All right.

Uh good evening everyone.

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

Today is Tuesday, May 5th.

It is 7 p.m.

Um before we get to the actual agenda, we'll go through some uh preliminary instructions on meeting attendance and participation.

Uh first for meeting attendance.

Um this meeting will be broadcast uh on Comcast uh channel 27.

Uh it's also streamed live via the city's website at Belmont.gov, and it's available um through the Zoom app and the instructions for uh accessing the meeting uh through Zoom are included on the agenda.

Uh for public comment, there are three ways to submit public comment.

First, one can uh submit public comment in chambers by uh submitting a speaker slip to uh the clerk, and then you'll have three minutes um to submit public comment from the lectern.

Also um members of the public can participate uh via the zoom app, and again the instructions for uh doing so are included in the agenda.

And then lastly, if uh written public comment is received uh by 4 p.m.

Uh today, um that comment will be considered uh by the commission.

So with those uh instructions, um let's go ahead and please take a roll call.

Okay, roll call.

Um, Commissioner Adam Kevich.

Here.

Takahashi?

Here.

Kramer?

Here.

Chair Coolidge?

Here.

Twig you.

Jadala?

Here.

Absent tonight is Commissioner Majeski.

Great, thank you very much.

Moving on to item two.

This is our Pledge of Allegiance.

Um please everyone rise and we'll um lead everyone in the pledge that in the flag is here.

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

Thank you, everyone.

Moving on to uh item three.

This is our community forum portion of the agenda.

This is the time for members of the public to submit public comment on items that are either not on this evening's agenda or on the consent um calendar.

And um we'll start with uh whether we have any speaker slips in chambers for this item three.

Um no speaker slips in the house.

Great.

Do we have anyone on Zoom wishing to comment on item three, which is uh general public comment?

No raised hands on Zoom for this item.

Great.

And I'll go ahead and ask uh Director DeMello if we have any uh written comments submitted for this item.

We do not for this portion of the agenda.

Great, thank you very much.

That concludes the community forum portion of the agenda.

Um next we have item four, which is commissioner announcements and agenda amendments.

First, look to my colleagues in the diasp to see if we have any um commissioner announcements.

Maybe starting on this end.

Uh no, none.

Okay.

Uh seeing no announcements.

Um, I'll next ask staff if we have any agenda amendments to consider this evening.

Uh given the light nature of tonight's agenda, we do not have any amendments.

Great.

Thank you very much.

That concludes item four.

Item five is our consent uh portion of the agenda.

We have no matters uh for consideration under item five.

We'll move to item six, which is our study session.

Again, we have no items for consideration for item six.

That takes us to the heart of the meeting.

Uh, this is our public hearing portion of the meeting.

We have two items.

Firstly, we have item 7A, which is a single family design review at 1800 Robin Whipple Way.

And before turning the mic over to staff for a presentation, I'll ask if any of my colleagues have uh any our ex-party communications or recusals to report.

Maybe starting in this end.

Nothing to report.

Nothing for me.

Uh site visit only.

I have nothing to report.

Slight visit only.

The site visit.

Great.

I think with that planner Wheez, I think we turn to you.

Hello, Commissioners.

This is for a tier three design review for 1800 Robin Whippleway.

For the proposal, they're gonna do a mixed ground floor and upper floor edition.

The ground floor edition will be for 222 square feet, primarily located in the front, as well as the upper floor being a new upper story of 934 square feet.

This will total for a new addition to the single family home of 1,156.

The current lot size is 5,160 square feet with the slope of 4.44, giving it a floor area ratio of 0.533 with a maximum total developable area of 2,752.

To be noted, the existing home size is 1,333.

The proposed will be 2,409, which is below that maximum gross floor area.

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

So for the site plan, you can see that the front uh has a ground at 24 feet 11 inches, where 25 is required, but is in with the existing location.

Um for section nine, you're able to extend on that street side yard or street side yard so long as you're at least five feet away.

Uh for the street side that is to the left, also will be 25, side right be nine feet nine inches, and the rear will be 15.

Uh the biggest contention for this project was noted was the neighborhood outreach components.

Um for that on November 2025, notification and in-person meetings were held for this location.

There were several comments that expressed concerns regarding the privacy of the second story, that the initial design was not meeting the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood area.

Um, the design being viewed as too boxy or modern for the neighborhood, um, and some expressed concerns regarding the protection of that large southern Magnolia tree.

Um prior to this commission hearing, um, three comments were received via email that had expressed concerns again regarding the design, still stating that it's boxy and not fitting the existing neighborhood architectural style.

Um there were also discussions regarding the gable design roofs, window placements of locations, door locations, and questions regarding compliance to the residential design guidelines in particular.

For reference, this is the existing house, and I will go into how they address the neighborhood outreach as we continue forward.

But currently, for the front and street front elevations of the existing, you can see that it is a single-story home.

Very standard for a lodge cabin look, um, just basic single story with a basic pitched roof, similar to the rear and side elevations.

So what the original neighbors saw during the November 2025 uh initiation for their outreach was this original design, uh, where you I agreed that it is not articulated.

It does have a lot of large straight walls.

Um, there's minimal window placements, there's not much of a different varying materials to break up the massing, and it does not give the intent of meeting compliance for residential design guidelines or criteria for meeting articulation or meeting the design aspects that we are looking to see uh for compliance in the residential design guidelines.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but which elevation is this, which street it's facing?

This is the one facing off of Robin Whipple.

Okay, towards Robin Whipple.

Towards Robin Whipple.

They redesigned it, they gave varying materials, um, they gave a stone veneer to the front to break up massing, they widened the windows, but also did a um again a two-inch window trim uh around it.

Um they did a or they implemented a faux roof on the mid between the two floors in order to give the illusion upbreaking of the massing.

Um, they also centered it more to the right side to give more of this concept of a centered mass versus just like an overhang and giving a sprawling aspect.

And you can see that they even pushed in more from the from the right side that would be facing the actual opposite street, um, further in just slightly to give again a more tiered aesthetic.

From the side, um, this is the one that would have been facing the neighbors uh directly.

Um you can see that again originally there was a boxed overhang, which is not permitted by the residential design guidelines.

Um, there was this varying materials of the stucco on the bottom as well as the wood clasp on the top.

Um the windows themselves did not seem cohesive, um, and it lacked any details or architectural designs to give articulation for that aspects.

They again continued the uh faux um break of the roof on the center in order to again uh give articulation as well as to give varied presence and an illusion of uh equal massing.

Um they took in the advice from the concerns of the privacy.

Um while they did not have to, uh, they did reduce the windows to be more um on the higher end or higher elevated as well as just being for lighting instead of being able to be pure to their side yard neighbors, despite not having that as a requirement in our in our zoning guidelines.

Um as well as just overall doing their best to address the primary concerns for the immediate adjacencies.

Similarly, this was the outreach for the street frontage that is not Robin Whipple.

Um again, it is boxy.

Uh there is not a really delineation between the front or the new addition as well as the lower existing home.

Uh there is, it just appears like it's a one-flat wall, in essence.

They redesigned it, um, they took back the feedback, they implemented more windows of interest.

They continued again that the roofing um on the second floor in order to again delineate where being where the floors begin and end.

Um they made the second story smaller to give again uh the residential design guideline compliances, um, and then they continued the window trim in order to give more visual interest and maintain the same overall materials on that side to match the overall aesthetics.

For the rear similar concepts can be applied.

They push things more in, they continue the same materials.

Similarly, for anything for concerns for windows, they overall did reduce the overall size for those windows in order to try to maintain privacy for the neighbors and respect theirs, um, even though that was not a requirement.

And these will be the new colors and material boards for the smooth Arctic whites, uh the stone veneer as well as the uh shadow charcoal for the timberings and uh as well shingles.

In regards to concerns for the privacy of the or for the tree regulations, they were also providing an arbitrary report and they'll be implementing the protection uh noted for the arbitrary support to preserve and keep the manual tree that is presented.

As such, staff still recommends approval for the single family design review, of course, subject to the conditions of approval noted.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you for that presentation.

Um just note I think we got four comments instead of three, but whatever, just make sure that's clear for the record.

Um I guess first we'll see if there's any questions for my colleagues.

Whoever wants to start.

I have a question.

Yep.

Um, so when there are more substantial changes after the neighborhood outreach, what's the process?

Is there like a second notification or like how um how do the neighbors know that there are some substantial changes that have been made?

We do not require a second neighborhood notification.

Um the intent of the neighborhood notification is that they are being made aware that there is a project that is currently in lieu, that they're being reviewed by the planning uh department as well as the all applicable agencies for concerns, um, and that the city, if they're willing to take to the hearing, will be notifying them in regards to the finalized designs in regard for review of approval.

And if they wish to make a comment, then that would be the final chance to provide that comment of the finalized design.

So that's the kind of the paper that's kind of on the the doorway of the yes, that would be the uh notification as well as the letters that the city would send out to the neighbors within the 300-foot radius.

Okay, thank you.

Can I just add a little bit more?

Typically, folks have two opportunities to provide or two ways that they could provide outreach.

What folks mostly do is conduct like an in in-person meeting uh for it, or there have been some instances where folks will actually send out the plans to everyone within the radius and then solicit comments that way.

These applicants chose to conduct a meeting and take in that feedback.

Uh we uh do not require a second or a follow-up meeting to show the proof of work that was done to respond to the comments that were made.

Um the applicant did the proof of work by by what you saw here tonight as part of the change the design.

The the applicants still have the opportunity to defend their work, if you will, and the neighbors still have the opportunity to have comments or concerns if they still persist, and that public process continues to be uh uh here tonight to allow for these comments to be um seen by the commission, which you've received for, and then the opportunity for folks to make those comments as well tonight as part of the process.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any additional questions?

Yes, ma'am.

Um, a couple of questions.

So in when we see single family design reviews like this, um, there are often they often meet more than one residential design criteria, such as um daylight plane.

And I noticed that this one does not.

Can you uh educate us a little bit on sort of the different standards that an architect could choose to meet and um and just how we how we think about that?

Sure.

So per the residential design criteria and our uh noted papers, um, there are three options.

However, you are only required to showcase one of them per each impacted elevation.

Um those three options would be number one, daylight plane, which is the most straightforward, um, showcasing if you're in the rear, a setback of 15 or 20, depending on your zoning, going up 12 feet and then doing a 60 degree angle to see whether light can pierce.

Otherwise, you will be subject to the side yards, um, in which case you would do again 12 feet from your property line and then doing a 45 degree angle to see if light majority of the time pierces through.

Um that is the easiest one to showcase.

The others being prescribed articulation, um, that one is the most mathematical and the one that generally is the default, I would say, um for second story additions.

Um, they're the ones to showcase what of on a provided list are are the total area of a wall on that particular elevation, and how many items do you have that can meet um that percentage of articulations?

Those can be two a two foot setback from the existing wall on the ground floor, um, timbering, uh window trim, a porch on the ground floor, adding more depth, things of that nature.

And you would calculate all these required um articulate areas and see what your percentage is from there.

The last one is particularly for just a second story addition, um, with no changes to the ground floor, and that is a four-foot step back from the perimeter of the wall.

Um, in which case, majority people do not tend to go that way simply because it reduces the total square footage they would want on the upper story, um, and they would prefer again just rather doing four feet, two feet from the prescribed articulation and trying to do the overall wall than just a tier of it.

And thank you.

That was really helpful.

Um, and I appreciate it.

I I guess you know, not having the math in front of us.

I noticed in the staff report it says the home is broadly articulated via the building walls offset at varying distances, um, and the standard of prescribed articulation is incorporated.

I you know, at first glance, this does not look articulated to me, but so can you verify that with the window trim and the timbering and the single two-foot off like this meets the requirements because it it does not, I will say, visually look very well articulated to me.

Uh yes, for the window trims as well as the timbering and the general porch portions, um, it would.

Um the for the front elevations, they have to meet 50% for the ones that are immediately on the street.

Um, and then the ones on the sides or side and or rear are reduced.

They are only 30% of the total wall air has to be articulated.

Okay, and then it looked like there was only one elevation at the two foot.

I think it was the street side, right?

It's two feet in from the um first floor, but the other ones are don't have to be in set at all.

No.

They can do just window trim or timbering or um doing like wood and wood paneling as well, and that's the primary uses of that.

Okay, thank you.

Can I just have a follow-up question?

Maybe it's a comment to confirm.

So these criteria are all objective and essentially mathematical.

That is correct.

Okay.

So if they meet those objective criteria, um, then they've complied with our design review requirements.

It would comply with the residential design criteria.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

That's a really good question.

Thank you for for fleshing that out.

Any other questions along the question?

Is there an image that clarifies how the canopy of the existing magnolia is going to interact with the first floor?

Because at the minute it's a protected tree, but all the images show it going right over the footprint of the existing home.

So can you just talk us through how the tree is going to be protected and if there's an image showing how the two interact?

So the per the arborist report, they did mention like some aspects of pruning and maintaining of those limbs in order to maintain or in order to protect the second story addition.

But in essence, they do admit that they will be going up and it would potentially impact portions of the canopy of the tree, but the major but the actual preservation and health of the tree will be maintained due to just the pruning of limbs and only removal of limbs when necessary.

Because even at a glance, it looks like more than a quarter of that canopy is in the footprint of that new story.

So is that covered in the arborist report for the health of that tree?

And it's because it's quite significant on the corner of that block.

It's kind of like a landmark tree.

The intent of the arborist report is to look at the for one, the existing tree as well as the proposed scope of work, um, in which case they analyze that aspect of doing a second story addition, but how to maintain the overall health of the tree while allowing the home developer get a second story.

Sure.

But it's also missing from every elevation.

It's missing from the 3D view of the familiar tree.

It's not represented anywhere.

And because it's only represented in plan, it kind of highlights it makes it look worse almost.

So it's it is hard to understand how the two are gonna coexist in that space.

I see.

Unfortunately, there is not a provided 3D rendering or some sort of like elevation drawing that showcases the tree.

That was the question.

Um but they will meet half they will have to be required to have the operaist come on site to check for the preservation of the the tree for both pruning as well as the regulations requiring it.

It's it's hard to imagine that's gonna be healthy for the tree because it's such a big chunk from one side of it right in the canopy.

If you look at if you look at the photos of the site, there's a page with photos on it.

And it's uh you can kind of see it sits right over the right over the corner of the building there.

If you look on that photo page.

We have a fairly substantial condition that's been added for the project related to the tree protection zone.

Did you see the condition number seven?

It's drafted around the base of the tree.

The roots generally correspond to the canopy of the total tree, um, at least for that aspects.

Um that said I am unfortunately not an expert of uh of tree regulations for arborists, but I would trust with the certified arborists that their the notion would be enough to maintain the tree for their preservation.

And they will have to be required to come on site to say that those pre tree regulation and protections that they recommended are implemented.

Yeah, if you don't mind at a similar question, because in the arborist report it talks about excessive pruning.

Excessive pruning means removal of the leaf stem area predominantly on one side.

So in other words, if you trim a tree excessively on one side and not the other sides, that sounds like it meets the definition of excessive pruning.

So the arborist really doesn't say how the tree is gonna have to be pruned um in order to fit with the house.

So it's it's sort of like silent on that topic, which I I found odd.

I believe that is because they have to go on site to see which portions actually have to be pruned for when they're actually doing the development as things could potentially grow or change the aspect.

But the question would be would the tree need to be excessively pruned by being pruned on one side or not to erect this house?

So are we to assume that the arborist doesn't think excessive pruning will be required?

Because the report just doesn't say that.

I mean, I believe the tree could be healthy, but I think it would you're gonna have to like cut off one side of it from what from what the plans look like.

So I add the same question.

Thank you.

And is sorry, just I understand.

Is the the consequence of excessive pruning, does that is that the equivalent of a removal?

Like does it trigger you know mitigation requirements and other things?

I guess if you prune enough, does that again trigger kind of what you would have to do if you were removing the tree?

No.

Excessive pruning would not necessarily trigger a tree removal permit.

Um it would trigger potential concerns from the neighbors to ensure that the health of the tree, in which case we would then go back outside to evaluate and see if they have to provide a new updated arborist report, um, but not necessarily a trigger a new tree removal permit for it.

I see.

So is the condition that you mentioned, Director DeMello, is it they would prune in accordance with whatever regulations are applicable?

What's the the the exact condition?

Yeah, so the condition number seven in your packet, it speaks to pre-project pruning of the trees on or adjacent to the property performed only by under direct supervision of an ISA certified arborist.

And it so it has further wording on pruning and creating a tree protection zone.

Um should we again I was gonna offer this kind of friendly idea if you will.

If we get to the end of the discussion of this item, can you have an applicant that needs to make a presentation?

Yep.

You have public comments that we need to get through.

Yep.

And should in the course of your deliberations you are of a mindset to approve the project, and there are concerns about tree pruning, uh the TPZ zone, and there are amendments to the conditions that you would want to offer that would be part of the project.

We could also add that as well.

But I think it might be premature for us to jump in and start to write conditions that could provide more comfort until we get through the balance of this of this hearing.

I think we're still at the question phase.

Yeah, exactly.

So cool.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So I think as indicated, we do have an applicant present who perhaps would like to uh present.

It's not required, but it's certainly if you're inclined, you're this is your time to present.

This is your time.

If you'd like to present.

This is a good opportunity.

It's all the heat and everything we updated.

Maybe just step up to the lector and just make sure that we have that.

Even if it's if it's the same.

Basically, no, because he said everything.

Make sure it's in the record so we ever can hear it.

Hi, yeah.

Hi, thank you.

I'm Yuki, I'm a pretty cant.

And then um Jamie explained everything that's we had a previous uh meeting.

We s neighbors, and then we updated what what's um the give us feedback.

So we try to do the it's important for the feedback.

So we try to do um we said back, and then we change the design to the uh more traditional design.

So we believe that it's all uh need the uh the the requirements for the design, if you okay.

Thank you.

Just out of curiosity, do we have the architect that's available for this meeting or they oh that is you're the architect.

Oh, wonderful.

I apologize.

Sorry, I thought great.

My bad.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

May have some additional questions, but uh appreciate you stepping up to the lectern.

Yes, and uh I I received the comments today for the uh for after the second on the updated plan.

Right.

So I I'm not sure if we uh we have to more adjust to to according to the comments we just received today.

I think maybe we'll take a public comment and then we'll let's go from the let's get through the public comment component of the meeting first and then let's then get to the commission deliberation about the architectural aspects of the project and the findings that have to be made for this design review project.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay.

I think we've taken questions and we heard from the applicant, so um probably this is the time to entertain public comment, and we'll start with um folks in chambers.

If you have a public comment for this item 7a, I would ask you to submit a speaker slip to our clerk and then come up to the lectern and you'll have your three minutes uh in the sun.

Sorry, I don't want to understand.

Oh, right.

So this is we try to keep it as orderly as possible.

And so we have folks who presumably are here in chambers who would like to speak on this item.

And if you'd like to speak in this item, we'd ask that you complete a speaker slip.

You can do it later.

You can do it now.

We want to make sure that to the extent we can we have a record of of who spoke just for posterity.

Um and we'll go through the folks who are who would like to speak in chambers, and then once we've gone through that list, um, we'll turn to folks on Zoom, and then we'll bring it to the council for deliberation.

So if anyone here in chambers would like to submit a public comment on this item 7a, this is your time.

Okay.

You come up to the lectern right here, stand before us and uh say your piece.

I'd wait till you get to the lecture, and so we can so we have everyone on the record.

Yep, and there's people on Zoom who need to hear it and they can't hear it unless you're my husband and I live next door to the project, and we've talked to the owner, Sharon.

She goes by today.

Our main concern, and she has acquiesced to try to move the heat pump.

Which is right across from where my husband, who is a musician, makes music with his friends, and it's right across from where we live in our family room all the time.

Sharon indicated she would be willing to move the heat pump.

So I'm just Can I see speaking to the mic?

Yeah.

I just it feels weird because I'm trying to talk to you.

Oh, I get it.

No, so it feels weird to talk to this thing.

Yeah, yeah.

Anyway.

So that is in process.

Okay.

To move the heat pump.

I appreciate my main concern besides the heat pump has always been the preservation of this tree, which is uh a landmark in my neighborhood and has had generations of children play underneath it, including ours.

So I appreciate your speaking up out of concern for the tree, and I hope we will all work together to protect the tree.

I do think that there are other buildings that have been approved in our neighborhood where many, many trees were cut down, and residents like me that love the trees in Belmont were very upset about each of these approvals.

So I wanted to come and talk about these two things: the heat pump and preserving the tree.

Anything else, Peter?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Would anyone else like to speak to this item?

Item 7a.

Thank you so much.

In chambers.

Um, no other speakers' lips for this item.

Great, thank you.

Anyone on Zoom then?

Um no raised hands on Zoom.

Okay.

And I think as as indicated, we did receive um four written comments for this item.

Um have all been uh provided to the commission and they will be made part of the record as well.

So any additional comments, Director De Mello, aside from these four?

Uh we received before four o'clock today.

Give me one second.

I'll check the website if I can just move this up.

See, you're up to the minute set of comments.

The four are in front of you now.

No other comments received.

Lovely.

Okay.

Gone through uh uh in-person comments, uh comments over Zoom and now uh written comments.

So I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and uh turn now to Commissioner Deliberation.

Can I comment?

Uh they'll be made part of the record.

Um we have four total comments that were received as part of the project, and yours was also one of those four comments.

So we have the total package that we can make copies and we could provide that to you at the conclusion of the meeting.

We do also have a copy of the comments.

Um, and they're also in the back area.

Yeah.

Great.

Even better.

Gentlemen.

Okay.

Yep.

The public um hearing is closed, and again, as I said, we'll turn to Commissioner Deliberation.

Would anyone like to start?

I'd like to start.

Please.

Um I think I can make the findings.

Um we do have specific rules that are measurable and objective for very good reason, right?

A lot of buildings were stopped historically.

I'm sure all of these uh this very impressive neighborhood output, right?

I don't know if there's really good outreach or if it's a very active neighborhood, but this was impressive engagement by the community.

Um, and um it obviously got better.

Uh uh our staff is very good at checking those boxes and doing doing the math, and and we're required to make it objective so people can build.

We made the rules pretty strict, but we tried to make them objective so they can be measured.

And I think that's required by state law because of past injustices.

So we kind of have to live with it.

But so but I have a question, and I think this is for it, might be for the body, but that doesn't mean that some of these what I call subjective suggestions aren't excellent suggestions that uh the uh applicant might want to incorporate.

However, if we were to approve something with a straight roof and they decided, oh, they're fine with doing a cable roof, gable roof, and that would be better for everybody.

Do they have to come back to us?

You see what I'm saying?

Yeah.

Like those drawings clearly show the heat pump where it is.

But there is a condition of approval that could potentially be used, which would be um underneath director's approval for minor revisions of changes.

So for the heat pump, that certainly is, I believe, minor enough to position in terms of the roof.

It'll be of concern only if it were to increase height.

Okay.

I just thought because we have some very well-informed people, not me, but on the commission, who might uh agree that these are great ideas.

Um but aside from that, it it looks like thorough report.

Thank you.

That's it.

Great, thank you.

Anyone else like to share their thoughts?

Um I can go next.

Please.

I I would echo that.

I think it's it's highly unusual to have uh community outreach and then see so much change.

Um where it's it's it's you know, to be reminded it's not designed by committee.

That's actually being neighborly because there's no um requirement for the applicant to change things as they go along.

It's very nice of them to sort of take on board what they're hearing from the neighbors.

My concern is with this only with the tree, and partly because I see the massing change quite a lot as part of that process.

And I would like to have another look at the original outreach elevation if it's okay.

Do you did you have that image there that was sent out?

Partly because uh I wonder if the arboris report was made on that original set that had a slightly different massing, and I only saw it in a quick glance that that's uh outreach set.

But I just want to go back and have a quick little look and see if that's pot possibly what's happening here.

And I'm not sure why the Arborist report, when it says it has a 60 feet spread from the diet from the trunk wouldn't have factored in the large piece missing from a side.

So this is the elevation that'd be closest to the tree.

Do you have the front elevation from from the front?

No, they yeah, the outreach.

See, it had a big chunk missing at the front.

It had a the massing was set back in that exact corner at the start.

And I wonder if the this kind of mismatch is happening because the original massing sort of respected that corner of the canopy a little more.

Because I can't see how the two um gel in the current scheme.

And I wonder if the arborus report needs updating to reflect the current design.

Because that corner has come back out, even though it's meeting articulation and we're not designing by committee and all these other elements.

I wonder if that's something that we should sort of look into, sorry.

Um here's a great opportunity to play upon the idea that I had earlier.

If there's edits to condition number seven, and should the commission have a unified concern about the Arborist report and its time and place as to when it's prepared with the original design with the current design.

Um you could require an updated Arborist report be submitted as part of the building permit submittal that reflects the change so that there's comfort that's a good idea.

Yeah, I'd be happy.

I'd be happier with that, but but I would I would say what I would suspect is that the new Arborist report wouldn't be as happy with this with the newer design's impact on the tree.

Would make it um impossible to prune that tree back to that extent.

But um I guess the question would be if we require that a new Arborist report be submitted, what do we do if the Arborist report says this is gonna kill the tree or this can constitutes severe pruning, severe damage because of excessive pruning, then what do we do?

It's like it's a question.

Like what happens if that arborist report says that's severe damage.

What is the process exactly?

If it has to permit if it has to go through a something that is not determined as a quote unquote uh minor revision, and I believe excessive pruning in this instance could not be con could be considered not a minor revision by the intent of the planning commission, then it would have to go back to planning commission for that reason.

If we have to bring a tree removal permit back as part of this project, and the concern is out there that this tree is a signature tree that warrants saving, it's a bit of a conundrum.

So wait, I'm sorry, what's the conundrum?

I'm understanding that if if in fact the Arborist report was relying on outdated information and it turns out that it cannot be preserved in the way that's been presented, then essentially they'll have to get they'll have to remove the tree and they'll need a tree removal permit.

Correct.

Um But it wouldn't affect the design.

That does not approve.

Or they could change the design so then they wouldn't need a tree.

Right, but otherwise, they'd have to do one of the others.

It would have to come back to the commission.

That's what we're trying to check and make sure that's the case.

Yeah, I I I think the goal is to preserve the tree.

But we don't know for sure.

Can it be preserved based upon the design that's before you today?

And if it can be um if you could have both uh components happen.

So the design in place and the tree being preserved, that's the goal, right?

Yep.

Yeah.

But we aren't gonna know until we have that looked at.

So absolutely.

I mean, I'm not I'm not supposed to be an expert on trees.

I just neither am I.

If even at a glance that looks a lot of tree missing, like but can I just confirm something?

If if it's either they have to change the design or they have to remove the tree, is it with 100% certain do they have to come back to this commission?

That's what I want to do.

Well, if they ultimately have to get a tree removal permit in conjunction with this project, then that would be an additional entitlement that we typically review as part of this commission.

Do we uh like on a geotechnical report, the city hires a separate geotechnical engineer or do we do that with arborists, or do we trust the the applicants on our rest?

We have gotten a peer peer review done uh as well to confirm the work.

Um on other projects or on this project?

On other projects, sure.

We've we have a geotech report that's originally prepared.

We have a peer reviewer that peer reviews that geotech report.

Someone that's independent of the of the applicant.

Oh, sure.

I mean, the goal is objectivity, right?

Yeah, absolutely.

So they aren't gonna make something up to like try and preserve the tree or try and keep the design in play that's before the commission.

So I mean, neither would a licensed geotechnical engineer.

So I mean it's just a question of it looks like it's impossible, and so we're concerned about it, and we'd like to make sure it lives.

Because uh here's the thing if you look at that elevation on the side where the tree is, you don't see any of that.

It's beautiful tree you see from the street, you don't see the windows.

All you're gonna see is the tree.

And the and the mitigation for taking down that tree will be a tr a tree, right?

It will definitely, you're never gonna you're not gonna move that tree.

And if you lose it, you lose it.

So um that's just my thought.

I uh uh I think there's some art in in arborism, and uh uh I've never found a flexible arborist.

But uh uh they all seem very dedicated to selling saving trees.

But uh unless we have somebody in house at the building department who considers themselves expert in trees, I would think we should uh request a peer review on it.

That would be my suggestion through the chair.

Yeah.

I mean, my position is that we're kind of operating in like we're we're speculating here.

We don't know what exactly the arborist was relying upon.

We can speculate that it was that it was stale information.

And my position is if in fact that's true, then there is a process whereby they need to come back before this board and seek approval of either a redesign or a tree removal permit.

Um I just feel like if we go down these paths, we're kind of operating in kind of a parallel universe that we don't really find ourselves.

But that's my position.

Other comments or deliberation, because we've got the tree issue out there.

We obviously want we I think well, I'd like to hear other comments about the design of the project.

Let's just put the tree off to the side for now.

I'd like to hear your other comments about the design.

I've because we've heard of from a few of you, but could we hear from the balance of you?

Well, sorry, I just wanted to add on the tree comment.

Thank you.

If it's a help from my experience, uh, because I have a magnolia in front of one of my uh house.

And I had to cut it back quite a bit.

Uh it's even closer than this house.

And I had to do it for insurance purposes.

Okay.

I had to cut it uh quite excessively.

But it's survived.

Um so I I have less worry about it because I have experience that it's it can survive.

Yeah.

That's good intel, but I think we're still I mean, I think having having a measure in place to have additional arborus review would be helpful for this project.

But but thank you for the real world experience.

Others?

I mean, I could make the findings as it relates as a for the non-tree issues, certainly for for the reasons that everyone up here is already articulated.

And I do appreciate again, I'll I'll underscore the fact that um yes, it was a it was a ton of community outreach, which is always helpful, but also the fact that the applicant and the project owner did make pretty substantial revisions.

I agree that's pretty rare.

Um it's not required, it's very neighborly.

Right.

Um, which is pretty cool.

Yeah.

Honestly, so it really is kind of the the outreach process working out the way it's supposed to, where folks are getting input from their neighbors and making changes that are appropriate.

Um so I just did want to raise that up again and and and kind of highlight that the process worked, I think, in this situation, which is good.

And further, they aren't required to move that heat pump.

And here they are working with a property owner next to them to indicate that they can redesign their site plan to allow that heat pump to move.

So again, yeah, further credence that the applicant appears willing to be cooperative and work on changes.

So again, I'm not trying to market the project or market this applicant, but the applicant is indicating a willingness to work with properties around them.

Great.

So any other comments.

I'll just just comment that I I for the the comments that were um submitted, I can see how even with the um re-redoing of the plans that two of the the angles do look a little boxy, but there's been substantial revision.

Um I appreciate that.

I can make the findings and the design.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm really struggling with this one.

Um I accept what you said plenaries about the articulation that it's just a mathematical calculation.

Um I find this design incredibly just boxy and um just not aesthetically pleasing.

And I I don't know it might meet the law, but I don't know that it meets the spirit of our residential design guidelines.

Um we've looked at plenty of modern designs, or we've looked at you know, very large for their lot, like all the, but this is just a box on top of a box, basically.

So I I'm I'm struggling.

I understand that if it meets the objective criteria, we're supposed to approve it no matter what we think it looks like.

Um but I think this particularly in bright Arctic white with black trim is going to be stark.

Um I also have problems with the tree, of course, that we've discussed, and I I don't know that coming back through this committee is such a bad thing, so my preference would be to not make the findings because I don't find the Arborist report sufficient and then just have the applicant come back through.

I don't see what's wrong with that as opposed to making it a condition.

Um so I'm understand I understand that we're forced to make the residential findings.

Um, but I would not make the findings because of the inadequacy of the arborist report, which doesn't reference pruning in any way when clearly it it needs to because of the large overlap of the tree canopy to the to the um home.

To that point, can I can I say a a a question, clarifying question?

If there's not a tree removal permit being sought at this point by the applicant, if the representation is that they are going to be preserving and maintaining the tree.

What authority do we have to not allow the project to proceed if the only thing before us is the residential design criteria?

I mean, the only I'm just asking, I I just I legit want to know.

So the only entitlement that's before you tonight is the single family design review.

Right.

If you were to approve that single family design review, then you're done.

Right.

Should the project come should in the course of further work related to an arboris report and that tree ultimately would need to be removed, then there is a tie to this project.

Um we probably want to get a legal reading on this thing because this is then connected to it.

But the applicant could get this single family design review, they get entitled, and then they could come back at a later date and say, oh wow, we got to take this tree down, and then now they need a tree removal permit solely for the purpose of a tree removal permit.

And typically that entitlement, Jeremy, just doesn't require commission review.

It's on an administrative level.

I believe oh, I believe so.

But reviewing the arborish report, um tree protection measure number eight does say that the retained trees may be maintenance prune to include cleaning, thinning of branches using the International Society of Ar arboreal Culture industry standards.

Perhaps that is what you're saying.

Yes, I read it.

So that's about maintenance pruning, and it says will be.

It's all about in the future this will happen.

In the future that will happen.

Nothing in here says I have reviewed the architectural plans and the tree will live.

Or I review the architectural plans and excessive pruning will not have to be applied.

It defines excessive pruning as tree damage, but it doesn't say that there will or will not be excessive pruning.

These are all future statements about how the trees will be maintained.

It doesn't actually answer the question.

So I think what uh I'm back to the the chair's question.

If we see a deficiency with the materials in front of us, I don't see how that can not be like reasons for denying something.

We just have to take everything at face value, and if we see a potential mistake.

Oh no, no, that's not I might I guess my my question was more along the lines of if they were requesting a tree removal permit, we clearly would have authority.

We'd look at it.

Instead they're showing us an arborst report that says this tree will live, and we're doubting the accuracy of that for whatever reason that we don't want to speculate.

But it just doesn't match with reality, basically.

Right.

So I don't see why we cannot deny the packet in front of us when it's containing information that appears to have a serious error.

I can't tell if there's an error or not, but it appears to have one.

So I I know it's a design permit, but it's the whole package is the design.

Here's what I'd like to offer through the chair.

You have two paths before you.

I seem to see at least four votes to approve the single family design review as proposed before this commission.

You could take action on that motion, or should the commission have concerns about the package that's before you, and you wanted to take a different action to continue this project to allow an arborist report to an updated Arbist report to be prepared, that then takes into account the new design, then that could come back to you, and then you'd have the most updated information about the livelihood of that tree in light of what's before you.

But I'm gonna leave it to you to make that decision whether you want to move forward with what's proposed or go in an alternative course of action.

Right.

And I'm not trying to be contrarian.

I just want to know legally can we not approve this project if the only thing before us is the is the design review component.

Can we not approve it because of the tree issue?

Yes, of course.

I mean I want to understand this.

Yes.

You yes, the only findings before you tonight are the ones related to single family design review.

Right.

Correct.

So could I make a motion that we continue this until we get an updated arbitrary that indicates that they have reviewed the most up-to-date plans, which would also allow uh us to review any changes that the applicant might incorporate based on uh more input from the neighbors?

Yeah, sorry second.

You're asking to make a motion or you are making motion.

Seconded to continue this topic to a future meeting.

But I don't think we'll continue conversation with the neighbors.

They've done their outreach.

Yeah, just the neurist report was a motion, it's been seconded motion seconds.

Let's take a look.

Just take a vote.

Okay.

Commissioner Adam Kevich?

Aye.

Takahashi?

A.

Framer?

Aye.

Chair Coolidge?

Nay.

Uh Twig?

I.

Want to be clear that it's we're continuing it until there's a new arborist report.

Uh to the extent one is required.

To the extent that one is required.

Nay.

Okay.

Uh motion passes for two.

Wait, wait.

Sorry, to the extent that one is required.

I didn't hear that in the original motion.

Okay.

Well, I mean, what if we go ahead?

Wait, can you count the ayes versus the nays, please?

Uh we don't know that an arbitrary report is required.

We don't know that it's based on false and and and stale information.

Well, then this report could be uh have an addendum to say that yes, in fact.

Okay.

Whether it's a new report or an addended report, we need a professional arborist to indicate that the health of this tree is not consistent with the current plans to submit it to the city, which is not in the report in front of us.

So sure, that could be an addendum.

So is that requiring an additional report or just kind of a follow-on phone call?

Uh it would be if we had a letter from the Arborist saying, no, I reviewed these plans dated X date, which are consistent with what were submitted to us, then we would feel better.

That be as aware that we were cutting 20 feet out of one side of the tree.

Yes, so something written, a phone call not being sufficient to be able to do that.

Okay, something in writing, not necessarily a full phone report, but so that we can be comfortable that the tree should survive without the current plan.

Can I offer a friendly amendment to well no please?

Should we get this one page?

Let's say it's a one-page addendum, and you receive that, and the updated um arbitration report with this one-page addendum confirms that the pruning that's involved with this new design will not jeopardize the health of this tree.

Are we gonna bring all of that back for the one-page addendum?

I'm just asking a question.

Because we're gonna agendize another well, because that's what's before you.

I'm sorry, but can you repeat your question?

Will we bring all of what what this design review project schedule another planning commission hearing?

I believe that's what continuation means, correct?

I'm just asking the question practically so that's the question.

That's what it means.

We would have another public hearing continued, continue this public hearing to a new date.

To allow for the addendum to get into the record and to either confirm or not confirm the health of the tree.

And if the answer is yes, then I I'd ask the question of the planning commission secretary.

What were the votes?

Um that's to support the motion to continue the item.

Yes.

Okay, great.

So just I know who would who were the nays?

Me.

Umid and Jadala?

Yes.

And and he was an A as well.

Okay.

Ah, okay.

Oh, I heard you say.

Oh, no, it was a nay.

Okay, okay.

Sorry, I misheard.

Yeah, I can elaborate that I thought I understood that the resolution was requiring a full updated arborist report, not just I mean, maybe yes, but I didn't know that confirmation that yes, in fact, we're based on the current plans, we're comfortable that the tree will live.

I I wasn't thinking that a more curtailed version would also suffice.

So should we take a revote then at this point?

We need another motion.

Someone can present another motion then if we're gonna follow the Roberts Worlds of procedure here.

I tried I make a motion uh that this agenda item being continued to a future meeting um subject to written confirmation from this arborist or any other professional arborist that um pruning of the magnolia tree under discussion is consistent with tree health and with the plans um as presented in tonight's meeting by planner Ruiz.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Okay, Commissioner Adam Kevich.

I Takahashi.

Nay.

I Kramer.

Chair Coolidge?

Nay.

Uh Twig?

Ian Jadala.

Aye.

All right.

Okay.

Um motion passes for two to continue this um to a further meeting based on the stipulations set out by uh Commissioner Adamkevich.

Typically, what we we say we uh continue to a date uncertain, and we will re-notice this item uh when it's ready once we have this Arborous report addendum component that's been described tonight as per the motion.

Okay, that concludes the commission's deliberation on this item.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, everyone.

So let me pull this back up.

All right, thanks everyone.

All right, so moving on to item 7B, which is a single family design review at 2934 San Juan Boulevard.

And before turning it over to the staff for presentation, I'll again ask if there's any exported communications or uh recusals.

Anyone needs the report.

I have nothing to report.

Site visit only.

Nothing report.

Nothing to report.

Okay, with that, I think we're good to go.

Planner Ruiz, take it away.

Hello, Kishers.

This is for two nine three four San Juan Boulevard.

It is also for a tier three design review.

In particular, be for a ground floor addition of 340 square feet.

Um a new garage of 431 square feet with a new upper floor to develop a second story of 1,226 square feet.

The total addition size of this project is 1,977.

For the lot size, the current lot is 5,800 square feet.

The slope is 10%, um, giving a floor area ratio of 0.533.

This allows you to have a maximum gross floor area of 3,091 square feet, where the home size is currently being proposed for a gross total of 2,895.

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

Or the front uh proposed setbacks will be a front of 15, a right side of six feet, and a left side of also 16 of six feet.

Um they're proposing nine on the left, um, an array of approximately sixty.

Um as you can see, the general home is being developed to the maximum extent it can for those setbacks.

Currently, it is just a single story house that is stucco um with two uh with no noted garage.

And they are developing uh it to a two-story home that has massing centered back onto the uh massing centered um it with at least two so uh two feet stepbacks, um varying walls uh at varying depths, and different ridgelines for the roofs for the rear elevation.

Um similarly, it is again just a stucco single story with a singular door and two windows.

Um it is going again, you can see the second story up.

You can see that they're doing like an interior uh covered porch on the second story or balcony, I should say, um, with lower wall or lower windows at the on this side uh to preserve privacy to their immediate neighbors.

Typically for the left elevation, um there is just two windows on a single story, and again, it is going up again with the minimum windows on the second story for the glass railings, but it is set back for the two feet for the second story in order to get the articulation requirements.

And then again for the right as well.

The color immaterial boards would be black vinyl window with a gray smooth stucco finish.

Portions of the wall colors will also have the white with a standing seam roof material.

Staff recommends for repro approval.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any questions first before you ask maybe the applicant if they want to present?

Yeah, quick question on the parking.

So if I understood it, no parking is required.

But what is this the maximum?

Is there like a maximum parking or is it you know the two-car covered, two-car uncovered?

Just that that on the the staff required minimum or max allowed.

What can you describe what's in the parking max?

They're proposing for a two covered and two uncovered um portion for the house.

Um is there um like is that the the maximum, just kind of in terms of terminology.

A lot of it is very clear, but that like what if they wanted three parking places or like is there?

That is the minimum requirement.

The maximum there they do not have a maximum quote unquote size limitation for parking, but we do have notes for a general driveway to be at maximum like 18 feet depth and 17 feet wide when applicable for that aspects.

Got it, thank you.

Maximum or minimum?

There is um a pardon, a minimum for those yeah, and then a landscaping portion for it to be maintained in the front yard.

Any other questions?

No.

Okay.

Is the applicant here?

And if so, would they like to uh present before we open the uh the floor to public comment?

Henry, yes.

Um yes, we do have Henry on uh Zoom here.

Um Henry, go ahead whenever you're ready.

Henry is the applicant.

Henry is the designer slash designer.

Um Henry, we can't hear you.

Um looks like you're unmuted, but we're unable to hear you as of right now.

Hello, there we go.

Now we can hear you.

You were learning the tech.

Hi, my name is Henry.

Um I'm the uh designer of the podcast.

Um this house is a family of four people.

Um also in future might be having another uh grandparents to leave in the house, and they are uh planning to have four rooms on the upstairs and one room on downstairs and trying to enlarge the entire house to their gym house.

The the sign of it is very minor to a very similar approved the sign to the uh to a neighbors, and is still using white collar office dockles, uh for a longer um for a longer doable materials and uh black material uh black collars windows for a modern looks.

Um they they are having uh as you know, existing there's no parking uh garage.

Uh we are bringing up the minimum requirement for 20 feet by 20 feet garage back to the side uh to the buildings.

And yeah, that would be it.

Seems like uh that the uh you got you guys already go through the uh thanks, Jeremy, for going through the uh designs and any questions, please let me know.

Great, thank you very much, Henry.

Okay.

Um I think now we'll open the public hearing and uh see if anyone in chambers would like to submit public comment for this item 7B.

Okay, we do have one speaker slip here.

Um Glenn.

Thank you.

You'll have three minutes.

Glenn, take it away.

All right.

Well, we're gonna have the 2936 San Juan for 50 almost 52 years.

And uh back when San Juan Boulevard was uh a lonely outpost.

Um still uh getting over the uh removal of septic tanks and all sorts of fun things over there.

Um my concerns are if you look at the canopy uh from that aerial view, you see the presence of a lot of trees.

And those trees uh are in effect mine for the most part uh that hang over the uh proposed home.

And uh both are well over 300 years old.

Uh when I first moved in, uh someone told me, well, Glenn, those uh trees are heritage trees, and I didn't know what that concept meant uh growing up in San Mateo, uh where you know they were not regarded in the same way.

Um and so I went down to the library and they in a locked cabinet, they had a map of the heritage trees of which uh I had uh three on my property and uh some one the surrounding property around me.

So I took it very seriously uh from the very beginning about the care and trimming and and care of those trees uh because I just regard them as almost sacred.

And then flash forward to the need uh with a growing family of the little cabin didn't suffice, and so we decided we were going to add on to it.

And to do so, I was going to have to put a foundation underneath the part of the existing house and then to extend it out into the backyard.

We were lucky to have enough property to be able to uh do so.

But when I, as a school teacher at my summer three there, I volunteered to dig down the for the foundations.

And uh when I started to do so, uh I found uh that I was running into tremendous numbers of roots from the the trees that are um next in part of my property.

And um so at that time Bellmont had a city arborist, and uh so he showed up and said, Glenn, there's no way I'm I can approve you putting a foundation under that this part of your addition.

And I said, Oh I said, what then can we do?

He says, Well, I recommend that you wrap these roots that you've exposed now, and um you're gonna backfill it with gravel, and uh then you're going to create a span uh that will protect the those roots and um and be able to have your foundation uh beyond those other areas.

In any case, uh I was a little surprised tonight to note uh for the first time that there's never been an arborist report because it while it might not be on their property, the the trees that I've mentioned here are loom over the proposed house.

Okay.

Okay.

That's about all I have to say, other than the fact that I would love to see a thorough arborse report on the uh proposed structure.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else in chambers like to submit uh comment on this item 7B?

You're here.

Uh my name's Jennifer Hill, and I'm the neighbor on uh the other side and 2932 San Vaughn.

And uh I just maybe have a question about the setback from the waterway behind the house is uh and I could just ask um the owner this question, but I haven't had a chance to do so.

So in your plans, Jeremy, are you able to determine if that is um 15 feet set back from the water or um I I haven't seen that view before.

Oh, the site plan?

Yeah.

So we've never we haven't seen that over that.

Sure.

So there's a noted 18 feet five inches from what is the wood bridge from the wooden bridge.

Um and in terms of able to cross it, there is a noted seven-foot sewer reserve that is in the rear, that is more than that's where the 60 feet comes from.

I see.

Okay.

That's all I wanted to know.

Thank you.

Great real-time responsiveness.

Yeah, thank you.

All right.

So uh that I think exhausts our uh comments and chambers and see if anyone on Zoom would like to submit a comment on item 7B.

No raised hands on Zoom.

And Director DeMello, anyone submit a written comment on this item before 4 p.m.

today.

Uh no written comments before 4 p.m.

today uh and no additional um COMDEV website emails.

Great.

Thank you.

With that, we will close the public hearing and turn to uh commissioner deliberation.

Anyone like to start that process?

If so, go for it.

I'll start with a question.

What is the protocol for when it's a tree overhanging the sites on a neighbor's property?

There must be uh something or DOCS.

Just looking at the elevations, the photos of existing, I don't see any trees where the additions going.

Am I missing something?

Look at the aerial view.

Well, if you look at the street view, there's no trees there.

You can see on the street view.

Where these here are the ones that you can see.

Yeah, I think if we're gonna the additions on the right side.

We're gonna need you guys to sit down.

Yeah, I think we're gonna need to have it.

Sorry.

But anyway, the question was what what is a protocol?

They do they do look like they overhang an an amount.

So internal line, but what is it?

What is the protocol?

They just have to showcase the trees that are in the media vicinity for the drip line for the site plan portions.

Um they did not provide me an arbore support as they were not trying, they were trying to develop on the right side um portions where it's not overhanging to the extent of at least initial concerns that could potentially trigger um an arborrous report on my end.

Uh if the concern is that you would want in Arboris report to be done, we can make that a condition of approval or do some other recommendation for your purviews.

I just feel like we're we're kind of leaping here.

We're kind of making a leap on requiring an arbitrary report for a project where the drip line doesn't come into play.

Yeah, do we have to jump in on that?

But can we see a site plan that shows it?

Because I don't it's not like the trees parsed on if it was a joint tree, you'd have to address it, but it's not on their property.

It's not so I just don't think it's an issue here.

I was agreeing with you on that.

Yeah, I agree.

I just wonder if we could see a site plan where somebody could point out the trees in question, because I don't see any trees anywhere.

But in the aerial view, you can see you can see in the aerial view that it does.

Can we put up the aerial view?

Because I don't think it's I don't think that is correct.

Maybe I'm misreading it, but I visited the site and looked where the they're gonna put it.

We have no trees.

You can see all the way from the street to the backyard.

Unless I was at the wrong house.

The designer also does have his hand raised.

Great.

Okay.

Henry, why don't you chime in here maybe to uh address that issue, please?

Thank you.

Hello everyone.

Uh can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Yes.

Oh, great.

Um first thing, if you guys are having an opportunity to open in Google maps or a street wheels that the tree uh which you guys mentioned on the drip line is actually belong to the neighbors.

And our site uh in front of the building, and does not have any trees according to the site plans.

Uh yep, here you go.

You can take a look up the street wheels.

Uh can we call that up on the big screen so we could all see it?

Yeah.

Thank you, Courtney.

Thank you.

Well done.

There we go.

Yep.

As you can see the trees belong to the left side, not in to our lot.

Great.

So to get folks oriented as to what we're looking at, the subject property is denoted in the dot.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

In terms of where the project's being proposed.

And the proposed additions will be occurring in this circle area on my mouse.

Which we are seeing from space all the way down to the ground, right?

There's no tree.

Are there well, I don't see a tree there.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Correct?

There's no tree there.

There's no tree.

According to this image.

If you went to the elevations, you could see it is an empty yard.

I didn't see I mean it's cra it's correct.

You can look at it and say, yeah, the the building, the majority of the building masses in that empty space.

But the back corner, it's more that we shouldn't be having to suppose from an aerial photo if the tree clips the back corner of this new taller section.

Which which tree do you think touches it?

You're thinking the one on the left side?

No, the one on the right side behind that is the tree in question.

That's the one.

It's thousands of dollars to make it.

It's more the question that's the same.

But he's putting this addition on the far side of that house.

It's on the other side of where that tree is.

It's nowhere near the drip line.

Based on this aerial.

Why would anybody consider that?

It's more just kind of guesstimating from aerial views, but it is actually tall and it's relatively not corner.

It seems very incentive to sort of I again I think we kind of are going beyond our 10 here.

Certainly you were within the right in the previous project, because there was a clearly definable issue related to a tree that could potentially be damaged based on an alt modified design.

These same conditions, in my humble opinion, don't exist for this project.

Can can you show the drawing that shows the existing floor plan next to the future floor plan?

Uh I would be able to do so.

Uh let me see if I have it for the floor fan specifically.

Yes.

It's all on one sheet.

I would have to bring it up via a USB drive, pardon.

Um Henry does have his hand raised again.

Perhaps Henry could show us that.

It would be nice to see that on the on the site plan.

Yeah.

Henry, did you wish to comment on this?

Henry, do you have another comment for us?

As you see the uh our ex uh if you have the site plan or maybe the elevation can tell a little bit more regardless on the left side of the building.

We do have a little bit of setback off the night feet because of existing that's we follow the that's how we follow the existing house setback is.

And there is a it does have a tree on the left side, which is belong to the neighbor, but because of the big setback we have.

So I don't think we were completely touching the trees.

Oh, Jeremy's about to pop up the in reference.

I believe the tree would be over on this portion.

That is okay.

So the tree is over there.

And the outline of the additions are all occurring where?

Would be in this aspects.

Okay.

So they're just over the existing outline of the building.

Tree is near the notch that you see on the fly.

But surely this must happen often because the coast live oaks in our area do lean in all directions.

We have the same on our on our site on our home.

I'm party.

Can you repeat the question again?

Surely this must come up every now and then with neighboring trees leaning over the people's sites a little bit, or to what extent?

I mean, how do we normally feel that kind of question?

Because I have the same constraints in my own garden.

We have we we have neighbors' trees, these coast live oaks kind of never grow straight.

But surely there must be a typical way we approach it.

There's a lot of case law about trees.

Oh yeah.

So uh but uh the concern is that because they're gonna make the house four feet deeper from the street that that foundation might affect the tree that's on the property to the left.

That's it.

It's more that we're kind of supposing from the information we have that whether the new height on that back corner will be how close will it be to the tree if it will be touching the tree.

I mean, I haven't got a beam by bonnet about it.

I just it's just more that it's like a gap in the information that's real life.

You don't want his trees over you don't want your neighbor's trees over your roof, right?

That would be from both points of view, right?

Did we close the public hearing?

Yeah, public hearing is closed.

Okay, so this is this is pure deliberation here.

This is fine.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

I just let's continue with the deliberation.

And if there is um some momentum related to this tree, so be it.

But I'd like I think I'd like to hear from the ballots of the commission about concerns on the design and any other ancillary questions you may have or comments you have about the project.

Yeah.

Does that sound okay?

That sounds great.

Great.

Okay.

I can make the findings with regard to the design aspect of it.

I am concerned that um with us attempting to kind of fill perceived gaps with things which I think are probably beyond the scope of what we are considering.

Um again, if there is an issue with the tree and then there's a damage to the tree as a result of the construction, I think there are a ton of remedies that are uh out there.

Um not just case law, but obviously there's you know, probably um it's a code violation, it's potentially a trespass.

There's a bunch of other things that I think would potentially pop up that are I think beyond the scope of what frankly we're considering tonight.

I appreciate the issue, but um I mean again, I don't know that there's anything before us that would have us consider uh the neighboring trees.

But that's my again, my position.

Um and I'll look to others to um for their input as well.

I can make the findings.

Um I I think it'll be uh uh compared to its you know current size, current structure, it'll be you know a a nice improvement for the owners and and certainly help them out with their lives.

And uh it meets the you know meets the criteria in my opinion.

Um yeah, I can definitely make the findings and sorry, I just thought of a new question if you don't mind, um, Planet Ruiz.

I noticed that um condition 22, um, which makes total sense is that streets, sidewalks, and curbs need of repair within a boarding project shall be repaired.

Okay, great.

But then number 23 is new sidewalk curb and gutters shall be installed.

And I was just kind of curious because uh it appears I didn't make a site visit, but it appears on on Google Maps that there is already a new sidewalk and curbs.

I wasn't sure why there was a both a condition to repair and a condition to install new.

Uh those for public works, they're very standards.

I think prior there was a discussion in regards to potentially updating the sidewalk to be more in co-compliance.

Unfortunately, I was not a part of that original discussion.

Okay.

If public works is happy with it, I am too.

I just don't know how you would install new and repair old.

It just seems a little odd.

Yeah, there's clearly a sidewalk there, correct?

Um I think the intent of condition number 23 is more so to fill in the gap if there is no sidewalk.

So that might be an error relative to that condition being added.

Um yeah, sometimes up in the hills, there isn't a sidewalk, right?

We had a discussion on a previous house, right, about putting a sidewalk.

It looks like in this case there is a fairly newish looking right sidewalk.

Okay, that doesn't matter if public works is happy, I'm happy.

I just yeah I just noticed that.

I think we're fine.

I think condition 23 will most likely not be enforced based upon the existing condition of a sidewalk for this pro with this project.

Yeah, makes sense.

But great.

Um, yeah, I'm I'm happy to make the findings on the residential design.

I think it looks good.

Cool.

Okay, appear to have a consensus.

Would anyone like to make a motion then?

Um sure, I'll make a motion.

Thank you.

Um I make a motion to approve of the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Belmont um for a single family design review at 2934 San Juan Boulevard, application number 2026-0005.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Adam Kavich.

Aye.

Takahashi.

I.

Kramer.

Aye.

Chair Coolich?

Aye.

Twig.

Aye.

Jadala?

Aye.

Motion passes 6042934 San Juan Boulevard, single family design review.

Great.

Congratulations on the approval of the project.

And this uh decision is appealable within 10 calendar days.

Thank you.

Okay, that concludes the public hearing portion of our agenda.

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

We'll see uh Director De Mello.

Is there anything you'd like to uh Yeah?

Uh a couple items I did not have on my bingo card that we'd be at 820 for these two projects, but I appreciate your careful deliberation on this is how this process works, and it's good to allow lively discussion when it comes to single family homes.

So I appreciate all the comments tonight on all the items.

Uh a couple items to get the commission um updated or the preview of coming events.

So thank you for your good work on the safety element that you provided feedback to our staff.

Um we carried that feedback to the council at their subsequent meeting.

Um got additional feedback from the council and the final version safety element is now targeted to come back to this commission at your June 2nd plan commission meeting.

So hopefully you can be in attendance for that.

Um in the what's happening right now um uh category.

Uh the mayor state of the city, if you're not aware of that.

That's tomorrow night.

Um that's happening at 1325 Old County Road, the Artisan Crossings property, that project.

So there are also there are still slots available.

Folks want to attend that.

It'll be a great um great presentation discussion.

And uh it's from 5 to 7 p.m.

And there'll be food, of course, which is always a draw.

Um so would love to see you there tomorrow night.

So 1325 Old County Road, mayor state of the city, 5 to 7 p.m.

Um couple quick updates on projects that you see under construction along El Community, first going from north to south, the Rome project, the 125-unit all affordable project.

Um that is approaching completion, and they'll be achieving their uh temporary certificate of occupancy status, start having potential move-ins uh for that project in the July-August time frame.

So they're almost done.

And then uh link, that's the other all affordable project, 37 units.

That's kind of bookended by Hill Street.

Um that is uh they're approaching their TCO uh late fall of this year.

So you'll have basically um almost a hundred and you know, 162 units of all affordable housing that'll come online before the end of this year, which is a notable achievement for the city.

And I think that's really about it.

Let me see, Mayor's the city safety element, Rome Link.

Um looking at your future agendas, um, May 19th is probably gonna be fairly light.

We might have another single family design review or two for you.

Um, and then again, you'll have the safety element that'll be before you on the 6-2 meeting, and then an annual item that we bring to the commission every year, and that's the general plan consistency for adopting the city's capital improvement program.

We usually bring it to you in between the council introduction of the budget and the council adoption of the budget.

We may bring it to you on the 19th.

Worst case we'll bring it to you at the June 2nd meeting.

So that um that's that, and then one other item the targeted um ribbon cutting for the Charles Armstrong School project.

I think folks have heard about that.

I believe it's uh June 2nd as well, and I think that starts at like five o'clock.

So if you didn't get invites or did want to attend that, it should be a feel good event.

Um again, that's Tuesday, June 2nd.

So that's enough for me.

Thank you very much for your time tonight, unless you have any questions for me.

Have have you received anything on the um the dry cleaner site on Ralston?

I know that's not in our purview, but it it has to go for administrative approvals, correct?

Oh, you mean for that uh all affordable 65 unit project?

Uh next to Wendy's there.

Oh, yeah, that has all its building permits, and in fact, they are they're under a requirement to be issued their building permits no later than like June.

So you're gonna see construction activity for that project start in the summer months.

Okay, all right.

The one on Old County or the one fronting Ralston where the green thing is.

Okay, because the one on Old County, I think is also coming pretty soon.

That's coming pretty soon.

They're still short funding.

The city council did uh grant up to two million as part of their uh last meeting for that project.

Um the first one, 678 Ralston has all their funding in intact.

Oh wow, and they are basically issued their building permits.

So you're gonna see mobilization of construction activity occurring June, July, August for that one.

Yeah.

Does the the I forgot the new name of it, the Chinese restaurant?

Is that in the footprint there?

That's not in the footprint.

Yeah, so you've got the dry cleaner and then the parking lot next to it, and then the the restaurant behind it and the parking lot behind it is not part of that project.

But the other project is around the corner from it.

It's on the corner of Masonic and Old County Road.

That's 63 units.

Uh, but they're still a bit away from having all their support funding in play to build that.

But they're getting they're certainly getting closer.

So thank you.

Yeah.

Exciting stuff.

Yeah.

Uh again, that's it for me.

If there's any other questions, again, thank you for gathering tonight.

Uh just about a full compliment of the commissioners, and again, appreciate the discussion on the public hearing items.

So great.

Okay.

Okay.

That's it.

Wraps it up.

We are adjourned at 828.

Thank you all.

Good campaign.

You know,