Alright.

Good evening, everyone.

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

Um it's Tuesday, June 16th.

It is seven o'clock.

Uh before we get started, um we'll give some um preliminary instructions on how to participate in tonight's meeting.

Um uh for attendance.

Uh the um meeting is being broadcast live to Belmont residents on Comcast Cable 27.

It's also streamed live via the city's website at Belmont.gov, and it's available um via Zoom in the instructions for uh for accessing the Zoom link are included in the agenda for public comment.

Uh there are three ways to submit comments.

Firstly, um a member of the public can uh submit a speaker slip and uh to the clerk here and then comment in chambers.

Um can participate uh virtually using the raise hand feature, and the the instructions for doing so are included in the agenda, and then um if written comments are received uh before four p.m.

today at the uh C dev uh email account, uh those items will be considered um by the commission.

And with those um instructions, let's now have a roll call, please.

Okay, Commissioner Adam Kevich, here.

Takahashi?

Here.

Kramer?

Here.

Chair Coolich?

Here.

Twig?

Jadala?

Here.

And absentite is Commissioner Majeski.

Great, thank you so much.

Item two is the Pledge of Allegiance.

If you could stand if you're able and leave it, I would lead us in the pledge, excuse me.

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

One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all of them.

Thank you very much for that.

Uh, item three on the agenda is our community forum.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter within our purview that is not included uh on tonight's agenda.

And um I'll see first if there's anyone in chambers who would like to speak on item three.

I've not received any speaker slips in house.

Okay, anyone over Zoom?

Uh no raised hands on Zoom.

I'll ask Director DeMello if we've received any written comments before four p.m.

today.

No emails on the Comdev web page.

Great.

Thank you very much.

That concludes item three, our community forum.

Item four is commissioner announcements and agenda amendments.

Or first see if anyone here on the dias has any um announcements.

Okay, seeing uh no's all around.

I'll next see if there's any um amendments to tonight's agenda.

None from staff.

Great.

Okay.

That concludes item four.

Item five is our consent uh calendar.

There are two items.

Item five A, which is the approval of meeting minutes for the May 5th, 2026 meeting, and 5B is approval of the meeting minutes for the June 2nd, 2026 meeting.

There are any questions, corrections, comments regarding um the minutes as proposed.

Okay.

If not, maybe we can entertain a motion to uh to approve, I think probably both items and in one motion.

Yep.

Is appropriate.

I move we approve both sets of minutes as submitted.

Okay, um, Commissioner Adam Gavich?

Aye.

Takahashi?

Aye.

Kramer?

Aye.

Chair Coolidge?

Aye.

Twig.

Aye.

Jadala?

Aye.

Okay.

Motion passes six zero for um items five A and five B.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Item six is our study session.

Um we have nothing on this item.

So turning to item seven, which is our public hearings.

Our first matter is item 7A.

It's a single family design review at 1502 way.

And before turning to the staff presentation, I'll see if there's any uh ex party communications, site visits or recusals for this item.

And I'll start maybe on this end.

Uh site visit only.

That's important.

Site visit only.

I have nothing to report.

Slight visit only.

I would keep some on this one.

Okay.

Great.

We'll bring you back in.

Okay.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Hello, Commissioners.

Uh, this is for 1502 as conduito away.

Um for reference for previous actions.

This is going to be for a revised proposal.

As of December 2nd, 2025, uh, this item was received uh approval for an initial ground floor addition of 1,077 square feet as long or as well as for a tree removal permit of four large uh protected cedar trees.

Um the lot summary has remained the same, however, of a lot size of 13,326 and a slope of 17.24.

Um that said, as of June 16th, 2026, today.

Their current proposal and their amendment is to seek for an additional or to expand their initial ground floor addition to 1,404 square feet, as well as amending their initial tree removal permit uh to include one more additional tree to facilitate set addition, uh bringing that number to five.

Uh the existing home size uh right now is 1,891, and the new proposed be 3,294.

As always, for the findings for the design review, they should be well designed, articulated, and consistent, that public views are not impacted, and then they are compliant with the residential design guidelines and criteria.

For the tree removal, it is the balancing between the criteria for supporting removal notable on the left side, as well as the criteria supporting for retention.

Of these, the trees are noted to be uh either A, our correction, C in this in this instance, the tree is currently damaging or interfering with existing structures.

Um D removal of the trees in it in order to construct improvements, and E, the proximity of the tree uh is needed um to be removed due to it being uh in proximity to existing or proposed structures.

For reference, this is the new proposed site plan.

They are maintaining their current proposed setbacks of 25 feet, 7 feet, and 100 and 2 measured from the rear.

Initially noted, um, or additionally noted, I should say, is that they do have a creek setback from the bank of 50 feet, uh, which primarily aligns with their current home, and that is why they're not expanding further past their foundation for the walls.

Uh zoomed in in the areas of blue, those are where the additions are occurring that were not initially noted in the December uh variant.

So everything here from the gray and blue addition sizes are where they're estimated to pretty much be the total addition of this variant.

Um, and removing the blue would be where they are currently approved for in December.

In terms of the landscape plan, um on the right hand side of the property, you can see these trees.

Uh, there were four cedar trees were noted to be removed due to the proximity, and the one that is outside of the development area was noted to be required to remove due to the um utility requirements for improvements.

Um the arguments for retaining these trees, or of course for the aesthetic appeals.

However, there are they're replanting five trees that would meet the protected uh requirements for our tree removals.

Um, and they're noted here in the rear as well as two to the side.

For the front elevations, this was what is initially approved in December.

You can still see that it's a ground floor addition with the siding and the stucco walls.

And it's going for a again similar ground floor addition, however, they have just changed it to increase the roof height as well as the pit or the roof pitch, as well as changing it to primarily being of stucco note.

Similarly for the rear, same concepts, they expanded it in order to pretty much square it off.

There's no longer these jet ins in order to further facilitate their larger base of the addition, and they increase the number of sliding doors.

For the left elevation, you again can see that they removed the siding and proceeded to continue with the stucco, maintaining that consistency.

And again, it was mostly to just flesh out and square off the main home.

Similar to the right, you can see it once more.

This is a representative of the diagram of what was shown for the model, as well as the material palette of the shingle roofing, the fascia of paints of gray and uh off white, as well as that accent wall that is noted in the image.

In conclusion, staff recommends for the amendment approval of the single family design review.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Planner Ruiz.

See if the is the applicant here and if so, would they wish to um present or comment on this item?

It's not required, but if you're inclined, this is your time to do so.

To explain why we're doing the uh.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'll just add a few synthesis to explain why we're doing the revision.

Um we we were good for last year if you got their approval.

Um back then our our youngest, our youngest daughter was only two months old.

Um so seeing how fast they grow made us realize we need the extra extra uh score footage uh for them to grow in in this house.

Um we are building the house again for for the two of them and choose you know two for the tech case to come.

So uh we feel like the revision is is needed even though it's will be you'll cost us a lot more, but we think it's uh it will worse the price you overstone the cost that we've spent for for the family.

So uh thank you for consideration.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so if there's any any questions from um the diocese for for staff or the applicant.

I have a question.

Sorry, go ahead.

No, no.

No, I don't know.

Um the um neighborhood outreach looks like the stuff that was referred to in the um staff report was from the original design.

What additional outreach was done is very different.

It's a lot bigger, looks a lot different.

Was it neighborhood outreach gone to 300 and 500 foot radius?

There was no additional neighborhood outreach besides what was initially required.

Um the originals are seeking an amendment.

Um that's dead that stated the applicants did reach out to the immediate neighbors, as one has reached on in regards to the clarification for their building of constructions in regards to that.

Just to clarify is is if you're amending um an existing entitlement, is no additional it's not typically required to do a second bound uh route of neighborhood outreach.

But again, obviously the item has been publicly noticed.

Um folks have the opportunity to comment on this project tonight.

I don't believe we've received comments or or have we received comments on it.

No personal comments, nor no uh immediate comments to the C dev email has been received.

Right.

Uh Director Jamal, just to clarify again, just for my education, publicly noticed would automatically go to a certain radius around the project, or you mean like posted here in the library and things like that?

Yes.

They will be noticed or they'll be both requirements will be met for both in initial notice for our end to the neighbors of within 300 feet of the property boundaries, as well as the three requirement or three required locations per our own facilitation.

Right.

So people within 300 feet on Thursday or Friday got the notice about this.

Correct.

They didn't the applicant didn't have the neighborhood outreach again.

Correct.

Thank you for clearing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good clarification.

I had a quick question.

Can you go to the slide that shows the trees?

The five trees.

Could you just point out the additional tree?

This is the additional tree to the top right to this location.

It was originally outside the scope of the improvement, but with the addition, it's now affected.

Yeah, that's correct.

It's right now currently impact or it's so far in they would have to do a significant root removal in order for it to be facilitated, and as such, they are requesting removal in order to do so.

Understood.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any additional questions?

I have a question.

Yep.

If you can go to the slide with the elevations on the front, that one.

So I have a question on this because it looks uh appears that you're using a partial TPO roof.

And my question is because you see the two roof valleys, the one that's on the left, looks like you can see the TPO roof ridge.

Is that correct?

Is that am I reading it right?

I will leave that to the designer.

What is TPO mean?

Uh it's a basically it's a single ply roofing and it's white.

And so my concern is if you see that white roofing, um it it's kind of in contrast with the rest of the architecture of the of the building.

So if it's visible, I might I have a little bit of concern about that visibility.

So it's basically a membrane roofing system uh because of the sloping um for the flat roof portion, um, which is not showing in this diagram, but we do have a flat roof portion um over uh between the two gable roof housing, and then the one that you are seeing this elevation is actually uh cricket uh for the for the roof valley between the two gable roof to allow for the drainage for the roof, and then if you go to the other elevation, which is this one, this one is actually showing the majority of the um the membrane roofing because of the sloping, uh the roof slope.

And then we consult with the uh roof manufacturer, we can sell actually with the Bay Area roofers, and then they do have the material that they can actually match the color of the shingle.

They have something that can actually be done in the a more darker gray color.

Um so we think this is an elevation, so it shows the building being projected um uh basically from projection of the building, but if you are actually standing um on the ground level and then it will be less visible for people to actually be able to see that roof, and then also we are trying to match the color.

So from that many reasons, we are actually thinking that might be uh good solutions for the overall planning of the roof design.

So is there a reason?

Because on the other valley, we actually created um what I imagine is gonna be a sheet metal valley.

Uh is there a reason why you couldn't do that on the this other valley?

Um, other valleys, um, this is the majority of the gable house uh the gable roof, this one it has a big pitch.

Um so it allows the water to actually drain really quickly and then be um go to the side.

But for the flat roof, we actually have a flat roof portion, and then that is where the membrane roof system actually goes for.

Right.

Uh what I was getting at is if you made that gable in the middle bigger, then you wouldn't have that sliver in the middle, and you can treat it the same as on the other side.

So my my but but the big concern is the belt the visibility of the TPO roof, which is white, which is contrasting by typically, but they do have standard colors, but what I've done in the past is they actually make paints that you could actually custom color that paint and you can paint it to at least match the roof better.

Yeah we are trying to source out the the membrane roof system and we have been told by the roofers that they can actually match the color.

So we are selecting for the dark gray shingle roofing and then they were saying that they are comfortable that they can actually we got point out to other project like a reference project that they actually did it with the um the dark gray that can actually um align with the material.

Yeah I was I was architect on that one.

Okay.

Okay.

And then also like this is the front elevation that shows three cable roofing uh gable gable roofs and then on the back side that that's only two and then we want to keep the the slope of the gable roof to be consistent.

That is the reason why we are not doing a much slope uh much shallow slope to actually have the two gable house to come to a point um that's another reason and then we we don't want to increase the height of the building because if you keep the the slope to be consistent then the height of the building will be much taller.

So there are a lot of things that we are trying to balance in terms of the design and then also following the planning guidelines.

Okay.

So I I'm less worried if you could match the roofing color to the single ply and then I I have no objection from that standpoint.

Okay thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any any further questions not we can um turn it over to uh public comment.

Okay no further questions any comments in chambers Madam Clerk um I've not received any speaker slips in house and uh no raised hands on Zoom.

And we've received no emails on the condev email page for basic okay okay I'll go ahead and close the public hearing then and um turn to Commissioner deliberation.

You want to start?

Sure.

Great thank you.

I really like the improvements to the design.

I I feel like when when you're there in person it sort of reads like cabins in a sort of park plan setting and I really like that about it.

I think it's a good example of how when you work really hard with the articulation it does break down that scale of what could be a medium to large size home and I think the plan itself was really efficient and cohesive and I really like the way that it sat on the street so that's me.

Thank you.

Um the design is extremely different from what was approved previously is 40% that the addition is 40% more and there's 25% more trees going on I d I'm not comfortable making the findings without proactive outreach to the community because it looks completely different and um so I can't make the findings based on that.

I think that's a bad precedent to let people get something approved for a thousand square feet and then get another 400 as an amendment.

I think it should go through the same number of steps if it's a significant change like that.

I think it's uh other than the TPO item but if you get it custom colored to match the singles I think it would be good.

But otherwise I think it architecturally it's good.

It it breaks down the scale even though you enlarged it.

I like the materials I think it's compatible uh with today's architecture um so I think it's good.

I have similar concerns about process here, but I I guess I don't understand how we hold the applicant to a standard that the city staff told them they didn't have to meet.

Um so I'm reluctant to uh correct or improve our processes on the back of this one applicant who had nothing to do with the issue.

So while I very strongly endorse that this um the process should include if if something is substantial enough amendment that has to come back through this body, then I believe that should require outreach to the neighbors again to show them the plans, let them have a chance to comment.

On the other hand, uh given that clearly they were told by staff they didn't have to do that, I I don't see, but uh I I feel like the design itself as presented makes the uh meets the findings, I can make the findings.

Um and I would strongly suggest we improve our processes, but um it's not gonna prevent me from making the findings on this particular project.

Great, thank you.

Well said, I c I concur entirely with that.

I I I do believe that um that there probably ought to be a requirement, but um it does seem unfair to hold this particular applicant to a requirement that doesn't yet exist.

So um with that I could also make the findings.

Um can I comment on that?

How else would you address it except for staff to do what they normally do and then have the over sight body say that's not adequate?

But there's no rule, right?

I I can't point to a particular statute or ordinance or or any rule that's established that requires they provide that outreach in advance of the amendment.

What rule says that they don't?

It's not a statute.

We don't have a policy that establishes a requirement for additional public outreach when a project comes back for review and amendment.

Now we use the opportunity for the public hearing to address comments.

Um certainly the project was large enough of a change to it require it come back to this body.

Um relative to the outreach that was done the first time around, relative to the comments that we received.

Um wanna get a sense as to what we did get back in December.

Now did the project add more height to it?

No.

Did the project broach any other development standards related to the project?

No.

Is the design in and of itself meeting our residential design guidelines standards?

Yes.

So um, but again, the issue at hand is not that, which you're all at least on principle, appear to be okay with the design, albeit the concern about the roof color, um, or matching the roof.

But relative to the process for outreach, um duly noted that you have concerns about how this played out.

Um, should there be some changes needed that the city should consider a second requirement that should a project be amended, there's an automatic second bite that needs to be taken related to outreach.

Absolutely, we could we could look at that.

But you're right, the applicant shouldn't be penalized if the process, if the policy we've established for outreach, doesn't mandate it.

So I'm not sure where you want staff to go from here other than taking this into account as to how we address um second reviews of projects from an outreach perspective.

So, Director DeMel, can I ask a related question?

Because it's actually um replies to a project on on my block, one of my neighbors.

Um so they did a a small edition that was so small it didn't come before this body and they completed it.

Right.

And then they immediately did a second edition.

It was also too small, so it didn't come before this body.

I'm pretty sure if they'd done both editions at the same time, although I don't know the exact square feet, it would have um again, I guess the city has no that that's a perfectly again, their project was great, my neighbors are great, no no issues, but like if that was perfectly legal for them to do apparently.

Like it didn't violate any city standards.

Correct I mean can you talk about two projects that didn't require commission approval?

Right, because they were below the features.

Even though the two were done back to back and separately to get if it if they'd been done together, they would have exceeded the size.

Um whether that was targeted for them to apply I'm not even saying that they did it that way, but okay.

Related, we don't have a process set up when someone comes in with a series of additions to their home that may not trip the threshold full review by a body that then mandates the requirement for neighborhood outreach.

Um whether the rule structure should be changed or not remains to be seen.

Certainly tonight provides a good example.

There's enough of a concern raised by more than one member of this commission that we should re-look at our protocols related to outreach when a second bite of this project comes back before a body.

Um it's a valid concern.

Absolutely.

Now, not knowing what could have come out of that second outreach session, not sure.

But still, um I'll I will take the fall for this relative to like should there be a process.

Yeah, I mean, we don't we don't get it very often.

We don't get amendment projects come back before this commission often at all, and probably boy, this is the first time in years that I think that we've seen one, but it always causes us to look at our rules and are we doing it correctly.

Here's a real world example of like hmm, maybe we should think about this in greater detail if this comes back.

So thank you for um yeah, thank you for acknowledging that and and thank you in advance to staff for looking at what could be done process-wise.

I want to point out, and our next agenda item is also going to be somewhat triggering that in that it wasn't an amendment that came through us twice, but the plans first shown to the neighbors were very different than the plans actually brought to the commission.

I think we're gonna see right next.

So I would hope that whatever process is developed could cover maybe that situation as well.

I don't know how to define a substantial change to the plans.

That's very subjective, but I think we all kind of know it when we see it.

Sure.

And the look really changes.

So I would hope that whatever process staff comes up with is not just a case like this where formally it's amending and coming before the commission, yeah, but also informally where the plans change drastically, doing the neighbors saw them the first time, what's actually submitted to staff.

Correct.

So I would I would like to see both of those cases asserted.

Julie Nota.

Okie dokie.

Any other comments from the commission again?

We certainly appreciate your thorough review of this item.

Um, we appreciate that on the merits of the design review.

Generally, there appears to be positivity to approve the project process-wise on how we got this from start to finish concerns.

We get that.

Um, so again, you're at the point where you're gonna take a vote and let's see how this thing shakes out.

But we've taken down all the notes about outreach and how the city should be looking at this in the future.

So, okay.

Would anyone like to make a motion then?

I have a question.

So if is it a possible to have a condition to have that roof the same color the TPO roof the same color?

Um I certainly don't have concerns with a modification to our conditions of approval to address similar color color to it.

Uh I'd like to see if the applicant is agreeable to that, and if they are, I'd like some head nods or come up to the mic to say that you're comfortable with the city drafting a condition to address that that uh that uh concern.

Yes, we can certainly put a note and then with the condition of approval to say that we're gonna comply with that.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you.

All right, okay, good.

Okay, then I make the motion that we approve uh application number 2025-0043 at 1502 Escondido away with the condition that the TPO roof matches the single roofs.

Okay, so second, seconded.

Okay, second vote, please.

Okay, uh, Commissioner Adam Kevich, aye.

Takahashi?

Aye.

Nay.

Chair Coolidge?

Aye.

Twig, aye.

Okay, motion passes four to one with uh one recusal um for 1502 Escondido Way, single family design review um with the added condition um as mentioned by Commissioner Takahashi.

Great.

So we got Commissioner Jidala before we call item uh 7B.

And oh I'll note that this is firstly, oh she's back.

She's back uh you are listening the whole case.

Congrats on on the approval.

And uh this item is appealable within 10 calendar days.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your time on this item.

Let's let Commissioner Jadal get settled, and then we'll tee up.

Eighteen hundred Robin Whip away.

Great.

Yes, our next item on the agenda is item seven B, which is a single family design review for eighteen hundred Robin Whipple Way, and before turning to the staff presentation, I'll I'll see if there's any um ex-party communications or uh recusals.

Um, Commissioner Judah, you want to start?

Uh site visit.

Okay.

I have nothing to report.

Site visit.

Nothing to report.

Nothing to report.

Maybe we should wait for our clerk to return.

I believe so.

Okay.

Pardon that there appears to be some technical difficulties.

We'll stand by then.

Do you mean two minutes?

The Zoom got logged out.

Doug.

Come on.

Yeah, I don't know if we have to start going on.

Okay.

That's okay.

But Messi has scored twice.

Are those paying attention at all?

Okay.

Okay, around here.

Oh yeah, there's a little bit more.

Zoom doesn't want to connect.

You want to take a two.

We'll take a recess, the formal recess, then I guess for you, just what do you think we need five minutes?

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, we'll be in recess then for five minutes.

Sounds good.

We're good.

Okay.

Great.

Looks like we're back online and we have recessed for about six minutes, so it's perfect.

Um, I guess we're returning to the staff presentation is where we were.

Hello, once more.

Let's do that.

This is for 1800 Robinway.

This is for once more the design review.

Uh, in regards to an addition to an existing single-family resident uh residence.

Uh, as always, the findings for it will be that it should be well designed, articulated, and consistent, the public views are not impacted, and that they are compliant with residential design guidelines and criteria.

Um, for reference, this for those who may just be tuning in or may have forgotten.

Uh, the proposal is for a ground floor addition of 222 square feet as well as a new upper floor addition to create a new upper story of 934.

The total square footage that will be added is 1,156.

The current lot shall remain as noted with the dedication of size of 5,160 and a slope of 4.44.

From previous actions, the commission on May 5th, 2026, we had the public hearing was held.

Uh commissioners received comments regarding the design of the noted home and the protection of the noted magnolia tree.

Discussion regarding the objective design standards and the residential design guidelines occurred.

However, the questions primarily centered on whether the arborst report was made, noting the current proposed design and how the tree will be protected if pruning were to occur.

As such, the commissioners continued to a date uncertain, requesting an updated Arbor's report/slash letter, uh, whether or not the report took an account of the revised second story addition in its current uh proposal, and whether those pruning measures uh may have been accounted for in regards uh and what may trigger uh those needs.

Uh so per that request, uh, an arborist uh did an addendum to its report.

Um the addendum to the original report was prepared in order to clarify the details regarding the pruning requirements, canopy impacts, structural considerations of this protected southern magnolia tree.

Um, some things of note from the report was that in terms of the survival of and care of the Southern Magnolia tree, that southern magnolias uh are able to tolerate a 33% one-sided foliage reduction.

Um, and for this project, the noted estimate for the removal of such foliage is projected to be 10 to 15%.

Um, in terms of the southern magnolia tree root tolerance, it was further noted that this is um they're very sensitive to it.

Um, and as such, they can anything dealing with 20% or more root reduction, which would cause harm.

However, for this noted project, the estimate is 0% as they are maintaining their boundaries and not further expanding.

In terms of recovery, the tree is noted to exhibit quote unquote vigorous interior sprouting, which would enable rapid canopy recovery, and for the site conditions and structural stability of the proposed tree, they were able to indicate that the site conditions, which would include the wind exposure, slope, soil, and drainage for the uh for the tree, do not pose elevate or elevated structural risk.

Um, noted in that report and an addendum, they did uh clarify the recommendations for pruning.

As such, they did note that there should be clearance pruning in order to maintain the long-term clearance and initial four-foot clearance uh of the tree is recommended.

Uh, the clearance pruning should extend to 20 feet, exceeding the noted uh second story roof line to ensure this compliance.

And then the further noted several scenarios.

However, um the requirement will be following the recommended scenario of selective reduction cuts, which would achieve the four-foot clearance, uh, maintains the scaffold structure, uh, continues to promote the vigorous regrowth within the six to twelve months period following the uh pruning, um, preserves its canopy form, and this scenario has been further indicated and added uh to the condition of approval noted in number seven.

For a visual aid, uh the hopa kint showcased where this four foot clearance will be required.

Um you can see that it is to the most left-hand side that's immediately adjacent to the home of where that four-foot clearance to the wall and canopy portions of the 20-foot uh height further extends.

Um, and as noted, it did take into account from at least this image the current proposed design.

For reference, um, they also for following from the original that they will be having a tree protection zone fence um surrounding the majority of its roots to ensure that their roots system will not be harmed during the construction.

Per from the original staff still recommends the approval of the single family design review.

Um, but if you would like to have any questions, please feel free to ask now.

Great.

I'll see also if it does appear the applicant is present.

See if the applicant wishes to speak any further on this item.

Speaking now will be Yuki or Sasagawa, the designer of the project.

Great.

Hi, good evening.

Good evening.

We uh because of the concept from the last meeting about the Magunori of Tree.

So we have uh uh Boris gems here to explain how to put it out the tree, and not without any quotient damage.

So can I great?

If you if the arbitration would like that to it's your decision.

It's it's not required, but okay, great.

This is your time to do it, so my name is James Lasco, L-A-S-C-O-T, silent T.

I'm a consulting arbitrary with Arbor Logic, which is my sole proprietorship ownership.

Um I've been in the oracultural field since 1980, so a long time.

Uh doing my own consulting since 1999.

I specialize in development around trees and have since then uh I was asked to put together a tree protection plan and our worst impact report on this development.

I found that the one large protected tree was a southern magnolia.

It is a standard southern magnoli.

It's not uh they have majestic beauties which are dwarfs.

This is a normal size tree.

Uh it's probably about sixty years old.

The house was built in 1946, so that would be 80 years, uh 20 years maybe prior to its planting.

It's gonna be a good health and condition.

And I'm familiar with that particular species because they are super sensitive to root losses.

But when I saw the development, they're not uh expanding the foundation on that side.

They're just gonna be reinforcing it for the second story, and so that should remain intact.

Uh that was my major concern.

But then uh I also realized that there would be some pruning for clearance.

Standard pruning for a building, fire clearance is three feet.

Um with scaffolding, it's usually you try to get four feet, which I assume there might be some scaffolding involved with the construction.

Uh normally you would want three feet over the roof, since the fires in California, a lot of insurance companies are even more aggressive about wanting no canopy over roofs.

So that was part of the reason why I went with uh rather than just doing four feet of roof of the house going all the way up, and that pretty much works well.

Now, there was some concern, I think, by one of the uh council members here from another meeting that maybe this would be structurally imbalanced.

Uh I took that into account.

Uh I look at where it is in the Bay Area.

I look at where it is in the neighborhood and where it is on site.

Now it's on the eastern side in an area of basically Belmont is in low level.

We don't get the the high winds from the coast, we're protected by the mountains.

So we're not gonna get as high as like I've seen sometimes a hundred and over a hundred and uh mile an hour winds, and that is a problem.

But down in the valley, it's usually not that bad.

Also, with the tree being on the east side and the house on the west, if the wind's blowing through, the house is actually protecting the tree from high winds.

Umce there's no root loss, I'm not as concerned about uh the tree falling over from root loss or structural issues.

Um also because it's in a fairly flat area, it has good drainage.

So sometimes what happens if a tree is off balance but it's in a low point with heavy saturation, just the weight of it in a heavily saturated soil could make it fall over.

But uh it has to be kind of at a low point with heavy, heavy saturation, and I just don't see that in this area because you got a 4% grade, water's draining away, and so let's see what else I've got.

Uh and also southern Magnolias do well with having their can the canopies pruned back.

And I think I showed pictures in my report showing that there's already sprouting in from the interior of the canopy.

So it wouldn't be hard to go ahead and pull four feet in, there'd still be green then, and then as the construction happens, probably within six to twelve months, it would be kind of a wall of green.

Now there are other things that can happen, but the uh following that, like maybe they don't want a wall of green, maybe they want to see through the tree a little bit.

There's window techniques and things like that, but nothing that would really uh concern the health of the tree.

And I'm here for any other questions if you have any.

Great.

Thank you.

Appreciate your comments.

Okay.

Okay, so this is time for questions.

Yeah, questions for either the applicant or staff.

Anyone want to start?

I I we have questions about the tree, but I have no further questions.

No further questions.

I had one, that's okay.

Yeah, of course.

Maybe two.

Um, I guess a question for um for planner Ruiz.

And in light of the public comments we received, you know, I went more carefully through the findings um for the residential design criteria.

Um, and I noticed that uh the staff report and the resolution state that uh this meets guideline B1D, which is proposed building walls will be offset from existing walls at varying distances to help break up the building mass.

And I was hoping I see a lot of very flat walls, so I'm hoping you can show me where the walls are offset from the existing walls at varying distances.

I'm not sure I see that.

Sure.

So that's primarily at the front and to the street sides for those portions, uh, at least in terms of where the covered spaces are on the second floor.

Uh, where the roof line extends further out.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow that.

So we have existing walls, and then I mean you can see it on the design, it's basically a rectangle.

There's no insets and offsets on the first floor at all, nor on the second floor.

The second floor is offset from the first floor, but none of the floors have insets or offsets that I can see.

Maybe I misunderstood what you said.

So when the second floor is off, I guess my can you repeat the question?

So the second floor is offset from the first floor, I see that.

Yes.

But the first floor wall all the way around is an unbroken rectangle, and the second floor wall all the way around is an unbroken rectangle.

So where are the offsets from the existing walls at varying distances?

I don't see that.

So for my how I for that residential design guideline, it is whether it's comparing from where the existing base is to where that new proposed wall is.

So if the second floor is offset from the main primary base, that is how it's treated.

So there's a second guideline about upper story massing.

Guideline B1 doesn't say anything about upper story, lower story, it says building walls being offset.

But you're applying that to second floor versus first floor.

It's just a more general guideline in terms of it.

Because if there was no second floor, right, for that residential design guideline, how would they then offset off of the main facade aspects on the ground floor for the addition?

Right, which they're not doing here.

So basically you're you're allowing their second floor offset to qualify as their total offsets.

You're not requiring that the first floor actually have any offsets.

Guideline one B, or that is correct, right?

Yeah, but it's B1D.

Or B1D is for the general just having offsets, whether it's ground or upper.

Upper is then more specific that they're because some uh planning commission item could incur just only on the ground floor as previously noted, right?

And they could have varying offsets on that particular level.

Okay, I don't agree with that logic, but okay.

Um and then can you explain um whether you feel that this meets you didn't mention um the residential guideline for corner lots?

It's something not something that comes up very often here.

So I did notice that in fact the applicant c um correctly labeled the east face as a front facade.

It's not actually a side facade, it's also a front.

There's two front facades here.

Um but I didn't see that that residential design guideline is uh met in any way.

And you didn't mention it in the resolution, so I guess we're agreeing that it doesn't meet um A5 residential guideline about corner lots.

Should look also like a front facade.

The intent for the residential design guidelines is for it to be substantially in compliance.

If the majority of the compliance is there, some portions of it may not need to be met.

Um in terms of having one aspect of it for that facade to be met and contained.

If I could not make that finding for that portion, I could not able to do so.

Okay, thank you.

Do you have anything to add to that, Dr.

Demelo?

Or is that?

Um I'm not gonna dive into the particulars of each residential design guidelines.

There's a whole suite of them.

Not every one of them has to be met in its entirety.

It's a balancing that we look at whether to whether it's the design guidelines or finding B.

Um I think uh planner Ruiz explained it as as best as he could in terms of what is applied to this project, the attempts the applicant made to address as many of the guidelines as possible and the criteria.

Um while there are concerns that continue to be raised by whether it's the commission, whether it's the public, I think on balance at your May 5th meeting, there was a general acceptance that the design was a legislated issue.

Now folks can walk away from that meeting having a different perspective tonight, put it on the record, and you're putting it on the record.

Um if the um if the balance of the commission has a similar perspective, then that's what we're gonna be talking about.

But we walked away from that May 5th meeting, um, feeling fairly settled that the design issues had been exhaustively reviewed that night, and we transitioned to the issue of the tree and the protection of the tree, and was that tree adequately reviewed from design uh the first design and the second design, and whether the arbitrary report was adequately prepared to address the changes in the design.

Um that's why we're here tonight.

I think if the tree wasn't an issue on May 5th, I think there was a significant portion of the commission that was ready to approve the design of the project.

If you change your mind related to what you're reading tonight, or if you're taking a different look at the project, then we'd want to know about it.

Is this addressing the questions that we had?

Oh, I just asked if he had anything to add with regard to the explanation regarding the design criteria.

Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

I mean, yeah, I I would just say one.

I mean, we did not approve the project at the last meeting, so we're not bound by whatever kind of deliberations or or kind of conclusions we'd reached there.

It's it's it's it's a a new meeting and and it's before us again.

So we can certainly reconsider any aspect of the project.

So um but um thank you for the question.

Um, and I've given you probably some more color than you needed.

I could probably summarize when we're at that portion of the meeting.

Um, but there was a simple question answered, and I gave you more than you needed.

Okay, so I will repeat if needed when we get to that portion of the agenda.

Okay, so thank you.

Any say one more question or was that it?

That was it.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any any follow-up questions or additional questions?

No.

Okay.

So I think now we can open the public hearing, and we'll start first with um any comments in chambers.

Uh yes, we do have one speaker slip here uh for Peter Siegel.

You can come on up to the lectern, and you'll have three minutes.

Good evening.

Uh thank you for letting me speak.

And I want to quickly thank uh Jeremy Ruiz, who was very responsive to us.

We sent in a couple of emails with questions for him, and he was he was very helpful at the last minute and timely, so thanks to him.

Um, I question just about the color of the walls, the exterior walls are Arctic white.

And um, it just seems out of character uh with the remainder of the neighborhood of the rest of the neighborhoods, kind of stark and cold.

And I'm wondering how binding that would be if it's in the plan as you as you guys approve it.

Um I'm just putting in my request or preference for a warmer white, um, which is much more in tune and like the norm of the neighborhood, which is various kinds of lighter tints, um, and just would be I think more compatible with the neighborhood in general.

So that's um my only point.

Um and uh again, my question would be on top, you know, would also be how binding is the color if you if Arctic White is what it is written, thus it must be.

I mean, can that be changed by the homeowner if they so choose in the building process or what?

So um, I also want to thank the Yomower, uh Ms.

Zhao, who was very receptive to some of our comments.

And I am the next door neighbor, by the way.

I live at 1810 Robin Whipple Way, so very this project is intimately affects me and my house.

So that's all I have.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you for coming this evening and and submitting your comment.

Any additional speaker slips in chambers?

Um, no additional speaker slips in house.

And you raised hands on Zoom.

Um we do have one raised hand on Zoom.

This hand was raised towards the end of the last item, actually, after the public hearing.

So perhaps we'll see if they do uh want to speak on this item.

If they want to speak in this item, this is their time to do so.

Um, Mike, go ahead on Zoom, you'll have three minutes.

Uh can you hear me?

Yes.

Alright.

Uh actually we we lost the audio during the discussion around the process and then ultimately the vote on the.

So maybe we could come back to that one after this session and just get a recap.

I mean, I'd have her to stab.

Well, let's let's thank you.

Any any further comment um Mike?

No, not on not on this particular project.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Let's let's go ahead and wrap this issue up first.

Um any additional raised hands over Zoom?

No further hands on Zoom.

Okay.

And I do see we received some written comments um regarding this item, which have been printed and provided to the commission and are available presumably to the public.

Correct.

Any additional um written comments we received?

No other comments before the four o'clock deadline, just the comments you've received as part of your written packet before you tonight.

Great.

And again, those will be made available to the public.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I think at this point we can close the public hearing for item seven B, and we'll turn to Commissioner Deliberation.

Anyone like to start the process?

Me too.

I'm happy to.

Um I appreciate the new um addendum to the arbust report.

I thought it was very comprehensive and very clear.

And I know that a lot of the previous comments were from myself, so I did read it in detail.

I'd also note that it picks up on a lot of detail about the roots and the way that they're going to be affected during construction.

And I know that some of these recent comments that came through this afternoon were were commenting on that, and I think that that kind of nicely addresses those comments.

The my only slight thing is that I'm still a little bit troubled from our last title to this one about the process of things changing a lot during an application.

Like again with this one, and as we've discussed, um, I guess it kind of it's good that you can see change being made during the outreach process, but I guess it um kind of begs the question of the purpose of the outreach because it's not really to design by committee, but by the same token, people do want to be informed on what's actually going to be built.

So I wonder if I wonder if there's anything we can do actively to add a comment on how we might make that better.

Well, certainly duly noted for the previous item about how outreach was conducted between a project that was originally approved and a project that had an amendment that required for that project to come back to you.

Um thank you.

Um this project I would think might be slightly different in the fact that they conducted substantial community outreach, multiple iterations of the design, um, two hearings, comments received between a first hearing and a second hearing, um, related both to trees and architectural design.

So, sorry, Dr.

No, they they conduct outreach once on one design, just to be clear.

They didn't re-conduct outreach with neighbors on the on the second design.

It came to the planning commission with the new design, but there was no new outreach by the applicant with the new design.

Okay, great.

Um, I know Jeremy, can you recap what happened between the December outreach, and again, this may be my memory failing.

Um what was presented to neighbors between first design and the modified design?

Between the first design and the modified design.

Um the first design was and if I missed the nuance, I apologize.

But I know the neighbors have been intimately familiar and informed of this project.

So neighborhood outreach occurred on November 2025, in which case they held in-person meetings.

Um the intent of the said neighborhood outreach for that, they were comments regarding privacy, the initial design not meeting the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood, um, the the design being either too modern or too boxy, and then concerns regarding the protection of the southern magnolia tree.

Um, from there, um the applicant in and of itself revised uh their portions, um and then during the or prior to the May 2026 commission notification, um, the applicants took in those comments and then made some concessions to the neighbors in regards to locations of some accessory structures, such as the heat pump at that time.

Uh but if you're talking about the design from the November 20, 25th initial outreach, and then the one you're currently viewing in terms of the current iteration outside of the accessory structures, then not another second outreach occurred in an official capacity from the applicant.

The only individuals who be who would have reached out would have been reaching out either to the applicant or to myself in regards to any updates for those plans.

Okay, so appreciate that.

Um but the applicant was responsive to the issues that were brought up at the first outreach meeting.

Am I correct?

Uh that is I would say that they took in those comments from the original proposals.

This was again, for reiteration, the original uh design that was showcased to the neighbors on that November 2025.

If the screen's not up.

Yeah, I'm not trying to legislate this.

I'm just saying that the applicants took in feedback and they rolled that feedback into modifications to their project to address concerns.

And then they did hold a second outreach meeting.

So that would be my misstatement.

I guess it's a case of just capturing the issues being raised with the process because they took on board the feedback, but in to my mind it improved, but that's just my opinion.

And and what and how do we sort of take hold of what we're learning in these two discussions?

So that if you know it's kind of shaking the pieces, it might have been something that other people might have wanted to comment again.

Right.

So I think again, I think it it it describes the comments you've made tonight.

What is our outreach requirement?

And should an outreach meeting be conducted and comments received, and an applicant taking those comments to heart and then actually making changes to their design, are they required to conduct a second outreach meeting or send some sort of a notification to neighbors that we listened and we've made changes and we want to let you know that.

Is that part of these changes that we should be looking at for the city's outreach process?

All duly noted as part of tonight's meeting for both items.

So here where we are tonight, we have a second hearing, and it's a completely you know, it's a different hearing, it's a new hearing, and we acted upon the requests of the commission on May 5th as to what should be covered for this meeting.

But the design review is on the table and the tree removal permit, or the uh changes or the uh issues related to the Arbus report are part of tonight's meeting.

But they're slightly different.

One is sort of technical that we were concerned about the tree, and the other was kind of managing community expectations.

So if you had a letter in the mail and it you saw it looked a certain way and it was built, it looked completely different.

So I guess that's just sort of kind of informing and communicating and smoothing all those relationships and how we do it.

Yeah, it could be as simple as a sentence added of modest changes to the plans have been made, current current version and the plans can be found at, you know, and you you go to Montagov and you pull out the materials.

Sure.

Yeah.

All of it could be taken into account.

Absolutely.

Um I just like to point out that this situation's different than the last one.

Uh they were changing the design in response to community, right?

It wasn't self-driven and it's not bigger, it hasn't changed since it came in front of us, and we did have an opportunity to go out to the end.

It seems like the communities had a chance to look at it, and we've had a chance to review their comments on it.

Um, we've talked about the design extensively before, but you know, some of our community members did a lot of thought and research on this, and we've discussed it.

So uh I'm curious what our architects on the board feel about the Arctic White question.

But my my take on it is you can repaint your house any color you want unless it's historic and there's not much we can do about it.

So uh if you can convince your neighbor to not go Arctic White and go dove, wouldn't bother me, but I don't know.

That's it.

But aside from that, I can I can make the finds.

Right.

Yeah, I guess I'd like to point out that a lot of the changes that were made after the the neighbor meeting in November were just the neighbors pointing out that the design did not meet Belmont's stated criteria.

So of course it was gonna change.

If the neighbors hadn't told them that, Planet Ruiz would have told them that.

Not talking about the guidelines, but literally the criteria, right?

That an overhang originally and things that like literally would not be permitted.

So great.

They made changes in response to feedback as they would have had to anyway.

So, yes, I think it's great that they've been interacting with the neighbors.

I also note we have a public comment here though that at least some of the neighbors could not get back in touch with them uh again.

So, you know, a little bit a little bit mixed here.

Um I guess my feeling is uh I actually can't make the findings.

I I think I was pretty clear at the last meeting, Carlos, that I was quite unhappy with the design.

I didn't articulate it as well as I could have, but basically I can't find that it's uh in substantial compliance with the residential design guidelines.

I don't think B1D about the offset is met.

I think A um 4C about avoiding large flat walls was not met.

A5 AMB about corner lots was not met.

So it does meet some residential design um guidelines but um substantial compliance I I can't find thank you.

I'll go I'll chime in then please go the design is not my personal aesthetic I I can meet the findings I also can can make the findings um I I could make the findings last time and and I do appreciate the fact that um the applicant came back with the um the addendum to the um Arbor's report which I think addressed the concerns that were raised by uh the commission so I think that was um I think it was well done and I was in the minority to have them come back on this point and I think um I was wrong.

I think it was helpful to have the record uh um made clearer um that in fact um the tree could be preserved so I I appreciate my colleagues pointing that out and and um I think it's a better project because of it.

Um great so I think unless there's any further deliberation no okay I think it's the time we're one can make a motion if so inclined.

I'll do it.

Um I move to approve the single family design review at 1800 Rob Robin Whip away application number two zero two five-0053.

Great is there a second seconded.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded let's um let's take a vote please.

Okay Commissioner Adam Kevich Nay.

Hakahashi I.

Kramer?

I.

Chair Kulic?

Aye.

Twig?

Aye.

Jadala aye.

Okay um motion passes uh five one for eighteen hundred Robin Whipple single family design review.

Great okay thank you um congratulations on this item is appealable within uh 10 calendar days um okay so that we this concludes item 7b I think we do need address an issue with regard to item 7A.

So um maybe we ask our colleague to um step out again of the room.

Yes.

Just because you'd recuse yourself in the first instance and I think this is obviously um relevant to that issue.

Thank you.

And let's make sure the zoom call are still online hopefully they are yeah Mike are you still there?

Mike is still online.

Great okay.

So um Mike sorry I'll address you by your first name is that's all I know.

So we did we did take the item um there was there was a conversation and a discussion regarding process and there was a vote um that did approve the item I believe it was um 4-1 with a recusal um I the I certainly was not aware that the Zoom connectivity issues um began before we had taken the vote um I was not aware of that and so um the issue is that while Mike is here um the applicant is no longer here um and um I defer to staff as to what the uh best process here would is yeah we could probably use this as an opportunity to get back to Mike about what transpired tonight I mean the the commission approved the project and um while the applicant isn't here staff is available to provide comments and feedback to to you, Mike, about what transpired and what happened after tonight relative to the decision made and should there be concerns raised on your part about the action taken, there is an appeal opportunity as well so um I'm not sure if you had comments, Mike, or um or or concerns or uh was not in agreement with the project, but the project did receive its approval tonight.

Yeah, I mean I guess my concern is we've we closed the public hearing.

Correct.

And so I mean, I'm not super inclined to reopen the public hearing, especially give given the fact that the applicant is not present.

Correct.

So um so I don't know how we address um kind of Mike's comments um with having kind of closed the public hearing.

I would say the best staff can offer is we could follow up with Mike offline and we could I mean I'm not sure how else we would address this.

The commission took an action.

Do we know if we lost connectivity before we close the public was during deliberations or it was during elections?

'Cause if we didn't if the public didn't have a chance to comment, we might have to revisit it.

And that's that's a good point.

I don't know how to tell that though.

Yeah.

I'm not sure exactly when the connectivity happened.

Um I know that during the public hearing there was no hands raised, but I'm not sure exactly when it when they were not able to hear.

Well Mike had said it was it was during we were discussing process and before we took the vote was what I believe he said.

I see that.

So if it was during deliberations, then I think yeah then the public hearing was held.

Yeah, that's a good point.

Right.

So I I believe that that occurred after the public hearing was closed.

I guess we can ask him, I am I there's no real substantial harm in doing that.

Mike, what was the last um part of the the meeting that you heard?

Just so we can better understand uh what the issue is.

Is he unmuted?

Uh we we heard the we we could hear the public hearing and we didn't have any questions to raise at that time.

Okay, okay, good.

Okay.

We missed the we missed the pro we missed the discussion around the the process and the public notification.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's a really good point.

So okay, I think we're we're I think we're in good shape.

And I would Mike as as Director DeMello, I think, um expressed.

I think if you have any follow-up questions about kind of the details of the process based discussion, um I think you should get in touch with staff.

Um and they could walk you through um what we discussed.

Um is this are our Zoom are they recorded?

Do we have recordings of our Zoom meetings?

But the um the recordings on our website um covering the entire thing are recording.

Great.

So Mike and and yeah, so the that portion of the meeting will be available on our um on the website and um just uh you know quickly summarize again the the commission did approve the project for one with a recusal um so that the project was in fact uh approved and and um you should reach out to staff with any questions about the uh process discussion that we had.

And I think that's probably all we can really say at this point um on the item.

Great.

Thank you for letting us know, Mike.

That's that's that was um much appreciated.

Um okay.

So that concludes um item seven, our public hearings portion of the agenda.

Let's get Commissioner Jadala back in.

Oh yeah, let's do that.

Or drop-off of it.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we've included item seven.

Okay.

Um and uh we're on to item eight, which is other business and updates.

I'll turn to staff for that.

Yes, thank you, Chair Coolidge.

Um City Council adopted its budget, as you're aware at their last meeting a week ago.

So our fiscal year twenty six twenty-seven budget is done.

Again, appreciate your time on the item, the meeting before that, where you gave general plan consistency for the city's CIP program.

Um the safety element, final version safety element is gonna be going to the council for its review um and considered adoption next Tuesday.

So again, thank you to the commission for the good work that you did on June 2nd and the previous meeting that you had on that.

Um I think I gave you updates about a month ago on the development projects that are approaching completion.

Not much has changed other than like I said, they're uh tracking for fall and late fall completion for the two along El Community Real, the Rome project at North, and then the link project at the 900 block.

And then highly likely that the 678 Ralston Project uh will have all of its building permits issued uh by the end of this month, and then construction activities will start in the first two weeks of July.

So is that the project across from Chuck's Donuts?

Uh correct.

So next to Wendy's.

Next to Wendy's, correct.

Correct.

Triangulate the food uh spots.

I really like it.

Next to a dim sumplace.

So yeah.

You've got your food establishments.

Actually, nicely done.

Um so I think that's about it.

Um we appreciate your work on tonight tonight's meeting.

Uh I'm glad we had an interesting one tonight.

Nice to have these under our belt before I wrap it up in early September.

So in terms of your next meetings, we do have a fifth Tuesday in June, so two weeks from now will be June 30th.

And then your next meeting would be July 7th.

Um, right now we're tracking of not having any items ready for the commission, but we'll know by next week when public notices are due.

Um, and then thank you for folks that have responded to our email communication about your availability for upcoming meetings.

We appreciate that.

And then just kind of a final item uh if you're paying attention to the HIA specific plan, we're gonna have an update item that's trending for council review at one of their July meetings.

So stay tuned for further notification there.

It'll be a pretty comprehensive update uh that's gonna be um provided by uh Laura Russell, your incoming community development director.

And I think I'm gonna stop right there.

Um, sorry, HIA is harbor.

Yes.

What now?

What is HIA?

The harbor industrial area.

So the annexation, thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

So the long range plan that we're putting together for that uh for that area uh is trending for a fairly sizable update to be presented to the council at one of their meetings, the 14th or the 28th of July.

Um I think that's really about it.

Unless you have any questions for me about any projects, any you know things that are happening out there.

Um just wish you all well and uh again I love these meetings.

I'm gonna miss it a lot.

Great.

Um so I will not be here June 30th if in fact we go forward, just so you know.

You mean on July 7th?

If we go forward on June 30th, which you said is unlikely.

No, no, no.

We actually don't have a meeting.

No, that's a fifth Tuesday.

So I thought you said okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't, I guess I wasn't clear.

So your next meeting, your scheduled meeting is July 7th.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm available, yeah.

Yeah, great.

And we'll know by next week whether we have agenda items for public notes.

Or July 7th.

Okay.

Yeah, I misunderstood.

Thank you.

Yeah.

But that's it.

Again, nice to see you all.

Hope you're enjoying your summer so far, and um uh we'll see you at an upcoming meeting.

So great.

It's about 8 25.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.