Alright, mics are on.

Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to today's uh Planning Commission meeting for the City of Belmont.

Um I'll go through the participation rules first.

Um can uh watch or per participate in this meeting by um one watching it on Comcast uh cable channel twenty seven.

Um it is streamed live via the city's website at Belmont.gov and of course the meeting is available over Zoom, and the instructions for accessing uh that Zoom account are uh in the agenda.

Um there are various ways to submit public comment.

One uh uh you can comment in chambers.

I would ask that you complete a speaker slip, return it to the clerk, and come up to the lectern, you'll have three minutes to comment.

And uh secondly, uh you can comment um over Zoom by following the instructions that are set out in the agenda.

And um lastly, uh we have written comments that um are submitted up till five o'clock this evening.

Uh those written comments um are um circulated uh amongst the audience here and will be part of the record.

Any comments that are received uh via email at the C dev at Belmont.gov website after five o'clock will not be read into the record but will uh be made part of the record uh following tonight's meeting.

Great.

With those instructions in mind, let's uh take a roll call, please.

Okay, roll call.

Uh Commissioner Adam Kevich here.

Kramer?

Here.

Chair Coolidge.

Present.

Uh Twig?

Yeah.

Jadala here.

And absent tonight is Commissioner Majeski.

Great.

Let's now turn to item two, which is the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please stand and flag is here.

Hi.

Which stands one nation, under God, invisible with liberty and justice for all.

I thank you.

Um item three is our community forum.

Uh this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to comment uh on any matter, excuse me, not on tonight's agenda that is within the purview of um the commission.

Um, and so if anyone has uh any public comment for item three.

Um, no speaker slips in house or raised hands on Zoom for this item.

Great.

Seeing no comment, we'll move on to item four, which is uh commissioner announcements and agenda amendments.

Firstly, I'll see if my colleagues have any announcements.

We do.

Uh yeah, I just had one.

I got a question from a resident about how to find uh minutes, uh agendas, agenda packets, and then minutes from past meetings.

Um we realize that if you go to the uh planning commission page specifically at the bottom, that is not working.

But I want to just reassure everybody that if you go into the main uh meetings agendas and minutes page, it has all of them.

Planning commission, parks and rec, city council, and so I just want to say that yes, those those are available.

Apologies that the planning commission page itself specifically is not the place to look.

So I just wanted to make that clear for the public.

Thank you.

And that's at Belmont.gov slash departments slash meetings.

You can find it under our city meetings and agendas.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

It's helpful.

Anyone else?

Great.

Any agenda amendments from staff?

Uh staff has none, Chair Coolidge.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

CRISP, moving along.

Uh, item five, uh, this is our consent calendar.

We have one item.

Uh, it's item five A, which is the approval of the meeting minutes from the September 2nd, 2025 meeting.

I'll ask if there's any corrections or comments uh regarding the meetings.

If not, I'll ask for a motion to approve.

Seeing no comments or corrections.

I have a question, but is it the prior minutes?

I don't remember seeing them.

We haven't seen them yet.

They come out of order sometimes.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, you're not Mr.

Memory.

Right.

Yes.

We will be preparing those minutes later, but yes, these are coming first.

There's, if you remember the prior meeting, there was lots of testimony.

So we are working on preparing those minutes.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion to approve the minutes of September 2nd.

Seconded.

Great.

Okay.

Roll call, Commissioner Adam Kavich.

Aye.

Kramer.

Aye.

Chair Coolidge?

Aye.

Twig.

Aye.

Jadala?

Aye.

Motion passes five zero for the approval of meeting minutes as presented for September 2nd, 2025.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to item six, which is the study session.

I don't see any items under that heading.

Is that correct?

And then no items under section six.

Great.

So we're moving on to our public hearings portion of the meeting, starting with item 7A, which is a single family design review at 1131 Notre Dame Avenue.

And before turning to the staff presentation, I'll ask if there's any site visits or ex parte communications.

Site visit only.

I have nothing to report.

Nothing to report.

Great.

So it looks like Planner Ruiz will be giving us a presentation on this item.

Yes, I am.

And thank you for the introduction, Commissioners.

You need no introduction.

But I still gave you one.

This is for 1131 Notre Dame Avenue for a single family design review.

Per the proposal, it'll be for an upper story addition to create a new second story of 1,633 square feet and a lower floor bump out of 85 square feet.

The total addition will be 1,718.

While not noted here on the plans, there is a proposed accessory dwelling unit.

However, as that is per ministerial review only per the state guidelines and requirements.

So therefore you would not be reviewing that portion in this time.

For the lot summary of this location, the lot size is 6,070 square feet, the slope of 5.21%, which gives a total floor area ratio of 0.533.

The maximum gross floor area is 3,235 square feet that will be permitted at this location.

The current home size is 1,511, the proposed being 3,229, and a maximum square footage again noted to be 3,235.

Per the single family design review, it has to follow the following requirements of being well designed, articulated, and consistent with our residential design guidelines, that public views shall not be impacted, and that it would be compliant with the design guidelines and criteria.

While the left side is currently not able to meet the normal required setbacks of six feet, there is a Belmont zoning barns exception, which allows for the continuation of nonconforming walls, so long as they do not minimize the current proposed uh existing site setback and as well as the fact that they are not going to be at least five feet or that it will be at least five feet, in which case five foot ten is existing and will be maintained.

The current uh elevation for the front is that it's a single story, um typical Americana house.

And you can now see that contemporary modern home with the second story being uh on the center mast, having portions of it articulated and jutting out, giving that wedding cake look.

For the rear elevation, again, a simple single-story home.

And then you can then see again once more the wedding uh the wedding cake look with the set center mass being primarily located in the main areas on the second floor.

Left elevations, similar concept.

Um the windows here have been primarily minimized on both the second stories on the right and left in order to help with privacy issues that were initially concerned about, at least from the neighbors, but that was not a requirement by the Belmont Soaring Ordinance.

That was the uh reflection of the homeow right and designer's uh goodwill to their neighbors.

For right elevations, similar concepts for color and materials board, there'll be white and black trims, um, exterior dark brown windows, there'll be upper floor will be uh noted with sighting, um, lower floors will be a cement board with patent, um, and then you can see these e examples.

In conclusion, staff recommends for approval.

Great, thank you, uh planner reese.

Um does the applicant wish to present?

If so.

Now's the time.

Uh, yeah.

Um so um we um we work with Jeremy on this design, um, and um, and we have got uh the committee approve it.

Um we want to um um just uh to get a bigger yard.

So um and then uh just to um um just to uh get a new house for the whole family.

Yeah.

Great.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I appreciate you coming up here.

Yeah, thank you.

Good.

Um, see if anyone up here has any questions for staff.

Uh I have a question.

It's because I'm a newer commissioner, so with the ADU, is that included in this square footage and if not, does it matter?

Um it is not included per the state guidelines.

You are allotted 800 square feet on that can in essence be its own bucket um for that calculation of square footage.

Um we are not able to the proposed accessory dwelling unit is no more than 800 square feet um and therefore is exempt from our floor area ratio requirements.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry.

No.

I did have one just point of clarification.

Um the ADU is referenced um in the setback kind of analysis.

Maybe you could just explain that for sure.

The accessory dwelling unit will be located at the right um front portions.

Um it is proposed at five feet four inches per state guidelines, you're able to go up to four feet for your side yard boundaries for accessory dwelling units.

Um, however, the actual addition that's occurring at the right sides for the lower floor uh will be maintaining that six-foot expected requirements from the Belmont zoning ordinance.

But the accessory dwelling unit in itself has its own uh state exemptions that can override the Belmont zoning ordinance.

Great.

Thank you.

That was in the staff report.

I just want to make sure that it's here for for the public.

Um fantastic.

Um, the public comment.

Um no in-house speakers or raised hands on Zoom for this item.

We do have someone here.

You'll have three minutes whenever you're ready.

Oh, it'll be quick.

My name is Mike Garude.

I live at 1121 Notre Dame.

We're the immediate neighbors to the south of the left.

Um we didn't fill out a speaker thing, but we approve this project.

Happy to see it move forward, and we just wanted to come and express our support.

Oh, that's very nice.

Thank you for coming.

Appreciate that.

Anyone else have any comments um with regard to item 7a?

Okay.

And we don't have any on Zoom either.

Uh no, no raised hands on Zoom.

Okay, great.

Alright, seeing and hearing none, um, we'll now turn to deliberations.

Anyone want to start?

Okay.

I can start.

Thank you, sir.

Um, thank you for the thorough report.

I can make the findings.

Um I appreciate the applicant's efforts in putting the side windows as either high and high or narrow to to minimize the impact on privacy.

It's not a requirement of ours, and we can't enforce it, but I always like to see uh neighbors being neighborly.

It's very makes things much easier for everyone.

So I can make the findings.

Great, thank you.

Anyone else or?

It looks well designed.

Um the cool pellet looks uh nice and keeping with the area, so I can make the findings.

I can make the findings as well.

Great.

Yeah.

I appreciated how the layout um, you know, utilizes the somewhat odd-shaped lot in a in an interesting way, and I appreciate the ADU having the side entrance.

Uh, and it looks like you'll get like a nice backyard out of it still as well.

Um so yes, I can make the findings.

Great.

Thank you.

And thank you, staff for the uh thorough presentation.

Okay, looks like we have consensus.

Um would anyone might like to make a motion.

Sure.

I'd like to move to approve the single family design review at 1131 Notre Dame Avenue, application number 2025-0025.

Seconded, okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

It's like a I guess a roll call.

Even though we don't have to, but we still do it just because for the record.

Yes, yeah.

Roll call.

Um Commissioner Adam Kevich.

Aye.

Kramer?

Aye.

Chair Coolidge?

Aye.

Twig?

Aye.

Gadala?

Aye.

Motion passes 50 for 1131 Notre Dame Avenue single family design review.

Great.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

And this matter is appealable within 10 calendar days.

Okay, good luck.

Okay.

We are now moving on to uh item 7B, which uh is an item involving our zoning text amendments for the corridor mixed use district, parking, housing element implementation, and other zoning code updates.

Turn to Deputy Director Russell.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Give me just a second.

I have a lot of papers for this.

Okay.

And even though this is mildly inapplicable, I will ask if there's been any ex-party communications regarding this item.

No.

No.

Neither.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have purpose?

So thanks.

Good evening.

I'm Laura Russell, Deputy Community Development Director.

I'm here tonight with Rob Gill, our senior planner, and Stephanie Davis, our consultant planner that's been working on this.

We also have a consultant that has helped us in some of the architectural modeling and code writing.

So that's been happening in the background as well.

Okay, so the action or request this evening is to conduct a public hearing and consider a series of zoning text amendments through various sections of the zoning ordinance.

So as background, um back in January of 2024, you might recall that the planning commission and then the city council considered amendments to implement the housing element, and there were really two components of that.

There were strictly implementation of the housing element, and then there was the secondary element to consider an increase in height in the CMU zoning district, corridor mixed-use zoning district.

And there were concerns that came up from the public from the commission and from the council about those potential increases in height to the CMU.

And so they were separated from the housing element implementation actions, and those housing element implementation actions went forward, and there was a request to do some additional study and work on the CMU height increase.

So staff embarked on that.

Um we we retained a consultant that writes zoning codes and does this architectural modeling, and we looked at the different um series of different models that we could look at to analyze what the pros and cons may be of considering such a height increase.

Then we went back to the city council um for a public meeting, a SETI session type format in July of 2024, and we reviewed those various scenarios with the city council to receive their feedback.

Um we also discussed with them um taking up amendments to our parking regulations to consolidate them, and we also got preliminary feedback from the council related to processing of by right or ministerial projects.

So that was some interim feedback that we got from the council, and then we took those CMU designs and we held a community meeting over Zoom in October of 2024.

We had about five people in attendance.

They asked and I answered a few questions, but we didn't receive any specific feedback on that time.

So the designs that are before you tonight, or the code amendments for CMU are consistent.

So they're the same ones that the public saw back in October of 2024.

We've spent a lot of time working on the amendments.

These things take a lot of time because there's a lot of nitty gritty to get into, as we'll talk about.

So we've been working on that since that time, and it's ready now that package for the planning commission and the public to consider moving forward.

So we're presenting this.

I tried to organize it in a way kind of like common language, like what are these proposed text amendments?

Kind of what buckets do they go into?

So I'm describing that in a couple of different ways.

We've got a number of actions that implement the certified housing element.

So that was just work program that we need to slowly work through during our housing element cycle.

So we group those in here because we knew we had this package of amendments to bring forward.

Then we've got the development standards in the corridor mixed use, the CMU district that we've been studying, you know, for about a year or so, and then we've got the proposal to consolidate our parking requirements into one section of the zoning ordinance.

I'm gonna spend a little bit of time walking you through that so you can kind of understand how and why we are taking up that work.

Then we've got proposed amendments to implement streamlined processing of housing projects, because as you know, the state law is putting more and more time limits now on processing of housing projects, and then we've got some kind of like small miscellaneous things that staff identified that I'll point out to you that are really about improving implementation and providing more clarity to our applicants.

So we're formally proposing to amend eight sections of the zoning ordinance.

So they are presented in the staff report in the order that they go, you know, numerically within the code, but I'm gonna try to present them in a way that provides some logic to it as well.

So we're not gonna go perfectly in this order, but essentially in this order through the different code amendments.

So the first set of amendments are to our definition section, and this is really related to compliance with state law and implementation of the housing element.

So we have a housing element program that says that we're gonna go in and make sure that we're in compliance with the law and certain key areas and certain definitions and land uses.

So those include residential care facilities.

Those of you that have been around planning commission action for some time, we used to differentiate between small and large residential care facility.

So if you see some leftover language in the code, it's because we used to differentiate.

Now the law really brings them together, but we're keeping some of that language small and large so that we don't create confusion for people that may still use those definitions for other purposes.

We had to update related to emergency shelters, the definition of family, farm worker housing, low barrier navigation center, which has a relationship to unhoused folks, and providing those kind of services, also related to permanent supportive housing and short-term rentals.

So those are all definitions that you can see in section two with proposed amendments.

Next is section four residential, and what I'm trying to add these little icons to kind of connect you back to why are we doing this?

So that's what's in the blue sort of star, like why are we doing this?

Because it gets a little confusing.

We're doing this to implement the housing element, and there's also some staff initiated cleanup in this section.

So in section four residential, we took those concepts that I went through on the last screen and listed them as permitted uses where they need to be listed.

So small and large residential care facilities, transitional and supportive housing, those are now permitted uses under state law in single family districts.

So we added that there, and then we have to address mobile home parks now under the law in our housing element, so that's listed as a conditional use, and then as a separate item as a cleanup item initiated by staff, we have text clarifications to distinguish between accessory buildings and accessory structures.

So a little insight into how we do our work.

There are certain things that just come up all the time that create confusion that the public is like, what does this mean?

How do I look it up?

And this issue of what qualifies as an accessory building versus an accessory structure comes up all the time.

And so this is they're pretty small amendments, not to change the policy, but just to create clarity of which one we're talking about in different cases and making sure we're capturing the full range of what actually gets proposed on a regular basis.

And then the amendments to section 5A are related to the corridor mixed use.

So I know you're familiar with this, but just as a reminder, just to make sure the corridor mixed use zoning is along El Camino Real.

Sorry, it's a little washed out on the map there, but imagine it's like that strip of El Camino on either side of the Belmont Village Specific Plan area.

So to kind of get a context of how big that is at the north side, it's about a three-quarter of a mile section.

It includes those properties between El Camino Real and the Caltrain tracks, but does not include Old County Road on the northern section.

On the southern section, it's about a third of a mile, and it includes a small portion of Old County Road right next to the HIA in the city limits.

So hopefully that helps you to visualize the area that we're talking about.

So there was a lot of conversation around the height of the CMU district, and right now in the existing regulations, the base height is 45 feet, and projects with community benefits can go up to 55 feet.

And the reason we really took up these proposed amendments to the CMU district was to encourage ground floor commercial to kind of analyze that and think about what fits in a ground floor and make sure that we can accommodate those type of projects that we want to see, and also for economic development purposes.

In a moment, we'll talk about hotel uses.

But this was really about making sure that our standards are sort of modernized and up to today's standards, so we're not creating deterrence to the types of development that the city may wish to see.

And so what we did is we modeled a number of different development scenarios, and we started as a basis of that is we assumed a 16-foot ground floor commercial height, and we've gotten a lot of feedback from developers, from consultants from different folks that work with projects that you really need 16 feet of ground floor height to make commercial uses viable, and our existing code wasn't quite reaching that 16 feet, so we wanted to incorporate that into all of our modeling.

Those upper floors above that first floor need different floor to ceiling heights.

So you might have one floor to ceiling height for residential, and you'll need a bigger floor to ceiling height for commercial for like an office, for example.

So we wanted to model different land use types to get a sense of what fix fits within that height limit.

So we created a summary of that whole series of things that we went through when that's an attachment, attachment B to your staff report.

So you're able to see kind of we made it into a memo, like what was our thinking and what were the steps that we went through when we created those models.

So just as a reminder for folks, these are small, but they're in that attachment, and we can look at them more up close if you want to.

But these are the types of things that we looked at.

We looked at the existing hotel regulations, looked at the existing height, what are the options for different hotels within that within that height limit, then looked at proposed hotel regulations, how many stories are you gonna fit, can you fit in, how much parking, you know.

So we took there's modeling assumptions that you can use to do this kind of work.

We looked at office, we don't expect to see a lot of office projects given the market that we're in these days, but wanted to still kind of right size our code and analyze it nonetheless for when the market changes.

So these are the types of models that we considered and presented to the council at that study session.

So after that, we had proposed a couple of different things and moved some different numbers around, but in the end, what we recommend is an increase in the base height from 45 to 50 feet, so five foot increase in base height, and that's really to encourage the ground floor commercial and make sure that ground floor commercial kind of fits within that program, would also encourage more, gives at least the potential for more architectural variety as opposed to like you know, buildings that are kind of all shaped the same boxes with flat roofs, it kind of gives people a little bit more choice around architectural style and what roof style they may use.

And it makes a four-story office development more feasible, is what our analysis showed, and you can see in the attachments.

Then for community benefits height, the proposal is to go from 55 feet to 60 feet.

And this is, I think everyone's familiar with it, but just repeating into the record, and for the public, community benefits projects require city council approval.

So it would have to be a project that the city council considers to be overall beneficial for the community, and that would warrant the increase in the height.

So the idea was to create a pathway for such a project if something like that came in in the future.

The other thing that we reviewed with the city council and we're proposing tonight is to establish unique development standards specifically for hotels.

This does come in on the economic development side.

Hotels are an advantageous land use for the city, they generate hotel tax, transit oriented, transit TOT.

I can never remember that acronym, I just realized.

Hotel tax.

Let's call it hotel tax, property tax, and then you know, folks that come and stay in the community will often contribute to restaurants and retail and things like that.

And so the proposal is to increase just for hotels to go to a 2.5 FAR and a 65 foot height as an incentive for that fiscally positive land use.

Additionally, the proposal includes removing the conditional use permit.

So right now, hotels need a conditional use permit to be in this district, and so they would become a principally permitted use.

But of course, the design would still require planning commission approval, and if there's any other entitlements associated with that, it would also require planning commission approval.

So just a reminder because we talk a lot about housing projects, any commercial and hotel, those kind of projects can still have discretionary components, and the planning commission still has more authority over those.

It's very different than housing projects that we often talk about.

So as we were working on this, part of one of the things that the council and I think the planning commission also requested that we look at was to think about what do our objective standards say and are they sufficient and do they need any revision when we're creating a potential for increase height.

And one thing that staff flagged and we've included for your consideration is one new development standard, and this would be specifically in the CMU district, and the idea is to buffer that existing residential use from the adjacent new commercial uses should those come in.

So the proposal that you have is when a new building abuts a residential only district, so with like a single-family district on an interior site or rear property line, the third story and above would be stepped back from the facade below a minimum of five feet.

And so this creates as you know what I mean.

A lot of times we have the step back from the front of the property because we're trying to minimize mass from the street.

In this case, we're actually doing the opposite, we're moving the massing towards the street because in this case the street is Al Camino Real, and we're moving that massing away from the adjacent single-family neighbors.

So that's the intent of this.

I also wanted to point out we received a comment from a property owner that I believe is going to speak tonight and was asking us about how these standards would work together.

So I wanted to point out to the planning commission that we do have a requirement for what we call transitional yards, and so it's basically like a setback requirement that applies when new commercial buildings are next to a residential building.

And so we left an excerpt of section number nine on the dais for you.

So if you wanted to refer to that or if we discuss it, you would have that available.

So we just wanted you to know that there is a setback requirement that would apply, and then there's also this proposed step back requirement in this case.

So those same residential uses we were talking about before get edited into this section as well to allow some of those uses in this district.

I guess through the chair, can we ask questions as we go?

This is a lot, or do we need to hold questions or comments till the end?

Um up to the chair.

It's a we got a lot of material, so however you prefer to handle it.

You can ask if you like.

Great.

Um on the height increase for the CMU.

There was a similar uh proposal that was approved for the Rolfton properties and along and it's based on an assumption of a 16 foot first floor, right?

But I didn't see a requirement for a 16 foot first floor, which seems like it should be included.

You did.

Yeah, I believe it's there, and we can double check.

Okay, I couldn't find that.

I couldn't find it.

I didn't find out what the question thank you.

Great.

Okay.

Sorry, it's 5A, one 12E.

Is it about the height?

It's a little bit about the height.

Let's go ahead.

That's fine.

Sorry.

When you say residential only district, what is the definition of residential only district?

So if it was one rule of homes, would that be enough?

So we um we have many cities and we do too have mixed use districts that allow um residential and other uses.

So here we're using that to differentiate.

We have districts that only allow residential.

So in the way that the map lines up, that would be pretty much all just like the single, a few single family properties, and I think there's a few that are like in the R2, like duplex properties.

Okay, um, but they don't allow any commercial or higher density residential.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, sorry, one other question.

So I'm looking at this transitional yard.

So is it 15 feet?

I mean, there it's a definition rather than a number.

So can you kind of describe what that means?

Yes, yeah.

Um the code is written in a complex way.

Okay, okay, just as a starting point.

I had to make little diagrams, and I do this for a living, right?

Like I had to make little diagrams and make sure I understood what it meant.

Um, but the the simple way I can describe it is if you got two like the backyard and the backyard, rear yard and rear yard facing each other, the setback's gonna be 10, okay, for the new building, but then if you've got a side yard condition, then it's gonna be dependent upon the side yard for the existing residential house.

Okay.

So if the existing residential house has a setback of six, then the new building would also have six.

If it has nine, the new building has nine.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I would imagine we'll receive some public comment on this, and we can certainly take this up in discussion if the commission would like to.

Let's do that.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, so um now we get to parking.

This is equally or more complex, so I'm gonna try to break it down as simply as I can.

Um, right now, the parking regulations are currently in three different sections of the zoning ordinance, and this just really happens sometimes over the years.

You end up with things in different places because of the way the code gets amended.

And so the intent here is uh really it's a staff initiated to modernize and simplify.

Um, it's very difficult to implement these parking regulations that are in these different places.

Um, we also received a council priority uh to assist small businesses, so we do think that um providing clarity around parking does assist um small businesses.

So we're hoping that will help staff and our applicants as well.

So the proposal is to um amend to take all of those parking requirements into one new section eight.

They're currently an eight, eight A, and section thirty-one.

So we propose to bring all that together and replace, kind of wipe it all out and create one new section eight.

Okay, so let me give you some examples of the kinds of things we're trying to solve and how we're trying to solve them.

So this is an example of our existing code in the corridor mixed use district.

We refer people to section eight and eight A, but they say different things in some topics.

Or in the regional commercial district, same thing.

We point them to these two sections of our code, but sometimes the code contradicts itself between section A and AA because they were intended at different times for different things.

Okay.

So then we thought to ourselves, how do we bring all of this together so that it makes sense?

It's simple and we're using best practices and modern standards because some of our stuff is getting kind of old now, right?

In our old parking requirements.

So this is an example of how we consolidated everything.

So you don't really have to see the little numbers, okay?

But let me walk you through the concept.

So this is an example of how we consolidate it, and this example is related to drive aisles.

So you're in the parking lot, right?

And you have the two drive aisles so that you can park in 90 degree parking spaces.

In section eight, we require a 26-foot width for a two-way drive aisle.

But in section 8A, which is the more modern standard, we require 24 feet.

So obviously that's a conflict, and when to apply which one has become an issue for staff because we have some inconsistent references within the code because it's how it's been amended over the years.

So what we did when we took those two sections, we merged them together because we're not trying to change the policies on these things, we're just trying to create clarity.

So we merged them together and we chose the 24 foot standard instead of the 26 foot standard because that's the current industry standard.

The 26 foot is an old one.

So lots of places there was no conflict.

We just kind of pulled everything together, changed into tables.

It was very simple.

But we wanted to give you an example of the few cases where we had to make a choice about what to include.

We tried to choose something that represented the kind of the current best practice.

And so our intent really was to keep the underlying policy and not make any changes that would really impact people in terms of what the standards are.

So here's some of the other proposed updates to the parking section.

So our code, because it's on the older side, has a lot of narrative standards.

There's sentences to describe things.

We move that into tables, which is much more modern and streamline.

We changed a few of the units of measurement to modern standards.

So old parking codes will have requirements like a doctor's office is based on sometimes the number of doctors that work in the building.

Like that's something that used to be really common.

But we all know that's not a good measure anymore because we get a lot of health care from people that are not doctors, you have to interpret that.

So these days we do parking requirements by something that is measurable and easier to keep track of, like square footage of the building.

So we did like some calculations and we changed just a few of these, not very many, but just wanted to be transparent about making those changes.

We updated some language and added some footnotes related to AB 2097, and this is the rule that talks about no required parking for most uses within a half mile of the Caltrain station.

So we reflected that.

So that's very common related to parking, but they were spread out in all these different sections.

So we brought them all together to create some clarity around those.

So in those again, we didn't seek to change any policy just to provide some clarity and add some option to provide more application materials if we needed to analyze them.

And then I wanted to draw your attention to the last two bullets here because these are areas where there is a little bit more change.

Okay, so we wanted to explain what we were proposing to you and why.

So in the next to the last bullet, we're talking about the criteria for approval of applications with either less than the minimum parking or more than the maximum parking, right?

So we have a parking minimum and maximum, and you can apply, and there's criteria for if you want less parking spaces or more parking spaces than what our code would normally prescribe.

And there's criteria for that, but some of that criteria was kind of outdated, and so we simplified some of that criteria.

So that's what we've got reflected.

And then also we've changed the review authority.

So reminder this is like the person or body that's allowed to approve and review things.

So we've changed it from the zoning administrator to the community development director.

So the way that we do things here in Belmont, that's the same person, it's Carlos.

But in terms of a legal or procedural thing, that does make a difference because in many cities they are different people and they could have a different procedure.

And so the reason that we've done it here is to make it easier for very small projects to have a streamline kind of review for things that are minor and there's no other entitlement.

It's kind of simple, it's administrative and in line with our other administrative procedures.

So if a person, for example, two businesses wanted to have a shared parking agreement, and they're just like, I'm gonna use some of your spaces at night, and you use some of my spaces during the day, something like that could be approved by the community development director.

If there was higher level entitlements, like if they needed a design review or conditional use permit, grading permit, like if it was a bigger project that needed anything else, those entitlements would still roll up to the planning commission or up to the next level approval body.

So whoever's looking at the whole of the project would have that authority.

So this is about making small projects a little bit more streamlined and may help some small businesses and small like renovations, small additions, things like that.

So we can discuss further when we get there if you'd like.

There were a couple areas where in the red line some things remain with the zoning administrator, who are, I guess, the same, Carlos and Carlos.

So why do why do some of the why does some of the text remain zoning administrator?

Great question.

So we have tried to make an active decision, and the zoning administrator typically requires a notice and a public meeting, as opposed to community development director, is like an administrative staff decision without a public notice.

Okay, okay.

And so it's certainly um a question for the you know planning commission's discussion about what's the right approval body for those different types of applications.

Thank you.

And quick question about AB 2097.

So no required parking, not just for residential, which we're well aware of that here, but for like any use.

So if somebody puts a 65-foot story hotel, as we just been discussing within half mile caltrain, no parking is required.

Hotels are actually one of the uses under state law that do have to provide parking.

So hotels and I think they call it visitor services, so that's like convention centers and things like that have to provide parking.

Um, but commercial uses, retail, restaurant, office, do not have to provide parking.

Okay, so they so you're saying it's hotels and visitor, I think they call it visitor services under the law.

Interesting.

And it's been interpreted, my understanding, the um legal folks have interpreted that as like hotels, convention centers, or things that are associated with those kinds of activities only, have to provide parking.

Okay.

So we're gonna come back to that again.

We're not asking all our questions now, we're gonna come back to each of these separately.

Yes, sure.

However, yes, absolutely however you like, and then the last part of the parking is section 31, which was implementing um the Belmont Village specific plan.

That's when that was adopted, had its own set of parking standards that mostly were the same as 8A, but not totally the same.

Okay, so we're pulling all of those into, and so section 31, we would get rid of all of the parking requirements, except for this one thing that's a design standard that requires parking structures to have space around them, like active habitable space, so kind of wrapping the parking structure.

So we didn't want to lose this requirement, and we didn't want to apply it to the whole city, so we left this design standard in section 31.

So it would only apply to the BBSP and would continue status quo as it is today.

Okay, this is an easier one.

This is section nine, and this is just that issue related to accessory structures and accessory buildings, and this is a staff initiated cleanup to provide clarity around that.

And these amendments are consistent with what we already talked about in section four.

Then section 10 is procedures, and we've got a couple of different things going on here in procedures, but it's really related to implementation of the housing element.

And so the planning commission may be familiar with this concept of reasonable accommodation.

And the way we think about it from a zoning point of view is sometimes you have households that have people with disabilities that may need a modification to the strict interpretation of the zoning standards in order to accommodate that disability.

And so the classic example would be a wheelchair ramp that goes into a setback.

That would be a classic example of a reasonable accommodation.

So over the years, the state has moved us in the direction of being more accommodating, having less regulation around reasonable accommodations.

So we have proposed simplifying two of the findings, and that brings us into compliance with state law and also implements the housing element.

And then we also propose to change the review authority from zoning administrator to community development director, kind of for the same reason.

These things are routine and administrative and wouldn't necessarily require a public hearing or the work, you know what I mean, the public notification that goes into a zoning administrator hearing.

Section 13 is design review, and this is we've got a couple of different changes to the design review section.

The first one is related to meeting the timelines that are in state law, and so this has a relationship to some of the public comments that you've received.

And so we're proposing to change the review authority from planning commission to the community development director.

So at a staff level, and only for certain projects, and so I'll walk you through what types of projects that would include.

So we're talking about only housing projects, and remember we've got a definition of what a housing project is under state law, and it would have to be defined as ministerial or by right under state law, or there's a new law that just came out this July, AB 130 that provides additional streamlining under state law and creates a new classification of projects.

AB 130 creates a new urban infill housing project.

And if we receive such a project, we're required to approve it within 30 days of receiving a complete application and having completed a tribal notification.

So once the application is here, there's a tribal notification requirement, and once that's completed, there's 30 days to approve the project.

That is really fast.

This is only for certain housing projects, so we're still seeing how this is going to be implemented.

This is also a CEQA exemption.

So projects that fall under this category would not have a CEQA review.

The other thing that AB 130 did is it changes the timeline for other ministerial projects.

So things that were already defined as ministerial and state law.

They changed the approval timeline for those and made those we have to approve them within 60 days of a complete application submital.

So the prime example here is an SB 35 project, and those are related to affordable housing projects.

So this is very different than how planning used to be done.

This is a very big change in the state law of these last couple of laws, and particularly AB 130.

How long do you have to determine if the application is complete?

The different laws have slightly different processes for determining whether they're complete, but they all the basic concept is it's a little different in different ones, but we still have that opportunity where they submit materials and we can tell them that they are not yet in compliance.

So we still have what us planners call like a completeness review check.

But it takes slightly different forms and it is also time-limited.

And the tribal notification, is that they just have to be notified.

You don't have to hear back from the tribes.

You just have to prove that you notify them.

Yeah, you have to prove that you notified them.

And under SB 35, it was a little bit kind of confusing about what was supposed to happen.

So I think they attempted to clear that up in AB 130.

They didn't clear it up much, but there's some steps that is coming out in terms of the guidance, and you notify them and you wait a certain amount of time to see if you hear back.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

So given those constraints on these projects, um, we are recommending that it's really not feasible for to have planning commission review, and as you well know that planning commission review would be limited to objective standards.

So what many cities have done is just transferred this authority, this review authority from the planning commission down to staff to increase the likelihood of meeting these timelines, and you could have guessed it if you didn't know if the projects are not reviewed within the timeline, they are deemed approved.

So if you don't make the deadline, the applicant has the basic authority to build that project.

Now, it doesn't waive basic safety things.

So I think that's important for people to understand.

It doesn't waive the building code, it doesn't waive the fire code, but it could potentially have implications for zoning requirements or objective standards.

We have to make sure we meet those deadlines.

Otherwise, a project would be approved.

What is the last bullet point refer to?

Do the neighbors get notice or they don't get notice because it's just you have to approve it.

So different cities handle this differently.

What we are proposing, you know, for feedback is that we would provide a notice to the neighbors, but it would have a really different form.

It wouldn't be like come to a public meeting and talk about it, which is how our notices, do you know what I mean?

Usually are it would be more like this project has been submitted.

Um if it complies with the objective standards, it will be approved.

And you know, depending on the feedback we get from you and the council and the community, we could still create a website, we could still post plans, we could, you know, in the notice we could direct people to those rec um resources, but it would really be setting the expectation that project approval is anticipated, basically, as long as it meets the standards.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, the next part of the changes to section 13 are related to the objective design standards, and so this is going back, the planning commission and the council asked us to take another look at the design standards as we were considering the increase in height, and so the approach that we developed is really kind of initiated by staff, and that's to create more clarity in our objective design standards.

So we're not proposing to change any policy, but what we found as we've been implementing these over the last couple of years is that the way the standards are actually written in the code is confusing to applicants and hard to implement.

And so we tried to reorganize them and group certain standards together.

We added some new subheadings, and we also had some issues with we had some things that were standalone requirements and some things that were more of like a menu.

So it's like an idea of what you were trying to achieve, and then you would choose from the menu to actually achieve that concept.

So we changed some of the language to make it more clear.

Is it a just a requirement or are you choosing from a menu?

And when we made those changes, we made it consistent with what staff has been interpreting over the last four years or so.

So we're we don't think we're changing any policy, it's more about the organization to provide more clarity.

Okay, so community outreach for all of this.

Everybody take a breath, like that's the end of all the code amendments that I wanted to explain to you.

Community outreach, talked about this a little bit.

We had the community meeting via Zoom in October.

Um for that meeting, we did mail notice in the postal mail to all the property owners within 300 feet of the CMU's district, so pretty big mailing list there.

I mentioned we had five folks attending.

We've had a website on the CMU up since fall of 2024, um, with all the links to the different meetings and the um prototypes we created.

Then the notice of this public hearing was mailed to all the property owners again within 300 feet of the CMU district.

We received seven public comments.

I think by the close of business today, you have those on the dais, and they're here on the table for any members of the public.

And then today we had a meeting with the property owner that's adjacent to the CMU.

We anticipate him providing comments to you as well.

But so you know there's this one email that you got that requested a meeting.

We did have that meeting with him today.

Okay, so all of that said, a lot more words to simplify.

Um staff recommends that you adopt a resolution recommending that the city council pass these amendments.

Um it kind of just summarizes the different buckets of the amendments that we've been talking about.

So I know that's a lot.

We're very happy to answer questions and um do the best that we we can to answer whatever you've got for us, and we look forward to it.

Great, thank you.

I understand this needs to be done.

It is overwhelming.

Yeah, just to kind of I mean, I'm sure it's overwhelming for you.

It's overwhelming to read the the materials and to digest the materials.

Um at least it was for me, and I imagine it is for the public.

So I just wanted to note that, but I understand that it's that it's something that that ought to be done, slash needs to be done.

Um, and you did a good job of walking through it, but I just want to just note the obvious that it's overwhelming.

We agree.

Okay, cool.

Um, let's maybe now go back to questions.

We've asked some preliminary questions.

The folks have any kind of deeper dive questions.

Okay, I need any.

So I don't know if I should go for it.

Do we do it section by section rather than person by person?

Um, sure.

I mean, for me, can I ask one like preliminary question?

It would be very helpful for me if you could just kind of identify which revisions are required for us to comply with the housing element.

Yes.

This as an initial, just like high level, like these are what we think are necessary for implementation of the housing element.

These are things we're doing for other kind of policy or cleanup reasons.

Okay, thank you.

I think they're a little.

Well, okay.

Sorry, go ahead and answer the question.

I think they're a little mixed together here.

They are a little mixed.

So we'll just go through it and I'll do you know what I mean.

Highlight in the way that I think makes the most sense.

Yep.

We'll try anyway.

Okay, so section two definitions.

This is for implementation of the housing element.

Meaning we had to add these terms and they have to say what they say, we can't change them.

Yes.

And can I ask, like, we our element is certified.

Like these zoning tax amendments are not delaying our certification because we took whatever action we were required to take before January 31st of 2004, right?

So this is not delaying our our certification.

Our housing element is certified.

Got it.

Yep.

Okay.

The housing element includes a number of programs that have timelines associated with them.

So we are slowly working through the implementation.

And if you want, I can double check the timeline for these code amendments.

Yeah.

But that's the idea is over the eight-year cycle, you are slowly implementing it.

HCD, of course, wants us to front load a bunch of these things.

So that's why these code amendments we're bringing to you now, because the housing element says that we're supposed to do these early in the housing element cycle.

Okay, thank you.

And more of this is coming, by the way, in months to follow.

More code amendments and more housing element implementation.

Right.

Okay.

So it was I'll just start with two and then because I was sure other people have a lot of questions.

So first one is in the procedures on the page two of that number.

We didn't finish the first question.

Sorry, we didn't finish the question, which was what's required.

Okay, let's just let's just get that high level one.

Then I think we'll there we go.

I think this is the best way I can do it.

Okay, and then in section four residential, we're taking some of those same definitions and implementing them in section four.

Yep.

So those changes to the um those things that were defined in those land uses, those need to be done.

Right.

Housing element.

CMU is obviously local policy.

Separate.

Got it.

Second.

Except that there are those same land uses.

Some of them also run through CMU.

Okay, so in the CMU, there are a few changes that are related to the housing element implementation.

Those same land uses.

Okay.

Section 8 parking is completely up to us.

Yep.

That's up to us.

Accessory buildings.

That's not housing element related.

Procedures, this is housing element related.

Again, just to clarify, there's no housing element requirement that we change the review authority from the zoning administrator to the CDD, only that we meet their state's timelines.

So that's what I mean by this is kind of mixed up.

So it is required we meet the state's timelines.

It's not required that we make the exact text change that you have written here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

I don't know if that's part of your question.

That is.

That's it's pretty important.

Thank you.

Yeah, no, that is that is great.

Super important.

Okay.

I've got it.

Give me a second.

Should have it.

Okay.

Like uh for reasonable accommodation, we can review the actual housing element language with you if you want.

Does that get more to the because there is some, of course, some um like we have to take what's in the housing element policy and implement it.

Do you know what I mean?

So we're using um both our judgment and the judgment of our consultant that writes these codes and has done it for other cities about how to take the state law requirement and put it into our code.

So I don't I definitely want to acknowledge that's part of the process.

Thank you.

Okay.

So like would you like us to look up, for example, like how this is phrased in the housing element?

Would that be helpful?

Maybe later.

I I just wanted to kind of do the high-level thing first, and then I think we can kind of maybe delve into those more kind of wonkier things afterwards.

I just wanted to kind of level set this from my understanding.

Like, because I think it's it's helpful for me at least to kind of um the bucket of that way.

To section 13 are not related to the housing element, they're related to other state laws, but they are staff's recommendation on how to comply with the state law.

So the state law does not say it has to be a staff level approval, for example.

Yeah.

Um, got it.

Thank you.

Okay.

That was helpful for me.

Great.

So now we can go up to other questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

So there are two sections where I got different um information from it, and I want maybe I'm just missing something.

So under procedures, there was a sentence that was struck about that we should not um determine if it adversely impacts the surrounding properties.

But then in the um, oh wait, that was on page two of procedures.

Page six of procedures, there was a 13.4.4 that says the city council, blah blah blah, can determine if it adversely affects the property rights of other property owners.

So it seemed kind of at odds.

Like that, can you can you can you consider that?

I'm sorry, I'm not quite with you yet.

Okay, Commissioner, can you tell me again what section you're in?

Yes, under procedures exhibit F 10.8, under page two, there was a number five that was just the sentence was struck.

Yeah, it's 10.8.4A5.

Requested reasonable accommodation would not adversely impact surrounding properties or uses that's been struck out as a finding.

And then later on, 13.4.4, it says that basically the city council can consider adverse effects.

Okay.

So let's start with section 10, maybe to just um make sure.

So in section 10 related to reasonable accommodation, we struck out not adversely impact surrounding properties or uses because we are not supposed to have that level of discretion.

Um so our housing element says we're supposed to move remove the discretion.

And so that's too much of subjective finding to be made, so we removed it.

Okay, but then when it gets to 13.4.4, the way I read it, it kind of seemed like city council could determine that something adversely affects the property rights of the other property owners.

Okay, 13.4.4.

Part D.

Says city council finds that do not have the potential to standards if they adversely affect the property rights of other property owners.

So yeah, that does sound like a contradict.

This says property rights.

10 says adversely impact properties or uses.

Yeah.

The lawyer would have to tell us if those are significantly different.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying that in 13.4.4D, um, this is kind of the blanket statement that talks about what level of a like projects the community development director is reviewing.

So this is kind of relate, this is specifically related to design review.

Okay, okay, and so these are the types of decisions that the community development director is making related to design review, and so it's kind of a statement of that.

Um, so I would not because we're I would not interpret it because we're talking about what's ordinarily made by the community development director.

I wouldn't interpret it as conflicting with the reasonable accommodation section myself in terms of how I interpret it, but I see your point.

Okay, okay.

Um, and and for me, if you know you could kind of consider adverse effects or not, that kind of dovetails into hotels, which I'm sure we want to talk about for a while, and it uh the maximum height going to 65 seemed like it would be quite impactful to the residential community behind.

Um, so just my initial reaction is that that seems like you know, an extension that I I wouldn't want to make.

Like I don't really understand why such a thing is is necessary.

Um, in the the review by the consultant, that's there was some language that was it was something like that you wanted to increase the height to um make it so that it would be an advantageous for developers, but the god, what was the language?

It was something like that.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I'll find it.

I'll find it because it because it matters.

Okay, so some national brands might not be interested if it weren't increased.

So, I would really need more information.

Who are like some national brands?

What's the context?

What's the research?

Is it, you know, the Marriott wouldn't build, but Hampton in would build.

Like I'm trying to understand what really that means.

Okay, so just to recap to make sure we're all in the same kind of place right now.

We're talking about the changes to the development standards in the CMU district specifically.

Yes, right?

Yes, okay.

So that's where we are.

Yes.

Um, okay, so in relationship to the hotel analysis, um, we looked at it a couple of different ways.

The um firm that we were using to do this modeling also within their firm does economic analysis and market analysis as one of their functions.

And so we had that principle that oversees that work, join us for some of these meetings to talk about market feasibility.

And so it didn't get to that level of fine-grain analysis of like one hotel compared to another.

It was more kind of like on a market level, these are the trends that they are observing.

Um, this is what we've heard from local applicant, this is what we've seen in other nearby communities that they're looking for a certain level of flexibility in terms of especially how they use their first floors because they might have a different types of uses and amenities depending on the type of hotel.

So one hotel has a breakfast room and one hotel has different types of conference rooms or different has a business center or doesn't doesn't have a business center.

So that was kind of the um range that we were trying to reflect.

Okay, okay.

Um, all right.

Um, I I would feel comfortable knowing more because I like this 22 foot.

I'm envisioning atrium or mezzanine two floors basically, and I used to travel all the time for work, and it was really nice if I stayed in one of those hotels, but they weren't all like that.

Um, and then I'm wondering why you need what would that be sixty-five feet would be the equivalent of about how many stories or five.

So I've got some graphics here.

Okay.

So this is included and um in the attachment um but just including um showing it here on the screen as well to help so this one has the assumption that the sort of first floor with the lobby amenities and meeting space would have a mezzanine potentially in that and they the consultant advised us that we need to fit all of that like 20 to 22 feet would be the range and then each of those le um floors of hotel rooms above would need to be nine to 10 feet.

So hotel rooms have relatively low floor to ceiling height compared to offices or taller for example.

So within the proposed height of the 65 feet this shows you you can get to the one two three four five stories within the 65 heat giving some because five stories is going to take between 56 and 62 feet.

And so that gives them a little bit of room for architectural variety site constraints different site planning.

And then the you can see on the left hand side the floor area ratio of this building the way it was modeled is 2.43 and the proposal is 2.5 maximum.

So that gives you some more information about how we modeled it.

Does that help answer your question?

Helps a little bit but why do you need five stories and the hotel to be bigger than every other structure on the street to have it be a project that a developer would want to pursue.

We got some advice about the number of hotel rooms and sort of the intensity of the hotel space in order to make them viable and we understand that the um there's a lot of constraints on El Camino Real in terms of physical constraints and tight sites and so we were advised that sort of the this this prototype gets us to 108 rooms.

We've seen other prototypes that have some similarities that are going to be more like in the 80s or around 90.

And so getting into those numbers I think is necessary for hotels to be economically feasible to develop.

Okay so that that enables it to be that 100 is kind of rooms.

Yeah and we we have seen a couple of examples that were less but some have less parking some have different amenity space so we were trying to represent that range and that's why we were thinking this this kind of height range it would be what we would need.

Okay thank you.

You're welcome.

I guess just to follow up on this exact diagram here because we've been talking about this the setbacks right and I guess we'll get to the transitional yards and I find that language completely inadequate a six foot transition zone but one way the developer can get around so you propose staff supposing that above sorry the third floor or the third floor and above third floor and above be stepped back at least five feet well you just do this you put in a two story parking garage in the back and then it there is you don't have to worry about setback so now your neighbor's living next to a parking garage it totally meets all the height requirements.

Doesn't look very pleasant I have to say so I I feel like um unfortunately it's really hard to write these zoning requirements such that we actually get projects that um that are both financially apparently feasible for the developer and and actually what what we want to see.

I personally would not want to see this it looks tidy from El Camino Real but for everybody in the back including the people up on the hill looking down they're looking down on a parking garage.

It doesn't look great to me.

Okay so can I clarify that these models were done like before we got as deep into it as we are today.

So the transitional yard that's in the code that would be required is not shown on this diagram.

Well it pretty much is I mean a six foot yard it's behind the parking garage between the parking garage and that person's house.

Or you could draw it in the diagram it'll be like a millimeter on your diagram.

So yeah so the transitional yard fine it's there but this would meet the step back, right?

Because the parking garage is only two two stories tall.

Um it maybe not because um the hotel portion is sort of L-shaped, and this of course is an example, right?

But it's sort of L-shaped.

So that portion in the back that's closest to the residential property, um, as written here would need it to be would need to need a five-foot step down step back.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, if it well, these are the great questions, right?

This is why we have the conversation.

Um I think we were imagining.

This is a great question.

Yeah.

Yeah, I don't again, I don't know if you want to keep going with your questions or again where we want to.

We're all that we're thinking.

Yeah, okay.

Um, yeah, and I think um for section 10, you're asking about the the planning procedures.

I I guess I just wanted to point out we're looking at section 10.8 about reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.

So it's a very specific section.

It's not that these findings about, you know, no impairment, blah, blah, blah, all apply to somebody with a disability asking for an accommodation.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

So I think yeah, like um like you said from the outset, there's so much here.

I know, I just it's overwhelming, isn't it?

Yeah, yeah, I had to reread it a few times myself.

Because I was like, oh yeah, Margaret found this great big contradiction.

I realized, like, wait, this is about disability accommodation.

So I think section 10.8 is okay.

I hadn't flagged it, so I was like, oh my gosh, I'll just go back and look at it again.

Um, yeah, it's hard to know where to where to start almost.

Um I guess the definitions look fine since again they're required by the state.

It's not like we get to define what a residential care facility is or a transitional supportive housing.

We don't we don't get to define that, it just goes into our code as written by the state.

I notice it pretty much says as you know, state code blah blah blah says it is.

So I that that the definitions are what are what they are.

Um I guess one concern I have is how those definitions though interact with our standards because it looks like unfortunately the state is requiring that we allow um residential care facilities in residential districts now.

Am I understanding that correctly?

That's not a choice that we have.

Right.

They used to only um be prescriptive around small residential care facilities, and now they require that we allow large residential care facilities as well.

Yeah.

And they used to, I I mean, you uses used to have a conditional use permit, and it's really taking out that conditional use permit requirement.

Yeah, yeah.

So we have to implement that, but but my question is are there additional, I'm really confused how those are gonna interact.

Because basically a large residential care facility, which includes staff and so forth, is essentially a commercial building.

People come and go for work.

They are gonna have a dumpster, they might have medical waste, and yet we must now allow this in our residential areas.

We don't have design standards for dumpster, like commercial things in a residential area.

So I'm really confused.

Like, don't we need to write a whole bunch of more standards now specifically for residential care facilities in residential, or we need to say like parts of this commercial section would then apply to these when they're residential, because it feels like big hole that somebody could go up to one of our huge 20,000 foot square foot lots up in the hills, put in a massive building with I don't know how many residents in it, but it's residential, and so how do we apply our parking standards, our signage standards, our anything standards if it's in a residential district where we have no standards for those things because they only apply to commercial.

It feels like the state has created this like contradiction that I'm asking, don't we need to write some more code to deal with that?

It's it's again I I know it's the chance that somebody's gonna do that is low, but the problem is you have to write your zoning for every possibility, because by the time somebody applies and the zoning doesn't address that too late, they've been grandfathered in.

So I realize this is a bizarre scenario, but it looks to me like the state is gonna allow essentially commercial buildings with like lots of like you could have eight or ten people on staff there, right?

So, how are we gonna deal with that as a as a city?

Okay, so let me take it a couple pieces at a time.

Um, Rob, take a look of anything you can find if we have regulations for residential care facilities.

Um so let me speak a little bit just from experience working in other cities.

Um the residential care facilities that I have worked on myself, even the large ones where we've approved conditional use permits have been within houses.

Um, and there are some staff coming and going, but they have functioned primarily as a residential type of use.

Um it has a little bit different pattern, certainly.

Um, but I haven't encountered sort of the intensity that you're describing.

So we did not analyze it in that way.

So let us check and see if we've got any other regulations related to that.

I'm just not familiar um with other folks doing that.

So you may have come up with something that really has identified a hole that's kind of outside of the practice.

Um, but we can certainly take a look at it.

Yeah, I guess maybe my question is so if you look so we're in section four point two point uh one permitted uses, right?

A, B, C, D, on down.

So one of the permitted uses, J says transitional and supportive housing located in single family residences.

So that's a state requirement that we add transitional and supportive housing.

But notice the located in single family residences.

And I think that language is really useful because none of all of our design standards that Jeremy so carefully walks us through would apply.

But if you go up to F, residential care facilities that serve seven or more persons, it doesn't say in single family residences.

And so how can we make sure that that residential care facility still has to use our residential design standards to be in an R1 or an R2 district, for example?

So that's where I'm wondering if maybe just that simple phrase located in single family residences would help us here.

That would be a simple, again, I'm not a lawyer, but like something had that that residential care facilities F just blanket statement is permitted.

It's like whoa, um that's a that that would be a shocking development most of our residential areas.

If some somebody put in something really huge.

Okay, so that detailed of a question, I completely understand where it's coming from.

That's something we would have to go back, like go back to the law for each of those things and see if it's written that way on purpose, or if we could add that phrase, right, in single family residences to the residential care facilities.

So it would take that step of doing that.

Yeah, I think that'd be a good thing to look into because again, we do have some lots in our city.

You could put some pretty big buildings in some of these areas, which could have a lot of bedrooms in them, basically.

Um so I think that would be a really good thing to look at before we end up approving something that we're we wish we didn't have to approve.

Um yeah, the residential care facilities and transitional housing for um six or fewer persons, like yeah, that's obvious, or in a single family residence.

So it's just a lot of people inside of building that from the outside looks like a house.

Like, okay, not a problem.

Um yeah, okay.

So I'd love it if staff could look into that a little bit because it just looks like we're giving up a blanket.

We're creating a situation where somebody it's not gonna be clear what design standards apply, and then we'll be sort of stuck.

Was there anything else in four that anybody wanted?

As long as we're kind of going, we kind of did definitions because we're good with it.

So we're in four, which is residential.

Was there anything else?

Residential.

I think most of this looked pretty straightforward.

Um, downtown.

I think that was the only question I had for four, although that's a I think it's a pretty big one.

Um, want to talk about the commercial mix views, the CMU district, maybe.

So we did get a lot of public comment, or not a lot, we got uh a number of public comments pretty much about the CMU district.

So I thought maybe we could talk about that.

Um I do appreciate that um yeah, there's been a lot of thought about this as you you walk through the history, right?

Um, from where we started to where where we are now.

Um, and I think uh my initial concern I think was maybe the the same as my fellow commissioners about um the whole reason we wanted to raise the height a little bit was to make sure we're actually allowing the commercial ground floor use that we all want to see, and I think the fact that we found that in 15A 112, whatever it was, I think reassured me.

And I think adding an extra five feet is um is appropriate.

I think it's a I think it's a good place to land.

I'm sorry, but through the chair, we should limit to questions at this point because we still have a public um hearing to hold.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

So I guess my last question on that is just to confirm.

Um density bonus applies to residential projects.

Yes.

And if somebody's going for density bonus, they wouldn't be going for community benefits.

Correct.

You don't use both at the same time, use one or the other.

You'd use one or the other, and we would anticipate them using density bonus because it's a better tool for the applicant.

Yeah.

Yeah, and so again, just um, yeah, so the clarifying.

So then when something's mixed use, so they actually did put commercial on the ground floor and then residential above.

They would claim probably residential density bonus, not any benefits.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Um other questions?

Anyone have any other questions about the just a clarification?

So with density bonus, then that could be up to 60 feet.

Is that correct?

Or or it's it could be whatever, like the base unit plus.

Okay.

Could be whatever.

For example, if it's 100% affordable, it's an extra 33 feet.

Yeah.

So this is like sort of reminder um slide.

We've I've shown this lots of different places.

Um so it would likely result in projects that are taller than the base height of 50.

Um, and then the second bullet, this is only within its half mile of the Caltrain station, only if it's 100% affordable.

You can exceed the base height by three stories or 33 feet.

Um there's another law that was just passed by the legislature and is expected to be signed by the governor.

That is a whole new set of requirements within transit oriented areas.

So we'll be providing um the community an update on that when when that goes into effect.

Um, but it really is hard to predict how applicants will design these projects.

We definitely could see eight-story buildings, particularly 100% affordable eight story buildings.

That should not really be a surprise at this point if we see that we can't guarantee the buildings wouldn't be taller than that, that eight-story cutoff, but it's unlikely the way that the building code and the fire code are currently written, it kind of creates a natural break where you have to change construction methods that becomes much more expensive.

So right now that common sort of maximum height is that eight-story building.

So that's in that range of like what we're saying is maybe like eighty-three feet or right right in there, kind of creates a natural break.

Because of state density bonus and what we, you know, we just kind of went through a last couple of meetings, couple of meetings ago, that's why coming, you know, very recently into a commissioner role.

That's why I was a little more hesitant about gosh, do we want to increase size?

Because then we could run into state density bonus and end up with something that we are, you know, kind of an unintended consequence.

Yeah, I really understand the it's hard to think through all the different permutations.

Um, but the way that the density bonus works is you're gonna get that certain bonus that goes on top, and they're gonna request a waiver to exceed height anyway, most likely, right?

So that height is gonna increase, so it's not necessarily that five feet may or may not make a difference because that increase height is gonna be based on that kind of compliance with the base project.

So when we analyze the residential, see if I have the when we analyze the residential over retail, and the current height limit is 45 by going up to 50, we don't think you get a whole nother story.

Okay, so you get sort of like a part of a story.

So we don't think that will make that big of a difference when density bonus goes on top of it, okay.

And since since I wasn't here for the what came up to this point, what was the reason for residential for wanting to increase the uh the maximum just a little bit?

Was it because of the retail floor?

Like, yeah, um, in in our analysis, if we've got the retail floor of the 16 feet, um, and then you've got three stories above that that are gonna be nine to eleven feet in ceiling height, depending on the construction methods and like what kind of project, you're gonna end up um with a height that's gonna be between 43 and 49.

So that's that kind of hatched area.

And so, in order to create the four-story building, you're gonna go over 45 feet.

Okay, so we were trying to accommodate the four-story building kind of like as the base project.

Okay, thank you.

With the with the ground floor um retail.

Okay, there's lots of different ways to think about it.

Just trying to describe, you know what I mean, different possible permutations.

Okay, thanks.

Sorry, just continuing on from that comment.

Could we not add something in that said that if you all using density bonus that you'd have to step in another five feet of say floor five to kind of capture that, kind of respecting the residential district?

Is that something that's we can write something like that, but if they then they would probably ask for a waiver to not do it?

I I see that they have a mechanism to waiver things, but if it's not written in all, then it's not put across, that's our intent, and that's what we'd like to see.

Do you think we'd be worth adding in?

Because like you know, using we're saying we were just talking about this, it was quite topical two meetings ago, that there was no line in the sound putting across our intent of what would have been nice to see, but in fact that it was up to them in their sort of best, their sort of uh their own conscience on whether they want to prioritize adding parking that was a commercially viable thing for them, or setting in an the conversation went around that they could have chosen one or the other.

But even though they have that mechanism to waiver, do you think we should be putting in here what we'd like to see?

I think that's a good question.

I think there is something, even if they have the ability to waive it.

I haven't thought about it in exactly those terms, but it does kind of speak to the community's intent.

Yeah.

I guess last question before we go to the public hearing, um, about the the time limits, which is the state's putting cities in a very challenging position.

Um you mentioned that many cities have gone to uh review by the community development director.

It's it's often helpful when you give us examples from San Mateo, Redwood City, San Carlos, etc.

So which cities are the many cities that have gone to CDD review.

Oh, that's a good question, Commissioner.

Um, and can I follow up on that real quickly?

Have any done that in response to AB 130 or 131?

Or is that a is that just was it that was adopted in July?

So I feel like we're like really like first mover here on that.

Yeah, so we have been considering this change to ministerial projects um for the six or nine months since we presented the idea first to the city council.

So we've we've been batting it around for a while and thinking about it internally with the um most recent law from the summer, then we changed the way we were making those amendments to also try to capture that to get ahead of that.

So we would be the kind of the first in on that because we already had code amendments underway.

Um in terms of exactly what cities around us are doing it.

I really just don't recall.

I would really have to check and get back to you, but I'd be happy to do that.

Okay.

Yeah, I just think again, if we're telling um council uh commission members and the public that we should do this because many other cities have done it, then it's on us to say which are those many other cities.

Yeah, I totally agree.

I mean, I did kind of like the typical research and I opened I I normally check with my colleagues locally in San Mateo County.

So a lot of the examples I give you are try I try to do that, but I did not do that particularly for this case.

But we certainly can.

Yeah, I'm sorry, one other one other question.

So in parking, um it's 8.3.1.11.

And um again, I maybe read too many words, but the community development director thought I read could could waive or provide exceptions to the the parking uh independent parking analysis.

Okay, so independent traffic engineering professional.

So what we've um tried to do is um we are at 3.1 point eleven, is that yes.

Okay.

So the way that the code was written before, there was a couple of different places that were basically like around the submittal requirements or what you have to turn in in order to have something be evaluated.

So we wanted to create the sort of like one section that haul has all of the exceptions and um like opportunities to deviate from the standard, collect them all in one place, and then we have this first section here that could require a parking analysis.

So in order to evaluate compliance with any of the criteria that's in this section in 8.3, the community development director can require submittal of a parking analysis.

So this basically gives us the right to say you have to hire a traffic consultant, you have to analyze it, do a report, study the turning movements, turn that report in, and that would be considered as part of your application, whether you can make the meet the criteria.

Something that they must do rather than okay, kind of waiver.

Okay, super, thank you.

Yep.

Make sure we have any any further questions before we open up the public comment.

No, okay.

Let's go ahead and and uh turn public comment.

We'll start with um members of the public who are here in chambers who've been sitting patiently waiting and absorbing this analysis.

Not a job.

Well, some of us it is.

Okay.

Uh so my name is Brian, uh long-time listener, first time caller.

And when I say longtime listener, my wife's family has been living in Belmont for 40 years.

My wife was a local first grade teacher here, and I've been an active member of my church and fellowship Bible church up well in Ralston for 30 years.

So we have deep roots in the Belmont community, and we like it here.

So I'm my other claim to fame is that my house, which was fully remodeled and extended two years ago, is the only house.

Oh, the house I was planning to die in, the house I was planning to take in my elderly in-laws to take care of them, is the only house that is surrounded on three sides by the CMU.

So if you look at the corridor mixed-use lots of that are uh most of them are next to alleyways or streets or share a property line with non-residential zones like central uh elementary school.

There are only 10 single-family lots that share a property line with the CMU with the CMU zone.

And honestly, I don't believe enough protection has been put in place for those lots.

I think you guys have uh have also seen this.

If you look at the current ordinance, it would be possible for 65-foot hotel to be built five feet away from my property line and and 10 feet away from my window.

That's about this distance.

Uh I can't help but think uh of the movie up.

I have this little where the I recall it.

Oh yeah, everyone loves that scene, right?

That one house is surrounded by by skyscrapers, yes.

And I may be biased, but I don't think anyone wants that in Belmont.

So when a zone transitions from residential to commercial uh mixed use, the ordinance refers back to a transitional yard found in section 9.7.5, which are general regulations that were created years ago and did not anticipate the higher heights being proposed.

Uh I'm looking to produce a more gradual transition to alleviate the significant height differences between residential and uh and commercial.

So the proposed ordinance right now requires a 15-foot rear setback for ground floor residents as noted in section one dot twelve.

This 15-foot setback should be applied to all property lines that abut to a residential zone and for all property types.

Uh there should be a consistent setback between CMU and residential lots.

In addition, the 15-foot setback, uh section 1.13 provides helpful guidance in addressing the impacted daylight plane, right?

So they have when you go to the third floor, I gotta set back five feet.

I'm proposing this happens every two floors.

So third floor, five feet, fifth floor, another five feet.

So that allows the what you want is the angle to be daylight angle to be uh to be the same uh as yes, I got 15 seconds.

It's important to note that I believe that this these suggestions do not limit new hotels from hitting the point 2.5 far.

It just front loads all the building to the El Camino side and creates distance from the residential.

There you go.

Great.

Well done.

Thank you so much.

I was gonna say 30 more seconds.

Oh any other uh speakers in chambers.

I don't see any.

Um, no other speaker slips in house.

Oh yeah.

Anyone on Zoom?

Um no raised hands on Zoom either.

Wow, we've answered every possible question that could be asked.

Amazing.

We put everybody to sleep.

How about that?

How about closing the public hearing?

I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing then with a wrap of my gavel.

Wake up.

Public hearing.

Closed.

Uh we can now turn to uh commissioner deliberation.

Anyone want to start?

And just want to make sure our scope here.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I had a very um positive comment.

I just want to say notice under parking that um you've now required that accessory parking and loading facilities shall be provided.

Thought that was awesome.

We've been talking about that, right?

Like some place for Doordash to pull over or like Amazon trucks, and I saw that that was added.

Thanks.

I think that's a great addition to our our uh our zoning course.

This is the value of bringing it all together, and we've got some good ideas that weren't applying everywhere, and trying to, do you know what I mean, bring everything together.

Thank you.

Yeah, I will say though, um, if we're just jumping in at any different time, that um I do completely agree with our previous public commenter that uh section nine and transitional yards is completely inadequate in the modern era and with the size of the buildings that we're looking at, and so um I would think that we need to also modify uh section nine around those those transitional yards.

And yeah, thank you for walking us through it.

The language and this is crazy.

Like the C or M district were a side and a rear.

Whoa, makes my head spin.

But the bottom line is that yes, that this setbacks are basically 16 feet when they should be, you know, much further.

So completely agree with that, and I would like to see those edits uh added as part of this um overall cleanup.

Um again, it doesn't affect a lot of properties, but the properties it does affect are really affected.

Um I think um I agree, and I thought that the staff's approach of having the setbacks above the third floor, that's a great start.

Um, but what else can we do?

And I think the transitional yard being larger is one of them.

Um and I would support it, Jerry.

You said it yourself as our commenter, like above the fifth floor, another five feet.

Um I would uh I would like to see that in the resolution.

So maybe a point of order.

Um we're making a recommendation to the city council.

Correct.

Um, the resolution is written such that we just approve it all or we don't.

Can we kind of rewrite the resolution as we go and basically make at the end of the night a slightly different resolution if we so wanted?

Yes.

Okay, yeah.

So when we get there, I would like to propose we have some edits to section nine on transitional yards uh and uh expand staff's nice uh five foot to the five foot every two stories.

Um I'll pause there and turn it over to others.

I I'm also I a little bit further that the 10-foot backyard to backyard does also seem fairly narrow given the height that could be in place.

So, yeah, seems like it should be 15 feet all the way around, really.

Um I guess we're if we're still going, uh as far as the time limits go, we we received a number of public comments, you know, concern about um basically staff approvals, right, without without public discussion.

Um I think it's a good thing that Belmont has some pretty active and engaged residents, and I think that um even as in with the case that we reviewed, you know, two meetings ago, um, where state law ties our hands, I still think there's a really valuable purpose in in public comment.

Um and so uh personally I would say for the urban infill projects with a 30-day clock, yes, that's absolutely staff.

There's no way that we could meet that timeline with any kind of public review.

But for the ones that are 60 days, I respectfully disagree, and I feel like I realize it will put pressure on staff, um, but I feel the benefit of the community is high enough that I would not waive planning commission.

Like again, there's places where it is automatically, but in places where we have a choice, I would not change the text to say that for 60 day review, uh it goes to the community development director personally.

30 days, yes, I get it.

60 days, no.

I feel like we can make that happen.

We have we're on schedule twice a month here.

Um I feel like we could we could do it.

And an alternative may be that it it goes to the zoning administrator, in which case there would need to be the public comment in some form of meeting, right?

Wasn't that the difference?

That's another way to do it with the zoning administrator be easy to do.

Yeah, you're for the city.

Zoning administrator hearings can be scheduled as needed.

I think realistically to make a 60-day clock.

So just to give you a little insight, like the first 30 days of that 60 days are used for all the different reviewers to do their reviews.

So all the subject matter experts use that first 30 days, and then there's like a determination that we have everything, you know what I mean?

Like we're ready to put a package together to approve something with make meeting the objective standards, we've got all the conditions of approval in place, and then noticing and schedule a meeting.

I really don't think it's practical in 60 days to make it to a regularly scheduled planning commission meeting.

A zoning administrator hearing may be possible because that can be scheduled at any time, so it could be scheduled on the 59th day, for example, um, and then there could still be a notice and there could still be public comment.

I guess can I ask?

I mean, so the planning commission meets every two twice a month, so maximum three weeks between meetings when you have a weird month, right?

That there's an extra week in there.

So maximum three weeks between meetings, public notice is only essentially five days.

10 days before.

Yeah.

We get our agenda packets four days before, not ten days.

We send the notice to the neighbors ten days before.

Ours, this is a brown act requirement.

Yeah, so we we send our notice two Thursdays before the meeting, and the legal requirement is the two Fridays before.

Gotcha.

Yeah, so that to meet the noticing requirement to prepare it and meet the noticing requirement, I really don't think it would be feasible consistently.

It may be on some projects, depending on when they fall.

Um but just from a practical point of view, I I don't think it would be possible for every project.

Do you think this forum is this forum is useful even though even if we can only be objective with it, do you think that the the application should not be deemed complete until it's been reviewed or put in front of public comment in the that would be great, but the law doesn't allow us to do that.

I think that was David's question, right?

It's from the time the application is deemed complete, then the clock starts ticking.

Could it be seen as outreach that it's sit that it's tabled?

Because it seems like it's a good point of contact for the community, or is that something we can't?

I don't think you're allowed to require community outreach.

Oh, right.

Yeah, but sorry, certifying that it's complete though comes before the experts review or the expert review and then say it's complete.

Like so the experts review to see if all of the materials are there, and that's the completeness check.

So then the time clock doesn't everything that we need after that's and then once the application is complete is when the time clock really starts, but it varies a little bit according to the different laws now.

So we used to have a very standard way that we all did this as planners.

You had 30 days to deem an application complete.

Um, but now it's really like the law is written that the 60 days start from submittal of a complete application.

So if the application wasn't complete, then we can say it wasn't complete and then they have to submit more materials, but some of the laws say the clock restarts and others don't.

It's really complicated.

Yeah.

I I that for me, honestly, like I I actually happen to agree that that for 30 days is just practically impossible, and I think that we should just for the infill projects, that makes total sense.

I would like to know one other city in San Mateo that has done exactly this in response to this law.

I I mean, I I think it sounds like a good idea, but like have other jurisdictions done exactly this where they've taken jurisdiction away from the planning commission and moved it to the community development director.

If we can say for a fact that one or two have done that.

I mean, I'm assuming that our neighbors have to do three.

There's two requirements in A B 130.

There's infill, which is 30 days, and then there's ministerial review.

Which is the 60 days for 60, yeah.

Yeah.

So I'm talking about the 60 day review.

Yeah.

Commissioner, I don't think I see hasn't had it in coordinates yet?

That's kind of my point, right?

Like I feel like it's yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's a pretty quick turnaround.

Yeah.

That's that's kind of my preference, just so we can kind of do a little bit of thinking around that issue and say, look, you know, Rabbit City's done this or whomever's done this.

And I don't know that it just because someone else has done it and makes it the right thing, but like it makes me feel a little better about it.

Um just because again, people have made a good point about our community likes to have a public forum to, even if it's ministerial, to come out here and and kind of speak their piece.

And so if we're the only jurisdiction that is that is doing it a different way, that makes me a little uncomfortable.

My last comment about that is I noticed that zoning administrator hearings are often during the business hours, which I assume is preferable for staff, of course.

These evenings are hard, but is terrible for the public, right?

Like 11 a.m.

on a Tuesday is when you get to have your public hearing.

I just don't think it's it's comparable.

A zoning administrator hearing to your point about would that be easier.

I I don't think that's comparable to a public commission.

I mean, we we could we can always establish a policy of when such zoning administrator hearings would be held.

So that's within our discretion.

If it's a housing project, we could always do it in the evening at seven o'clock, for example.

So I'm just trying to throw things out there, but I think to the larger question is if you if the planning commission doesn't wish to make a recommendation on that section, you do not have to.

You could recommend against it, you could not make a recommendation, you would request for us to come back with more information, but totally reasonable.

Would it be possible to include a reporting requirement even on the 30-day ones?

Otherwise we have no knowledge of what's going on, right?

You'll have an eight-story building that goes through with the planning commissioners not being aware of it.

Um and that seems incorrect that we're here to represent the public and we should at least know about them.

And within 30 days, there's certainly applicable plan to tell us what we're site that has these projects were approved within.

Yeah, we could something like something else beyond.

No, I'm suggesting it be discussed.

It be agendized and reported to us as a planning commission sometime within before it's approved.

Because this is what a it's a little frustrating when we're looking at all the objective ones.

All we're doing is checking the homework that our very competent staff did.

But if we don't do that, there's gonna be more mistakes.

You know what I mean?

And so aside from uh uh enabling public input, this gives us public output and gives us some oversight on it because it's possible could make a mistake, right?

And we might be helpful in guiding that, even if it's not in an full blown oversight, full blown judgment and recommendation.

It's an interesting idea.

How would we add it to the agenda then?

Like what kind of item would that be?

I don't know.

Because we do it with other things that we don't have any say on, like parks and recs things we get here once a year.

We just have the climate action plan, right?

It's just a purely inform, just be except for the informed discussion, except for reports.

Report from staff regarding X, Y, Z projects.

Yeah.

I mean, what we could do is we could um, you know, hear your feedback.

If you've got more discussion on this, we could go back and come up with some, you know what I mean?

Potential approaches, both for notifying the public, notifying the planning commission, like count the days, see what our colleagues are doing.

Do you know what I mean?

We were trying to really kind of get ahead on this one, but I understand your reluctance to get ahead on this one.

I get it.

I I'm impressed, I don't mind us being the first mover.

I just think we need to think about transparency as best we can, because even if it's the same answer all the time, nobody reads this stuff until they see the signs go up next to their house.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um what else?

I have one more comment uh going back to the parking A B 2097.

So there's no requirement for the parking account chain, but does that mean that that's what we would like to do?

Like, does Bel does Belmont have like so we we saw a project recently that the commercial viability that developer added a large amount of parking because from their point of view that made sense to them because they knew that these people who in the residence would want to park and that they wouldn't be able to find that in streets.

And do you think we should be controlling that narrative a little bit more with the guidelines and the way that we write it?

Because of course we we don't have a requirement to, but do you think we should still be putting something in the whether it's waived or not, about amounts of parking per residence still?

So our parking requirements are still in the code.

So they're still there, there's still a reference.

Um, and then we would expect the applicant to provide the amount of parking that they think both the market, do you know what I mean, needs?

So, like the people that they plan to rent those apartments to, how much parking do they think is market-based, right?

And then also like what fits within their proposed project.

So they are gonna kind of balance that each individual applicant.

But in this case, we definitely have our parking standards are still in the code, and we still emphasize those, but then applicants know and we have the note that they don't have to do it.

So this is the case where we are doing the thing that you're suggesting on the other topic, which is to lead them to the answer that we want them to get to.

Okay, so it's still all captured in that section.

I'm just wondering that uh along will come a project where they've just decided even for the commercial viability they didn't want to place any parking, and that's gonna just cause havoc in all the streets around that section.

It it is possible and has happened in other cities.

I know it's happened in San Mateo for sure.

Okay, so but but we can't um remove this right to waive that element because of the AB 2097.

We cannot.

There's some really um there's some findings that are very hard to achieve, and cities are still trying to figure out how to implement some of those findings to be able to sort of deny that and require parking.

Um, but nothing has really come of that yet because people are still trying to figure out how to implement that because the findings are really difficult.

Sure, it still boils down to safety if people are parking all over the streets on the sidewalks because the parking's not available.

Yeah, and I I think safety issue.

Yeah, and it's something that we'll have to consider, do you know what I mean?

Over time, and to see it'll probably take some of these projects going forward, um, or even some of these projects being litigated before there's sort of like case law and practice around how to potentially deny that um that parking situation.

But that but that is a good point you raised.

It's like you you still need to make sure your your um intent is captured, whether or not there's these requirements to waive huge chunks of it.

Yeah.

And I think that logic that you brought up earlier is something that we can, do you know what I mean?

It's like it's sh it's for me, it's kind of shifting my thinking a little bit to make sure we do that in some areas, but we might not do that in all areas.

So it'll help me to think about how we do these code amendments.

Um I guess I was hoping to hear a little bit more from my fellow commissioners about the hotels.

Um I do agree that you know we need to expand our tax base.

I understand that I think it's transit transitory occupancy tax, right?

I couldn't think of those words earlier, thank you.

Uh is beneficial.

And I can so I can see why we might want to make a hotel, you know, not a conditional use but a uh permitted use.

Um but we did have the discussion about heights, right?

And as well as the FAR being greatly increased.

And so we're talking about potentially a big fat building sitting again on that narrow El Camino corridor.

And I think, you know, the closer you get to Ralston the better, but the further away you get from Ralston, we're sort of again up against some sort of residential and scenic hills.

I don't know.

I'm very torn in my mind about this.

I'm curious what my fellow commissioners think.

How far should we bend over backwards to make it easier to get a hotel in El Camino?

Interesting.

Uh in the in the canvas zoning, we limited it to the number.

I mean, theoretically, you could have 17 hotels squeezed in there, but I think I'm going to be surprised if we get one.

So I'm having little trouble worrying about it.

Um but that's that's probably not fair.

Um yeah, I mean again, it's like there is a place for it in Belmont.

I mean, that's the place to me at least.

I mean we want to kind of build kind of that that hub.

Yeah, I agree.

I'm just wondering about the the floor area ratio exception and the height exception.

I thought you were asking good questions, Margaret.

Like is it?

I have the same concerns.

Um there are already hotels on Shoreway Road, right?

And um, they're just out of uh interest.

So it's like, let me see if they have occupancy.

Can you rent a room there tonight?

Yeah, there are at least 35 rooms.

So I mean, is it is it necessary to also have it right on Ralston at 65 feet?

You know, yeah.

Okay, no, yeah.

Laura, can you remind me?

What would, again, you showed that example with the the parking garage, and I just don't know our design standards well enough.

Do we have design standards around how that the village, right?

You have that wrapping if there's residential on the ground floor, da da da.

Do we have any design standards for a parking garage in the CMU?

Because I think a hotel is the only one that would put in a parking garage, right?

Everybody else is kind of either not having parking or tucking little bits in underneath.

But a hotel might have a big fat parking garage.

And do we have design standards for that?

I don't think we do.

I think we do have, I don't know.

We talked about the one on shoreway at us, yeah, independent.

Yeah, in terms of we were talking about what would be like if it was adjacent to residential for like the side that was facing residential.

We have design standards for facing the El Camino rail side, for sure.

Um, but I don't think we have design standards for the rear.

Cause I hate to, again, you know, make work for staff on the off chance we actually get a hotel, right?

But that might be one thing to consider is something around parking garage design standards for the CMU.

Now that we're creating a uh accepted use hotels, which are pretty darn likely to have a parking garage.

It just something about those can be so ugly or they can be perfectly nice, right?

Um if you go to the Sutter Health um on Industrial, right?

They've got these beautiful vines growing up, but you can't practically tell it's a parking garage.

It looks like a garden.

Uh and then you see these op you know ugly things along 101 that are just concrete, you know, sandwiches.

So I I would I'm open to the hotel.

I don't know if we'll get one, but it would be good for the city's tax base if we did.

But it sure would be nice if we didn't also create a hideous parking garage just because we don't have any standards for it because we haven't thought about it.

Yeah, I mean, for the hotel, I mean the the height and the size.

I mean, I'm not an economist, I don't know anything really about the hotel industry aside from that I've stayed in hotels, and so it's just hard for me at least to kind of kind of second guess that analysis about kind of what is like the ideal size to really incentivize a hotel to actually get here.

So I would hate to kind of create a standard that um doesn't achieve that purpose.

No point in implementing hotels if then nobody will ever build one.

So yeah, you're basically saying rely on our consultants that said 65 feet would be reasonable.

Yeah, okay.

Uh through the chair for transparency, I do want the planning commission to know that we do have a family-owned hotel that has been interested in potentially demolishing the hotel and building a new hotel at their location.

So just do you know what I mean?

I don't want you to not have that information.

So it's it's a family that's owned it for a long time that's interested in demolishing the existing kind of older, you know, roadside motels style, and get a national brand to have a hotel at that location.

So so we have had conversations with them, like practical conversations.

Do you know what I mean?

About what their needs are.

So we've been working with them for a while.

And did they kind of drive this input and and kind of this analysis, or is this our consultant who we're talking about the sizing and the FAR and all that kind of stuff?

Our consultant drove the analysis, but we like fact-checked it with this applicant.

Like, does that make sense to you?

Is that you know what I mean?

Is that what you had in mind?

Okay.

That is a good question.

I'm pretty sure we don't.

Through the chair, just so you know, uh, we do have one raised hand on Zoom at this moment.

I know the public hearing is closed.

Um, up to you if we'd like to take their comment.

I think we've closed the public hearing at this point.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so we do not have any standards that would apply to the back, like if a parking structure was adjacent to a use that was to the rear.

Yeah, I think that would be part of my recommendation to the city council would be to direct staff to develop those.

Maybe you can just copy the ones you got for the front or something, but uh so that we don't have that gap in our standards, I guess.

That's fair.

Along the lines of the residential properties behind CMU, if there was, I mean, I don't know how you you would word it, but yeah, like there was the uh the the person who's putting like nice small windows so it doesn't impact their neighbor.

Like if there's a way to work with the developer of, you know, you're gonna have a parking garage, you need to put make it look nice, or you need to you just you have to be aware of the people around you and adjust your design so that it works with the surrounding community.

That would be helpful.

And because it is um we have more subjective control over hotel, very different than do you know what I mean, a residential project.

I agree that putting design standards in are important, but I definitely hear that feedback because we staff is more um we can give more feedback to commercial applicants.

Do you know what I mean?

And it's more of a collaborative process, as opposed to housing is not as much these days.

So we can really express the intent in the code, but we also can give recommendations, and they're more likely to take them.

Anything further?

No.

No.

Okay.

I think we're at the point we've we've definitely considered a public comment and and and some great dialogue.

So I feel at this point we probably can take some form of action if we're so inclined.

Okay.

If I um could through the chair, just give you a couple ways to think about this.

Um we heard a really important question early on about residential care facilities and like what does the law allow there?

Um and so you can handle this a couple of different ways.

Um if you were inclined to, you could um adopt the resolution recommending we make these changes and ask us to go back and study this and c come back with a follow-up code amendment if you wanted to do that.

Um you could make a recommendation with your intent and then we could follow up on it prior to the the city council um discussion.

And so if like for example, I think you were saying you wanted to add like in a residential structure.

So if you wanted to direct us to go back and see legally if we're allowed to say that and if we're allowed to say that, then do so for the version that goes in front of the council, we could do that, or we would have to come back with you to you for more analysis.

I mean, it was it was your suggestion.

The way I would think about it is as you kind of like we should encourage staff to make sure that they're thinking through kind of the definitional and legal implications of including this kind of revised definition within the code.

Whatever that involves, I don't know, but um maybe it's the suggestion to add that that kind of you know piece of the end, maybe it's something different, but I think you've identified a pretty interesting potential gap that I think folks should consider before finalizing.

But I I defer to you as we think is appropriate.

Yeah, it seems like the our resolution would be something like um, yeah, recommend that staff research whether the phrase in a single family residence could be legally added or not, and if not, what other additional zoning code edits are required.

I d I'm not saying that analysis needs to come back here.

I don't think we we've analyzed it.

You've analyzed it.

I think we're talking about between before it goes to the city council or perhaps city council adopts what you've got now and then you know within a certain time period you follow up.

I don't think we're asking for you to come back here.

That's right.

Um it's more like we've identified a gap and please go work with lawyers to figure out how we could plug that gap.

Right.

Okay.

I think it's right.

Yeah.

And um generally the way that it works when you're making a planning commission recommendation, you don't have to settle on the exact language, but it's we have to know that you have considered it.

I'm kind of putting the air quotes around that.

So I think this discussion um meets that, but I'm just gonna repeat it back so that I make sure that we've got it and we're kind of meeting that legal requirement in terms of making the recommendation to the city council.

Um, so you're saying that staff would analyze that language, right, to consider whether that um in a single family residence could be added to the residential care uses, and and if not that, then analyze what other regulatory instrument we may have to resolve any impacts or unintended consequences of having large residential care facilities in a single-family neighborhood.

And that it doesn't need to come back to this body with that particular language, but could go forward to the city council and then presumably direct some future action for staff to take if it needs more analysis for study.

Does that seem good?

Yes.

Yes.

Great.

Um I think the other modification to the resolution that we wanted was to uh look at the transitional yard language in section nine point seven five.

And we were expressing the intent that transitional yards for any commercial C or M district that touches a residential district, which is R 1234, whatever it might be, that would be a 15 foot yard um minimum, no matter which side of the C or M district is touching the art, it doesn't matter if it's front, side, back, it would be minimum 15 feet yard.

Um so that would be in section 975, and then uh to staff's language about the five foot set back after the third floor, we wanted to add and five feet uh every two floors thereafter.

Okay.

Um and I think we wanted to uh direct staff to uh implement the change to the community development director approving projects that are on the 30-day clock, but that we would uh prefer to strike all language about the 60-day uh until staff has had more time to study it and consult with other cities in San Mateo County and figure out maybe how they're dealing with it.

So in other words, don't uh don't make that edit, uh leave it for now.

And uh did we want further analysis coming back here, or that could just go to the city council.

I don't well, I mean, so one, I think um there was also a request that we consider potentially that we report back or some other kind of publication with regard to the 30-day thing.

Um, I mean uh I personally would be interested if if we have the time um for y'all to come back on this issue.

About us in our hearings, yeah.

Exactly.

Uh um I I would prefer to bring it back, um, because I think we will benefit from the discussion because we might give you a few options or ways to think about it, and then we want to get your feedback on what you think would be the best way forward.

Um you have a pretty busy agenda coming up, but we'll just fit it in.

Do you know what I mean?

As it as it as we have to, because it's something we want to make progress on, but it's not something that has to happen immediately.

You know, we're just doing our best to comply with the law in the meantime, and we'll try to get any project that comes in to you, but it's not like we have something waiting in the wings that we need this amendment for.

It would be good to get more uh feedback on what you're intending as far as um notifying the neighbors for the projects that need to be uh finished really.

Yeah, you need to approve it, and there's really not time for a meeting.

Yeah, we can come back with some options to get your feedback, that'd be great.

But we'll go for it.

So we're just gonna not put in that amendment.

We're just gonna remove that amendment that's related to the ministerial or by right, and we're gonna leave the amendment that has the AB 130 30-day timeline.

Yeah, that was my intention, yeah.

Okay, and then I guess just last because we got um a number of comments um about the height limits.

Um, I think I might have said this earlier during questions when I should have saved it for deliberations, but um, yeah, as reluctant as as we are, we know that you know the extra 33 feet, all that kind of stuff.

We don't want to keep going up.

I do think in this case the extra five feet is a reasonable compromise to really try to encourage the commercial active uses because I I really do think those make a difference.

And I do think for somebody who's exercising every density bonus they can get, plus and minus five feet on an 85-foot building is not enough of a difference.

It's it would be unfortunate.

But so just to my fellow residents who really don't want to see a height increase.

I think this is sort of one of the uh, you know, sort of compromises to give up a little height to maybe get um some of that ground floor commercial that we'd really like to see.

So um just adding my deliberation there because I there's a lot of interest in the question of height limits in the neighborhood.

Or did we capture the garage design so that's oh the parking garage, right?

Are we I guess we're directing staff to analyze whether uh design standards for parking garages that do not face El Communal Real uh can be developed.

I guess they can be uh we're directing them that they should be developed.

Please develop standards.

Yeah, I think the way that we would uh say it is that the planning commission recommends that we do that and then we get the council buy-in, yes, do that, and then we could put that in our work program.

Yeah, great, great.

Okay.

Phew, was that everything?

I I think that's everything.

Okay.

Uh shall I make a motion?

That would be amazing.

It's a long one.

All right, I make a motion to approve the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Belmont.

Uh recommending that the city of Council amend um section two, section four, section five, section eight, section 9.5.4, section 10.8, section 13, and sections 31.6 and 31.7 of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance to include a series of zoning text amendments as written here and as subject to the verbal um additions that we just made tonight.

That'll do.

Okay.

Sorry, second.

I'll second.

Great.

Okay.

Uh roll call.

Commissioner Adam Kavich.

Uh aye.

Kramer?

Aye.

Uh Chair Coolidge?

Aye.

Twig.

Aye.

And Adala?

Aye.

Okay.

Um motion passes 5-0 for zoning text amendments, quarter mixed use district, parking, housing element, implementation, and other zoning code updates.

Um, as well as the amendments on uh section two, four, five A, eight, nine point five point four, ten point eight, thirteen, thirty-one point six, and thirty-one point seven, as subject to the verbal additions that were mentioned here tonight.

My very competent team behind me has just reminded me that you wanted to make the um amendments to the transitional yards.

So I just wanted to reflect into the record.

Okay.

Do you know what I mean?

Because we need to add that to the resolution.

It's not currently in.

Right.

That just wanted to make sure everybody's got it.

We're going to add that fifteen foot.

Do you know what I mean?

So 9.7.5 transitional yards.

Yes.

Thank you.

We talked about if it was not part of the motion, that's fair.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Do we need to vote again?

Do we need to vote?

You think it's sufficiently clear?

I don't think we do.

I think it's sufficiently clear.

Absolutely clear.

Yeah.

Yes.

Great.

Okay.

Um, thank you for that.

Um, really appreciate it.

Um, I feel less overwhelmed uh having kind of gone through that cathartic process.

Um, that's like my job description is for people to feel less overwhelmed.

Yeah.

So that's what I strive for.

Yeah, less well.

So um anyway, thank you.

Thank you for that, and thank you to my colleagues for like as usual, very thoughtful um questions and and concerns and doing a good job for the the citizens of Belmont.

Okay, so that uh thus endeth our uh public hearing session.

We have any additional uh further business.

Uh just quickly for the commission there is a fifth Tuesday this month.

Um so your next meeting will be October 7th, and as we scan through our own calendar for the balance of uh this year, we anticipate having items for you.

So please, please, please keep your availability current for October 7th, October 21st, your two meetings in November, and your meetings in December.

So um uh to the extent that you're uh able to let us know in advance of a meeting out in the future that you're unable to attend, please let us know.

We are going to be uh working on some protocol um items as well.

Um and we're gonna have regular communication with you on just confirming things and making sure that we're all talking the same language about meetings and scheduling and things like that.

So um again, uh next meeting, October 7th.

You'll have a slate of items there, and uh just thank you for your good work tonight.

There was a lot, and again, thank you to Laura and her team for everything that they did.

This was a ton of code amendments that we brought for you, and Laura is correct, she she is a master at uh taking the overwhelming and making it manageable and making it understandable.

Um it's a lot to navigate, so kudos.

Um, great team, great team here, and we appreciate your thoughtfulness on tonight's item and all of your perspectives.

So, director, can I ask you something?

Comments?

Yeah.

Uh I understand one of our findings was appealed.

Uh I don't remember.

Doesn't happen very often.

Um, so the projected 580 Masonic was appealed, and it was it is gonna be scheduled for a future public hearing for the city council.

So we'll do it on a regular Tuesday city council.

Yes, so the council meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.

We uh have not zeroed in on that meeting date yet.

Um, but we are targeting a certain meeting.

But you don't need anything further from us.

We don't need anything further from the commission.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So that's it.

Thank you again for your service, and I will wrap item eight.

You can move to item nine.

Item nine is adjournment.

It is nine-eleven.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm leaving up.