff that they did what we asked of them and
definitely to our satisfaction. They gave extensive reports
of the outreach that they did.
But I did find some of the comments from
neighbors concerning, and I think that it’s worth
discussing some of the concerns that were brought up.
Something that I was particularly struck by was the comment
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
36
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
about the concern that if it becomes a precedent for
cottage purchases to become tear-downs to build larger
homes, that could start being a pattern that we see. And
they did, they bought this property very recently, probably
knowing that this was the plan, and it’s important to have
this variety of homes and to have these cottages that stay
cottages, so that people will be able to afford them. While
I think that in this case they did their due diligence and
I think they do have reasonable reasons to expand their
property, I think it is something to keep in mind going
forward.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. I
think that was very helpful. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you for bringing up
the issue, Commissioner Clark, of whether or not this sets
a precedent. I wanted to look back to our prior meeting
when there was also discussion around does this set a
precedent, and we hear a lot of complaints about oversized
houses, reduced setbacks, and so forth.
One thing that we didn’t mention at the last
meeting regarding these questions, and yours tonight, is
the responsibility of the Planning Commission to hear each
application as a brand new, stand on its own merits,
application. We specifically don’t apply the decisions that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
37
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
we’ve made on houses in the same neighborhood. We look at
each application on its own terms and it’s own merits.
Every application in unique, and so the guidance that we’ve
always been given and provided to each other is that we are
looking at these de novo, that there isn’t a precedent to
be set, and so I think that’s helpful going forward and
that’s the way I see this particular application tonight,
but it’s a good question and we should keep talking about
it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I will also comment, because I
was the one that made the motion to continue the item at
our last meeting, if I recall. The Commission’s general
feeling was that the plans were appropriate for the project
and the neighborhood, and that the only issue was making
sure that the neighbors had an opportunity to be heard.
From my point of view I felt that the Applicant
did a good job of reaching out to the neighbors. It’s
really impossible for anyone to be in a situation where
they could possibly know to address every concern of every
single neighbor, but they did open up their property to
talk to people, and I felt like they did an excellent job
of documenting all the conversations that they had.
I don’t know that anything has changed from where
we were before, which was that this is relatively modest,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
38
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
given the size of the house growth for the family, and that
it isn’t going to exceed any of the existing boundaries in
the neighborhood, which is the floor area ratios of other
properties that have exceeded, as well as the setbacks.
From my perspective, I think the Applicant has done what we
asked.
As far as the renderings are concerned, one of
the speakers did bring it up, maybe we could have but we
did not ask the Applicant to produce renderings
specifically for the neighborhood outreach. It was to help
the Commission understand, and those are a matter of public
record as well, so it’s not that no one could have seen
them, but it wasn’t part of our direction that I recall
that they had to produce those specifically for the
neighborhood outreach.
Do any other Commissioners have any comments that
they’d like to make, or would any Commissioner like to make
a motion? Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I have a comment and I’m
prepared to make a motion.
The comment is that I’m very sympathetic to the
concerns regarding loss of view, but we’ve been told
repeatedly by the Town Attorney that that’s not an imbedded
legal right, and I don't know if the attorney is online
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
39
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
here today so we could confirm that, but that’s been his
legal advice on a number of matters to date.
JOEL PAULSON: Through the Chair, Mr. Schultz is
not able to join us, but I can confirm that Vice Chair
Barnett’s statement is accurate. He has stated that
repeatedly.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Does that answer your question,
Vice Chair Barnett?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Would anyone else want to comment
on the application or make a motion? Vice Chair Barnett,
you said you would be prepared to make a motion. Do you
have other questions that you’d like answered?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: No, I’m prepared to proceed.
Concerning 118 Olive Street, I move approval of the
demolition of the existing single-family residence and
construction of a new single-family residence to exceed the
floor area ratio standards with reduced front and side yard
setbacks on nonconforming property zoned R-1D. APN 410-15-
022. Architecture and Site Application 5-21-013. Property
owners Thomas and Meredith Reichert.
In terms of the findings:
One, I can make the finding that the proposed
project is categorically exempt pursuant to the adopted
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
40
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
guidelines for the implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303, New Construction.
Two, I can make the findings as required by
Section 29.10-0903(e) of the Town Code for the demolition
of the existing structure.
Three, I can make the finding that the project
complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the
Town Code with the exception of the request to exceed the
FAR standards for reduction of the front and side setbacks,
and for an exemption from the parking requirement.
Four, I can make the finding as required by
Section 29.40-075(c) of the Town Code for granting approval
of an exception to the FAR standards.
Five, I can make the findings as required by
Section 29.10-265, subparagraph 3, of the Town Code for
modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots,
including setback requirements.
Six, I can make the finding as required by
Section 29.10.150(h)(2) of the Town Code for reducing
parking where it can be shown that the lot does not have
adequate area to provide parking as required.
Seven, I can make the finding as required by the
Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the project
complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
41
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
Eight, I can make the consideration as required
by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval
of an Architecture and Site Application.
Nine, I approve Architecture and Site Application
S-21-003 with the condition contained in Exhibit 3 and
development plans in Exhibit 11.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that very thorough
motion. Do we have a second for Vice Chair Barnett’s
motion? Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I second the motion as
presented.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Are there any
Commissioners that wish to make any additional comments
before I call the question? I don’t see any hands raised,
so I will call the question. By roll call please vote yes,
no, or abstain. Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
42
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
And I vote yes as well, so the motion passes 5-0.
Director Paulson, are there appeal rights for this action
by the Commission?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you, Chair Hanssen.
Anyone who is not satisfied with the decision of the
Planning Commission could appeal that decision to the Town
Council. Forms are available online and in the Clerk’s
Office. There is a fee for filing the appeal. The appeal
must be filed in ten days, and the deadline on the tenth
day is 4:00p.m. for submittal.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Director
Paulson.