Okay, good, we're live.

Uh good evening, everyone.

Uh, welcome to uh the City of Belmont's Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 7th, 2025.

I will start as usual with um instructions on how to participate and how to comment.

Um can participate uh by watching us on Comcast Cable Channel 27.

Uh this meeting is also streamed live uh via the city's website at Belmont.gov.

And of course um one can participate using uh the Zoom application um and following this the instructions listed in the agenda, a public comment.

Um uh one can either comment uh in person in chambers.

Uh and if you're gonna do so, I'd ask that you submit a speaker slip to our clerk, and then you can come to the lecture and you'll have three minutes to comment.

Um, or uh one can comment uh virtually using the raised hand feature uh over Zoom, and again, the instructions for doing so are included in the agenda.

And uh having given those instructions, let's have a roll call.

Good evening, roll call.

Um Commissioner Adam Kavich, here.

Kramer.

Here.

Chair Coolidge?

Here.

Majeski here.

Twig.

And Jadala here.

Great.

Everyone is here and accounted for.

Uh item two is our Pledge of Allegiance.

Ask everyone to please stand.

Uh, flag is here.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic, which is one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Uh turning to item three, which is our community forum.

Uh, this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address this body on any matter not on the agenda.

Um, uh the period for public comment at this point is limited uh again to three minutes per speaker.

So we'll see if there's anyone in chambers who'd like to submit any public comment uh for item three.

Um no public speaker slips for this item.

Looks like we do have two raised hands on Zoom.

Great.

Let's turn to those comments, please.

Okay.

Um let's see.

First up is at Google Pixel Nine.

Uh, go ahead whenever you're ready, you'll have three minutes.

If you could go ahead and unmute yourself.

Yes, we can hear you.

Hi, my name is Garkey Parik, and recently we got an email from the Silicon Valley Inn um owners that they want to construct a hotel, their five-story hotel, and we literally live next door to that.

And I had some concerns about that, and I did write to the planning uh commission about it, and I'm willing to meet in person.

Unfortunately, I'm not at home right now.

I'm at someone's home, and I can't talk too much, but I would like to know more about it before I uh say anything more.

Is the proposal already with the planning commission?

I'm not aware of it.

And if someone can answer that question for me, that would help.

Um so to address your question, uh staff can meet with you to talk about the proposal for the subject property.

The city is also underway with some zoning code amendments along that stretch of El Community.

But we'd be happy to schedule a meeting with you.

Uh if you'd like, you could send an email to me.

My name is Carlos Demello.

I'm the community development director, and you could send it to C Demello at Belmont.gov, and I'd be happy to arrange that meeting with you.

Okay, that would be great.

I would like to meet in person, and that will help me understand things a little better.

Great.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director De Mello.

Okay.

Let's move on to the next comment, please.

Okay.

Um next up is uh shoot thrasha.

If you wouldn't mind starting the timer too, please.

Yes.

Go ahead whenever you're ready.

Please unmute yourself.

Uh hi.

Sorry, I was talking on unmute.

Uh dear commissioners, thank you for this opportunity.

I'm speaking as I own two back-end properties, both of which have a single APN assigned to them and have a notice of merger filed by the city of Belmont on them that matches a lot and block numbers.

One is single lot, lower lock at the lower lock, and another one at Bartlett Way, the eight lots more.

Genuinely I'm generally curious at uh can it be explained that while the recorded documents reference the city's subdivision subdivision ordinance and we're all recorded in early 2000.

Would the city attorney and in turn planning department have advised me that these lots are not necessarily legal?

It appears that uh in at least one local city, as well as the county of San Mario and the County of Santa Clara Planning Departments, a lot with recorded merger is considered to be legal and doesn't require any other verification outside of providing dates to prove at the time of the merger, no other lots were under common ownership.

I hope that City of Belmont commissioners such as yourself can create a panel or something to try and investigate this and gain some answers for uh yourself.

It would be very helpful to have a clear answer, especially since the position of the city of Belmont seems to run contrary to that of other local agency that evaluate the exact same uh state laws but have reached different conclusions.

I was just referring like different other cities uh near around there.

So given that position of Belmont is the uh I would like to know uh more clarification on this aspect.

Uh thank you very much.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, we do have one more raised hand.

Um, a news iPhone.

Go ahead, you'll have three minutes.

Hi there.

Uh can you hear me?

You reset the timer.

Yeah, we can hear you.

Hi, uh, my name is Anthony.

Um I live in uh 329 Malcolm Avenue, which is uh adjacent to the lot nine and ten.

Sir, I think this is for uh an item which will be in our public hearing portion of the agenda, which is items 7A and 7B.

So I'd ask that you um stay put and um you'll have an opportunity to submit comment when we come to that item.

Oh, I'm sorry, alright.

That's all we I appreciate you being here.

Anyone else for item three?

Um we have two raised hands still.

Um, I'll just say that if this is uh these are comments with regard to the Malcolm Avenue lots 9 and 10, those will be called in due course.

This is for items that are not on tonight's agenda that are within the purview of of the commission.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Um with that we have Arvind Chandra.

Go ahead.

Great.

Hi, this is Arvink.

Uh good evening, Commissioners.

I'm reaching out as I purchase a vacant lot and a separate area rights in Belmont.

Prior to purchasing it, uh I conducted extensive due diligence on them to try and obtain a clear understanding of the challenges.

One of the issues which arose was there were three API numbers, also known as tax bills, for which uh I was told by the city that in fact only one lot.

I it uh appeared that the lot had three separate AP numbers, even though city had filed a notice of merger on the lots on the spring 2023 after purchasing the uh on the lots.

I contacted the SSR and rectified the issue, and today uh the lots are identified with just one uh APN number.

I intend to build a single uh family home on the modest lot.

Uh uh under the permission of the zoning of HRO2.

I'm speaking tonight is even though I full notice of merger on the site, uh, one of which provides only one building credit under the zoning, one which uh because uh it was filed, it needed uh very limited paperwork to get a single tax bill, one which under the uh county of uh San Micro the notice of merger serves a final action recognizes the lot as being existence and uh legal.

The city of Belmont appears to have an alternate view and advise me that merger doesn't by itself create a lot.

It appears our city wants to recognize the measure uh when it comes to effect, it would have been on the M L T to have extra space under the zoning, but it does not use when it comes to the compliance with SMA.

So that is my concern.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Shandra, we did receive an email that you sent to the city on Friday the third.

We have that email in our queue.

We'd be happy to follow up with you directly if you'd like to send an email to me directly.

My name is Carlos Tamello.

I'm the community development director, and that email C Demello at Belmont.gov.

Happy to answer your questions going forward.

Sure, I will do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, sir, and thank you, Director DeMello.

Okay.

Um one more raised hand.

Um Sky Linebach.

Yes, hello.

I am Sky.

Uh as a youth living in Belmont, I would just want to make my stance known that I would like to see more environmental action around with the Twin Pines Restoration Project, and I support that, and I think that we should do more to be aware of our impact.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Sky, thank you so much for for uh commenting.

Um that's amazing, and I hope you continue to attend our meetings and to speak up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any more raised hands?

Um, no more raised hands.

Okay, great.

So that um concludes item three.

And uh item four is commissioner announcements and agenda amendments.

I'll start first with folks up here on the dias to see if we have any uh announcements.

Seeing none, I'll see if staff has any uh any amendments to the agenda.

We have no um changes or amendments to tonight's agenda as presented to the commission.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Director.

And um turning to item five, which is our consent business.

Um we have nothing um on this item as well.

Uh the same is true of item six, which is a study session, seeing there's nothing there as well.

Just looking for confirmation from staff.

Yep, that's correct.

Great.

So that now takes us to the public hearing portion of our meeting.

Um we have uh two items, um, items uh seven A and seven B.

Um item seven A is uh a single family design review and tree removal permit for Malcolm Avenue lot 9.

And then item B is similar, but I imagine we're taking these one at a time.

Yes.

That is correct.

Great.

So we will start first with item 7A.

And before asking staff to present, I'll see if we have any site visits, X party communications or recusals.

Starting here.

Site visit.

Slight visit only.

Yeah, site visit for me as well.

Site visit only.

Site visit.

Okay, great.

Planner Ruiz.

Take it away.

Hello, Commissioners.

This is for a single family design review and tree removal permit for the Malcolm Lot 9 parcel, also known as APN 044 171230.

For reference, that is the lot that is adjacent to the 341 Malcolm Avenue address.

For the proposal, as it is a vacant lot, it is proposed for a new home to have an upper slash main floor of 1,544 square feet, a lower floor of 415 square feet, and a garage of 446 square feet.

This will all accumulate to a total of 2,405 square feet.

While not a part of the proposal on my presentation, there is an accessory dwelling unit that was noted in the project scope in the report.

However, per the state regulations, it is being reviewed ministerially and it's outside of the planning commission review purview.

For the lot summary, the lot size was noted per survey of 5,392 square feet.

It has a slope of 23.88% with a floor area ratio of 0.446.

This will accumulate to a maximum gross floor area of 2,405 square feet that is permissive.

As noted, as it's a vacant lot, there is no current home size or floor area ratio.

However, they are developing to the maximum constraints to the zoning regulations permitted.

For the findings of the design review, the design review would be well designed, articulated consistent, public view should not be impacted, and it's compliant with the residential design guidelines and criteria.

For the findings of the tree removal permit in and of itself, it is to make a determination of the balance between criteria supporting removal and criteria supporting retention.

The criteria for supporting removal is either due to health, um, disease, structural integrity, etc., that the particular tree species is undesirable due to invasiveness or potential hazard like conditions such as tendency for limb failure and higher hazard, that the tree would be currently damaging or interfering existing structure or site improvements, that the removal of the tree is needed in order to construct improvements, or otherwise proximity of the tree to existing or proposed structures.

For criteria supporting retention, the tree has to be located outside the developable area of the property.

The tree and its locations contribute substantially to the aesthetic appeal of the property or the neighborhood, or that the effect of the requested tree removal on the remaining number species number species size and location of existing tree on the site in the area are mutually dependent on one another.

That stated, uh, this is uh the proposed site plan.

Uh the required setbacks for this location, uh, there are one B single family residential is that it requires a front setback of 15 feet, a minimum side setback of six feet, and a minimum rear setback of 15.

The proposed homes in and of themselves for this uh lot would be a front setback of 19 feet and side setbacks of right and left of six feet with a rear of 46 10 feet.

Um there is a noted ADU and per the state.

Their minimum requirements are side of four feet and a rear four feet, of which the accessory dwelling unit meets.

For the proposed and required setbacks of the main zoning.

The main home is able to meet those regulation requirements.

Um next is the landscape plan that showcases the proposed trees for removal.

Uh the proposed trees are the black acacia, which is noted in the right-of-way, a pitisporum, which is uh protected due to large amateur, and the coast life oak, which is a protected species.

Um the arguments for removal that was noted in the report is that per the arborist report that was given, they are needed to be removed for constructions of improvements, specifically for the black acacia.

Um it is within the right-of-way for the development, um, for that access of their um curb cuts uh for the home and the driveway construction, and that proximity of the trees to existing or proposed structures uh would limit the development potential, which would be those pitusporum as well as a coast live oak.

The arguments for retention would have been due to aesthetics appeal.

Um, however, the weighing up criteria that's allowing the permissions of the construction of improvements as well as the uh allowing of the homeowner to re-landscape and maintain the current trees as well as trying to um establish a new lawn, would gain back that aesthetic appeal that is going to be lost due to the loss of the trees.

The plenary is before you move on, just go back.

So, the the trees that are to be removed are indicated by the box with the X's that is within them.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Now for the front elevation that is proposed, you can see that the home steps up uh with the existing grade.

Um the new dwelling would be a split level two-story home, which would not exceed that Belmont zoning ordinance maximum building height of 28 feet.

Um you can see here that the building walls are stepped back at varying distances, and the design would feature this deck, which is noted by section 10.

Um, and an alternating steering materials to mitigate perceived um structural massing in this location.

You can again see that the home again steps up with the existing grade and follows this natural slope with roof slopes and breaks the larger masses into smaller elements on different levels.

Um you can again see that the on this side, um, they have a reduction of windows and limiting of those window sizes in order to respect their immediate neighbor adjacency for concerns of privacy, which was noted in their neighborhood outreach.

On the left elevation, it you can see only a single story, which is to again maintain that singles uh trying to reduce the concerns for heights and just try to give that more natural stepped back aspect uh for the home.

And for the right elevation, um, again, you can see that you're able to have this multiple step back uh structure on the upper floors, as well as that deck that was noted previously.

For the proposed color and materials board, uh the roofing materials will be a standing gray sea metal with a gray um painted wood and trim, a off-color stucco of white, and as well as a stained grade wood siding finish as well as stone veneers.

Per conclusion, staff recommends for the single family design review and tree removal application uh to receive approval, subject to the conditions of approval.

Okay, great, thank you.

Thank you for that presentation.

Um I think we'll turn first to um commissioner questions.

We'll start uh for the.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

I should do that.

Yes.

The applicant is is present.

We can thank you for that reminder.

Applicant can um, if they so wish, can make a presentation.

Hi, I'm Pearl Renneker.

I'm the architect for the project.

I just wanted to talk a few words about the project.

Don't have any new slides, but um just wanted to give the owners perspective.

I mean, the parking property is obviously a vacant parking lot now.

The owner wants to develop new single-family homes that will contribute to the neighborhood, enable new families to move there.

And the goal is very much to build modest homes that fit into the neighborhood.

They're saying contemporary without being ultra modern, like the materials choices, primarily stucco with some accent sliding and some stone accents that can I feel fit into the neighborhood.

Um, and then the kind of the general massing is also similar to this homes that are upslope and downslope of the property with kind of a one-story volume on the upslope, and then um the garage on the lower slide with a partial volume over that.

Um so we really feel like we've we've done a lot to try to make these homes fit well with a neighborhood um as to the trees I mean the from the arborist point of view the black acacia is generally considered to be a somewhat invasive species and it's been uh topped for you know utilities in the past and so it's not doesn't have the greatest form.

Um the Pitasporum I guess it's a six inch diameter tree which I guess is considered large but it's not very large I would say and also the oak tree is also eight inches in diameter.

Those two trees are very close to the retaining wall that we'd like to propose along that side of the property.

In terms of the we had the neighborhood feedback uh meeting in March and the comments were more focused on the uphill slope house lot 10 so I guess we'll talk about that in the presentation for that house.

Um there were not so many comments for uh this house we're there's is an existing retaining wall at the back of the property but we don't expect that there will be any impact on that.

Um we've you know been working with a geotechnical engineer and a structural engineer um to try to you know and just ensure that the house will be set into the the site appropriately we're not building at the very back of the site um and we don't feel that there should be impacts to the neighboring properties from those.

So open to your questions.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we can turn to commissioner questions.

Is that over here?

Um I guess I just want to understand more I I was confused about the arborist report that people kept referring to it's dated June of twenty twenty.

Am I looking at the right attachment?

That is correct.

Uh this has been an ongoing project since twenty t the 2020s um in terms of like pre-application and review for it.

Okay and so with respect to for example diameters of trees they grow so have the trees been remeasured or are we supposed to rely on five and a half year old measurements?

I I'm just I'm asking about the process I've never seen this before.

Um in terms of that the I went on site and they have not grown substantially um for it um I can request that there an arborist has to be maintained for this project as a condition of approval um to confirm that any tree regulation has to be on site and they could revise um to say if things meet those uh removal requirements but currently only three are being removed the rest are being retained.

Right and I guess can you clarify there was something said about like the arborist says black acacia is invasive I didn't see that in the report like I'm just confused about what was said versus what's in this report um the Arborist report has R would indicate proposed tree removal but none of these are R because I guess the Arborist assessed it you know five years ago.

I I'm just not seeing like a I'm just confused about there's not a mass between this report and what we're talking about.

So I did not make reference to the black acacia being invasive for my argument since it was not a part of the report.

I talked about the removal for the for due to the criteria of needing it to be removed due to the needing access for the site for the curb cut as well as the um driveway for which is required to have for a home.

I did not put it into consideration the note or the verbal note that they are considered.

Right, sorry I was referring to the applicant is it okay for them to also answer questions.

Yeah yeah she can certainly before she does I'll ask a follow-up I mean I guess relatedly I mean if if they had grown in diameter would that affect your analysis of the need to remove given their location um the looking at the location the only three trees that would be in the developable area were those um locations the rest are being maintained.

If they were to have grown and they need to be cut down um then there is then would it go back to the planning commission in regards to that kind of change the matter um for that review.

I guess what I'm asking is the three that are are proposed for removal there was some concern that perhaps over the past five and a half years they've grown in diameter.

If in fact they have will that affect your analysis no because they are currently considered protected and since they are protected that's why they need a tree removal permit correct so if those trees had grown in in its shape.

They would still meet the criteria as a protected tree needing a tree removal permit.

I get that that.

That's what I'm I'm asking.

I guess I'm not asking the right question.

My understanding was you'd recommend a removal or recommended you didn't.

The arbitrary is recommended removal because they're within the developed area.

That's correct.

So if they'd grown two inches in diameter over the past five and a half years, would that affect that conclusion?

No.

They're still within the developed area.

That's correct.

Correct.

The trees aren't in a different location.

They're in the same area that they are today.

And I'm trying to clarify, I don't see anything in here about the arborist recommends removal of anything.

So I'm trying to say where is where's that arborist recommendation?

Looks like we maybe get some clarification.

On sheet T1 of the set that you guys hopefully have, there's the Arborist report is reproduced in full.

Um and so you know, you can go to the first page of it.

It's June 19th, 2020, but then it says revised April 23, 2025.

The Arborist did pay a follow-up visit to the site.

Um and then on the next page, like it's this the second.

I think the plan is we have a separate attachment called Arborist Report.

That sounds like it doesn't know.

It's not amended.

It's not.

Okay, so we have to dig into the project plans for the new pro yeah, I don't know.

Maybe that it's an old attachment.

I mean, the the latest plans have the latest R Burst report.

And on the second page of that, like the trees are numbered in a table, and like the ones that are proposed for removal have a red R by them, and that's where it says also that that the cacia is an invasive species.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

I missed that in the project plans.

I was relying on the separate attachment, which doesn't have that uh amendment, so I guess I need to read.

Helpful to all.

Thank you.

I can confirm the black acacia's invasive species.

Thank you.

And I can confirm the pitusporum.

I have one more question though, that tags onto this.

Um is there an existing curb cut or are we proposing a new curb cut?

For this lot, there is not an existing curb cut.

It would be proposed.

Um can I it's sort of a follow question.

What is the proposed mitigation for the removal of the three protected trees?

Uh they will be planting um the for the mitigation for it.

Um they are protecting the rest of the remaining of the trees.

Um they are going to plant um three three related box uh block species that are considered of recommended by the arborist um for the city of Belmont.

Um, and that is the, or they have to pay the inloop fee, but at least per the plants the noted um species were considered.

So they're planting replacement trees on site.

That is correct.

Okay.

So they're meeting the mitigation requirements for the loss of those three trees through its development project.

Very good.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

I had a quick call of clarification.

Um this the the rear setback, where are you measuring it from the 4610?

Is it 46 or 4310?

Which uh dimension are you measuring to get the rear setback on the site?

It's from the wall to the furthest portion.

The ADU is not included, so there's this uh distance.

What is the depth of the site?

Um it's an awkwardly shaped slope.

I know I see it.

Um so I measured from the closest wall from that perimeter.

Okay.

And do you have the overall depth of the site?

Um for the provided survey that provides that kind of depth.

It just seems that 46 seems like it would be more than half the site.

And the it doesn't look like more than half the site, that's all.

Sure.

I just wondered if you could point out on the plum which wall.

Yeah, I have the same question.

Obviously, it's at the back, and that's not part of this discussion.

Why don't we call up the side plan?

Yeah, if you could pull it out.

That shows the dimensions to helpful.

It's yeah, I'm sure it'll just be quick to which or would it measured from here, this wall portion to the media parallel?

I thought it's 46 feet.

Uh at least per the provided measurements.

Um, it looks a lot more like eighteen feet.

I mean, that stairwell stairway.

Isn't that a stairway we're looking at?

The three-foot door.

I don't I don't see scale, but I was surprised that 46 feet was jumping out as a reasset on that plum with the given general size of sites in that one of the month.

I just had a query.

I can double check with the provided plan set.

That would make the house about 120 feet long.

Hmm.

I can check back to the original plan set to confirm.

What's the required setback for rear?

Uh 15.

Right.

So irrespective of the measurements and the discrepancies that may be evident with this plan set, they are meeting the required setbacks for this project and this property.

Yeah, to me, like the architect drew a dash line.

Oh, for the 15th setback.

Pardon.

Then the rear setback should be 16 10, not 46.

That's a good thing.

It makes sense.

So it looks like it barely sneaks in on the one corner.

Okay.

So it's still in.

I just was it was just a query.

Right.

Thank you.

It's a good clarification.

Very good.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

I had a question about the smaller window.

I'm wondering if that was in response to the neighborhood outreach and if it was one window, if it was like one side of the building, of the house.

Like where does the narrow window come into play and and was it the result of feedback or were you just being you know good neighbors?

Um during the discussion from the preliminary design review, as they were going as this went through multiple processes for the intake of neighborhood outreach, at least back in 2020, and then again um in 2025.

Um there was an initial discussion regarding the concerns for privacy, in which case they address it in the initial um in the initial requirement review back in 2020.

Um, but let's also have the applicant provide a response related to how they responded to the neighborhood outreach.

That would be helpful for all, correct?

Yes.

That's that's the question that's at hand.

Um, yeah, we didn't want to uh not have too many windows uh, you know, looking onto the neighboring properties.

And also the large window in the bedroom is largely obscured by the ADU, which is kind of blocking it.

It's not evident from this elevation, but if you look at the site plan, the ADU is pretty much right in front of that window.

Okay, so it's that one that was made one year on.

Yeah, the I mean the one, yeah, the one that basically gives on it to the kitchen living area.

Okay, thank you.

Um Commissioner Jadala, we just wanted to make sure if that your mic is on if it's switched on there.

Oh, uh here.

Yep, there you go.

There you go.

Is it better now?

Yes.

Oh, it wasn't even on.

My goodness.

I'm so sorry.

Okay.

No worries, thank you.

Yeah.

No, I don't.

I any further questions?

I had one one question, last question.

Um the uninhabitable crawl space.

Yes.

That is not included in the square footage calculation.

That is correct.

For the gross floor area definitions, um, anything that is six feet six inches or more will be included into the crawls or into the floor area.

This one's already six feet five inches or less, um, as well as the nine, at least per the floor plants, not having access to that location.

Um there is a note for the conditions of approval for that.

If they were to be exceeding that, that I would have to um notify them that they have to revise um and ensure that it's not more than a six feet five inches.

We'll also verify during the inspection that that crawl space does not exceed the maxims allow allowed.

Okay, thank you.

That was my follow up.

I appreciate that.

And if it didn't and it were uh inhabited, it would be a code violation that that is.

That would be something where they'd have to modify to then get back to the approved set for the construction drawings, correct?

Great.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Any additional questions before we turn to uh public comment?

I guess I have one more.

So the um the part about that the shallow groundwater, the constant flow, and the in the geotech report that they um there's a recommendation for a waterproofing expert.

Is that something that um being a newer commissioner, is that something that needs to be stronger than a you know recommendation, or as part of just you know, the working with the city, this will come to light that oh well the you know the drainage here is insufficient and therefore you need to do you know X, Y, and Z to improve upon it.

Public works um as well as a condition of approval, one of the conditions of the approval is that it has a geotech to be retained.

Um they work with our public works um officials um in order to ensure that the drainage and the grading and the flow has to be met with their regulations.

Um if the per at least the public works review, they did not see the need for it, but if things were to change when they submit the building permit and the geotechnical that is retained goes on site and makes the letter saying that it does need um better drainage, um then it will be required to alter.

Okay, thank you.

No, my experience as an applicant is if they say uh to retain a geotech and a geotech makes a recommendation, you have to follow it.

Uh okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Great.

Any further questions?

Okay, at this point we'll open the public hearing for uh item 7A, and we'll start with any comments in chambers.

Do we have any speaker slips for this item?

Um no speaker slips.

Any comments in house?

Doesn't look like it.

Seeing none, let's turn to Zoom.

I think there was at least one person who's wishing to comment.

Um I don't see any hands raised on Zoom.

If anyone on Zoom would like to um make a comment, please raise your hand.

I think the baby's comment might be there for lot ten.

Okay, and we do have we do have one here now.

Okay, so it's lot nine then.

Um, mine is back and uh should I wait till we can you wait till that agenda item uh hits?

We are uh in the public comment section for lot nine.

And then we'll conclude the deliberations of that and then we'll get to lot ten.

Thank you for your patience.

Brown act.

Um no further hands raised.

Okay.

So there's no comments in chambers and no comments on Zoom and that would.

And uh we received no comments on this particular item when the from the planning commission agenda release on Thursday to the cutoff point of uh 4 p.m.

today.

Great.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

So then um having received no comment, we will close the public hearing and begin uh commissioner deliberation.

Would anyone like to start deliberating?

Sure.

Um review, you know, sometimes when you go right to the last uh end of what square footage you can put on a lot, it doesn't feel quite right.

I think in this case, uh that's all that's determined a lot by the slope, and we have a pretty nicely adjusted house to the slope.

So I like the design on this home.

I can make the findings.

Great, thank you.

I guess we'll go this way.

Sure.

I I like the design.

I certainly like the utility of having two additional homes versus empty parking lots.

Um I was uh pleased to see that.

Commissioner Twig.

Yeah, likewise it was well designed.

I like the palette of materials.

It looks like you vote with the slope instead of working against it, and it and the volume sits nicely against that.

So yeah, I can make the findings too pretty.

Anyone else want to comment?

Uh I I agree with what our previous commissioner said.

Uh it's obviously exactly fully built out, but it's still modest size home, seems to suit the neighborhood.

I'm uh I can make the findings.

Yeah, nothing to add, thank you.

I can also make the findings.

Yeah, ditto.

Nothing further.

Uh, but thank you to staff and to the applicant for uh answering our questions.

It was helpful to get some clarity on some of those issues.

So thank you for that.

Okay, looks like we have a consensus and let's um let's take a vote, please.

Oh, wait, maybe a motion will be helpful.

For a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Belmont approving a single family design review and tree removal permit at lot nine Malcolm Avenue, APN 044-171-230.

Application number 2025-0013.

Great.

Thank you for that.

Is there a second?

A little second look.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded, and now we can take a vote.

Commissioner Adam Kavich.

Aye.

Kramer?

Aye.

Chair Coolich?

Aye.

Majeski?

Aye.

Twig?

Aye.

And Jadala?

Aye.

Okay.

Motion passes 6-0 for Malcolm Avenue lot nine, single family design review and tree removal permit.

Great, thank you.

Uh this uh congratulations.

Uh in this item 7A is appealable within uh 10 calendar days.

Uh we will now move to item 7B, which is a single family design review and tree removal permit for Malcolm Avenue lot 10.

And I'll again ask if there's any uh site visits, ex-party communication or recusals.

People start on this end this time.

Site visit.

Site visit only.

Site visit for May.

Yep.

Do both of them.

Removable.

Site visit site visit.

Great.

Thank you for doing that.

Seems excessive, but I feel necessary.

Alright.

Planet Ruiz, please.

Hello again.

Hi.

This is for Malcolm Law 10, also known as APN 044 171240.

This is the adjacent lot to 329 Malcolm Avenue for reference.

Again, similar to the previous project, this is for a new home on the vegan property.

The upper slash main floor is known to be 1,620 square feet.

It has a lower floor of 450 square feet and a garage of 432.

This brings to a total maximum of 2,502.

As noted previously, there is an accessory dwelling unit similar to the project per higher.

It's not noted in this floor area ratio, but it is 360 approximate square feet.

And per the state regulations, it is under subject to ministerial review, and their floor area ratio is not in consideration to that 362.

So that's why it is not a part of this total maximum.

That's stated.

The lot summary for this location is that the lot size is 5,510 square feet per the survey, has a slope of 23.21%, which provides a floor area ratio of 0.4 by 4, which uh combines to a maximum gross floor area of 2,502 square feet.

Similarly to the previous project, there is no current existing home as it's vacant, and it will be developing to the maximum of its full extent of 2,502.

Again, for the findings, it should be well designed, articulated, and consistent, that public views are not impacted, and that it is compliant with residential design guidelines and criteria.

Again, for the tree removal is that it should be a balance of the criteria for supporting removal as well as supporting retention.

Again, being that for the reasons for removal is that it's either in poor condition of some matter, determined to be undesirable due to invasiveness or limb failure or being just a general hazard, that it is damaging existing structures or site improvements, that it is in order to, that it needs to be removed in order to construct improvements or otherwise allow conforming use for the property, or that the proximity of the tree is too close for the existing or proposed structures.

Criteria for supporting retention is that it's outside of the developable area, that it is substantially aesthetic appeal for the neighborhood or the lot, as well as that it is dependent on the number of species size or location for the existing trees for a mutual dependency for survival.

For the proposed site plan, the home is noted to be uh a front setback of 15 feet, a right setback of 12 feet, a left setback of 6 feet 6 inches, and a rear setback of 16 feet 4 inches.

The noted required setbacks for the residential single-family R1B zoning is 15 feet for the front, side setbacks of 6 feet 6 inches, and a rear setback of 15, of which all these setbacks are able to be met for the main home.

There is a noted accessory dwelling unit, of which it's going to meet the minimum side and freer setbacks of four feet per state regulations.

For the proposed tree removal, there is going to be the camp for in the right-of-way and the coast life oak, which is noted to be a protected species.

It has similar arguments from the previous project that they are needed to construct improvements or otherwise allow conforming use of the property, as well as the proximity of the trees to existing or proposed structure is going to limit their ability to live.

For arguments for retainment is generally the aesthetic appeal, in which case they are re-landscaping the property as well as proposing two uh new replacement trees in order to give back to that appeal.

For the front elevation, it is again being proposed as a split level two-story home that would not exceed the uh Belmont zoning ordinance maximum building height.

Um the building walls here again are stepped back at varying distances, and the design would feature again that samular deck um on the top of the garage.

It also alternates um exterior materials to mitigate perceived structural massing, um, as well as follow the existing grade that is noted again from the previous projects.

Uh, from the existing grades, you can see that the roofs um generally have follow the slopes, um, as well as break the general large masses into smaller elements on different levels, which would further give this um reduction of perceived structural volume.

Um also it just generally creates a building profile that retains a more human scale and trying to maintain a more single story look for the majority of it can be and nothing more than a two-story from the rear.

The color image or for this location is going to be a roofing system that is generally bronze, um more of a bronze uh trim with uh off-white color stucco, gray uh aluminum windows, uh stain-grade wood sighting, and again um off-white stone veneer.

As such, staff recommends for approval.

Just one little add-on to it.

I know the same question came up about the tree rule permit and the Arbus report prepared in 2020 and the re-review of the Arbus report.

That uh verbiage, that write up is found on the backside of sheet L-3 of your project plans.

Great.

Thank you.

And I'll um again give the applicant an opportunity to uh present.

Okay, so um a lot of the comments from the first project apply to this one too.

Um I guess in this one we were a little more concerned with the views of the upslope neighbor.

Um so the house adjacent at 329 Malcolm is also kind of a more modern design with a flat roof, and that's why.

So I mean when we were doing these two houses in lot nine and light ten, we wanted you know them to be complementary but not exactly identical.

So, you know, the color schemes are um slightly different and the building masses are um slightly different as well.

And the reason we chose the flat roof uh design for this one was specifically to kind of relate more to the upslope neighbor, and also to not um I mean to try not to block his view.

So I'm the survey shows the top of uh the height of the top of the railing, and this house is designed to be just slightly under that.

Um so I mean I guess we'll be able to look down on it, but it won't be like you know, looming up over his deck.

Um I yeah, we're actually not proposing to remove the camper tree, um, just this very small uh live oak tree that's at the rear of the property.

So I think that's that's all my comments on this one.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Question both presentations, and I'll see if we have any questions here from the dais.

Uh I don't have any further questions.

No questions.

No questions at all.

None for me.

I have none also.

So I think we'll now open the public hearing.

Yes.

Um, so uh, we'll ask first for any uh speakers in person here in chambers again for item 7B.

This is um lot 10.

Um no speaker slips in-house.

Um, I think there's one person on Zoom.

Who's been waiting patiently?

Yes.

Thank you very much to um make their comments.

So um let's see who's on Zoom to comment.

Um if anyone would like to speak on lot 10.

Perfect.

Raise your hand on Zoom.

Um we have one here for Anu's iPhone.

Please go ahead.

You'll have three minutes.

Hi, uh, my name is Anthony.

Uh we moved in here about a year back.

And uh, one of the reasons we bought the house uh because we have the beautiful unobstructed view of the bay in the city.

Um when the proposal came up, we did raise the console uh if we're gonna lose the view.

And um I think we had reached out to uh a puja kupta um uh about if uh we could uh somehow gauge where the uh the top end of the elevation of the new new proposal is gonna be.

Um we didn't get a clear answer regarding that, but I I'm hearing, I mean, I just heard that the top would not be about the rail of our deck, is that what I heard?

Um from the architect, I believe.

Um that was my only question and and our only concern.

Um if there's gonna be any obstruction to the we have right now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

We can see if there's any further comments first.

Let me um maybe give an opportunity to respond.

Okay.

Um no other hands raised on Zoom at this time.

Okay, great.

So that's the extent of the comments that was anything um that came in before the deadline on the C dev website.

Correct.

We received no other comments on this project from the release of the packet through 4 p.m.

today.

And then again, if you close the public hearing, then we could get into the deliberation and we could answer the person's question.

Great.

We'll do exactly that.

So at this point, we'll close the public hearing and um we'll start first with um I guess responding to the question.

I guess the first point I want to just address is whether or not there is in fact um a right to an unobstructive view by a neighbor.

Sure.

I want to just see if that's uh an even an issue, but then we'll actually address the question.

Exactly.

So again, as a reminder uh for the commission for the public, um, when a project involves a floor area exception, um, the issues of privacy and private views do come into play for that evaluation.

This project does not include a floor uh exception.

Thereby um uh private views and privacy are not factors under consideration for the planning commission and the evaluation of a pri of a of a project.

Um that being said, I think what has been heard tonight from the applicant team is that they carefully designed the addition, the top of the roof to not obstruct the deck portion of the adjacent neighbor.

Um, but again, they were not required to do so, but they did so in uh response to the concern that was raised.

Yeah, I'd like to even mention that when you look at the daylight plane diagram from that side, there's a lot of room this building could have grown that left empty out of consideration, which seems very decent.

Neighborly.

It does seem neighborly.

Thank you.

Um any further commentary on that issue.

Okay.

So I think at this point we can uh deliberate.

Would anyone like to start?

I'll start.

Good.

Um, summary to last one, it's built out fully but without requiring any uh um uh exceptions on our parts.

Uh it's a nice modest home.

Um, and uh I greatly appreciate the applicant being neighborly, so um it makes our job easier because we have no say on uh private views.

Um but I can make the findings.

Great.

I can make the findings.

Again, the the two projects sit nicely together and uh it's good to see this um vacant lot filled in with something that's high quality and the again the materials I like how you modulate modulated the two so they're kind of similar but not uh common copy of each other.

So that's I think it's really well considered.

Yeah, give me the findings.

I can make the findings and it I actually really like this house, which I haven't done if I were set in this commercial.

So uh it's rare, but yeah.

Yeah, no, I it's a nice design and I appreciate the extra effort.

Great.

I think that yeah, no additional comments, thank you.

Yeah, I just wanna raise up again kind of the responsiveness to um the issues that were raised by the neighbors and and the project previously and and this project as well.

I've had I think that's my colleague said that's very neighborly, and that's that's very appreciated.

I also um did appreciate the fact that um the uh projects responded, I think, well to the different constraints and different issues that were uh in the different places on the lot, which I thought was was um was neat.

So thank you for that, and thank you uh for the presentations and the deliberation.

And so at this point, um, if anyone is willing to make a motion, this is the the point and time to do that.

I'll offer a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Belmont approving a single family design review and tree removal permit at lot 10 Malcolm Avenue application zero four four-one seven one-two four zero.

Application number twenty twenty-five-zero zero one four.

Great, is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Let's take a vote, please.

Okay.

Uh, Commissioner Adam Kevich.

Aye.

Framer.

Aye.

Chair Coolidge.

Aye.

Majeski?

Aye.

Twig.

Aye.

And Jadala?

Aye.

Motion passes six zero for Malcolm Avenue lot ten, uh, single family design review and tree removal permit.

Great.

Congratulations.

Uh, again, uh, on this one as well.

And uh, like the previous item, this item is appealable within uh ten calendar days.

And that wraps up the public hearing portion of our agenda.

And we now have item eight, which is other business and updates.

Yes, uh, Chair Coolidge members of the commission, no major updates other than scheduling for the balance of October.

Thank you for uh responses for us.

Um we have a commission meeting set for October 21st.

If you could confirm your attendance for that night, we will have a few agenda items as well.

And then we are putting together a study session, a joint study session with the city council uh for their meeting on October twenty-eighth.

It's gonna start at 6 p.m.

and we're gonna be focusing on California state housing law legislation.

Those two are identical words, so stat state housing law.

So we have a presentation being made by uh both the city's outside legal consultant as well as our public policy firm.

So it proves to be a good session, a good educational primer for the laws that are out there now that are in effect.

Um, and the commission has been invited to this.

Hopefully, you can attend uh for it.

And again, that meeting, that study session starts at 6 p.m.

So hope hope you can be there.

Let us know if you're gonna be there so we could confirm attendance.

Um again, Tuesday the 28th.

And uh I think you you will have uh a full balance of public hearings during uh the November slate of agendas as well.

Um but again we appreciate everything that you do, and thank you for your deliberation on tonight's items.

Um if you have any other questions for me, that's all the updates that I have for tonight.

Um can I ask about the October 28th?

Um so usually the city council starts at 7 with closed session at 6, but this study session starts at 6.

Yeah, if you could just give me one sec, I know that we were starting.

I'm gonna call up the latest agenda.

Just confirming because 6 o'clock is yeah, this takes a little bit more wrangling.

Okay, so calling it up, taking a little time, the slow wheel there.

So 10 28.

Yeah, that the studies, yeah, it's a study session that's scheduled at 6 p.m.

New housing laws update.

Okay, thank you for confirming.

Yep, 6 p.m.

28th.

Hope to see you there.

Great.

Let us know if you could be there.

That'd be great.

Appreciate the invite.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you, staff for for getting meeting tonight.

Thank you, colleagues.

And so we'll adjourn.

Um the time is seven fifty-seven.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.

El turismo, el modelo, los abogados de la calidad de los dos y los de los de los de los de los organismos de los dos en los programas de los que se permitió en los últimos 15 años.