[1:39] Sound check. Testing PC123.

[1:44] Sound check. Planning commission meeting.

[1:52] sound check.

[4:42] Good evening. It is 6:00 p.m. and I would like to call to order the regular

[4:46] meeting of August 26, 2026. Please join me for the pledge of

[4:51] allegiance.

[4:55] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[5:01] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[5:07] justice for all.

[5:12] » Staff, may we have the roll call, please?

[5:15] » Commissioner Chang, >> present.

[5:18] » Commissioner Chow, >> present.

[5:20] » Commissioner Giles, >> present. Vice Chair Batnes

[5:23] » present >> and Chair Mccay

[5:25] » present. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to

[5:30] each meeting at the following locations. San Marino City Hall, the Croll Public

[5:35] Library, and the Stonewin Building. The agenda is also posted on the city's

[5:39] website. The city welcomes public input. At this time, the public may address the

[5:44] planning commission on items that are not on the agenda. Pursuant to state

[5:48] law, the planning commission may not discuss or take action on issues that

[5:53] are not on the meeting agenda. To ensure that everyone, including those joining

[5:58] us remotely, are able to hear all speakers clearly, please speak directly

[6:02] into the microphone, please note that all comments are limited to 3 minutes

[6:07] and will be timed by city staff. And [snorts] I would now like to ask staff

[6:11] to explain how the public comment will work for those individuals who are

[6:15] participating via Zoom or phone. For each item on the agenda, there will

[6:21] be time for public comment. The city will accept comments in three ways.

[6:24] First, we will take in-person comments for each item. Please fill out a speaker

[6:28] card and turn it into me if you wish to speak on an item. There will be a

[6:31] countdown timer displayed to help speakers keep track of their remaining

[6:34] time to speak. Second, we will also accept comments from our Zoom

[6:37] participants. To give a public comment via Zoom, please utilize the raise hand

[6:40] function. When using this method, name yourself so that your first and last

[6:44] name are reflected for the record. If the comment is regarding a specific

[6:47] agenda item, please indicate which item. Comments will be accepted only until the

[6:51] end of the public comment period for that item. Staff will acknowledge

[6:55] individuals who have requested to make a comment at the appropriate time. Third,

[6:58] I will then state the amount of public comments we've received by email for a

[7:01] particular agenda item. Due to technical limitations associated with gathering,

[7:05] printing, and sorting emailed public comment, the city has instituted a 3pm

[7:09] cutoff the day of the meeting for emailed public comments. This is to

[7:12] ensure there is sufficient time to gather and provide the emailed comments

[7:14] to the planning commission. Any comments received after the 3 p.m. deadline will

[7:18] be included in the public comment record, but will not be provided to the

[7:21] planning commission during the meeting. Thank you. Is there anyone present here

[7:28] who wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? If so, please come

[7:32] forward. State your name and your city of record.

[7:36] And seeing none, staff, do we have any public comments that are submitted

[7:40] electronically? >> No, we do not.

[7:43] » Thank you. Moving on to the public hearing. Each commissioner has received

[7:47] plans and staff comments, reviewed every item on the agenda, and had the

[7:51] opportunity to visit each site. The general order for hearing each case

[7:56] tonight will be as follows. Staff will discuss the case and provide background

[8:00] information and a recommendation. Commissioners may ask questions of staff

[8:04] after the presentation. The applicant will then present their project if they

[8:09] desire to do so. The commission may take the opportunity to ask the applicant

[8:13] questions. The hearing will then open up for public comment from both in-person

[8:18] and teleconference participants. At the conclusion of public comment, the

[8:23] applicant will have a chance to respond to the public comments, at which time

[8:27] the public comment portion of the meeting will be closed. I will then ask

[8:31] for comments from each of the commissioners for discussion. I will ask

[8:35] my fellow commissioners not to repeat comments made by their fellow

[8:38] commissioners. Uh commissioners may then vote to approve, to deny, or to continue

[8:44] the project. In the event of a denial, it is hoped

[8:48] that the applicant will have heard the comments made during the public comment

[8:52] period and during deliberation that will be useful in resubmitting an

[8:56] application. It's also important to understand there's a 15-day appeal

[9:01] period after an action has been taken for the applicant or any interested

[9:05] party to request the city council to review and act on the case. So, we'll

[9:11] move to item number one on the agenda and staff. Who will be presenting item

[9:15] number one? >> This is assistant planner Aubrey Stark

[9:19] Miller speaking for the record and I will be presenting item number one. The

[9:23] applicant is proposing a 135 square ft pool house accessory structure with a

[9:29] bathroom in the rear yard of the residence at 1045 San Marino Drive. The

[9:33] addition of a bathroom to an accessory structure requires a conditional use

[9:37] permit. Staff has made all four findings for this project. Staff's recommendation

[9:42] is to approve the project. This concludes staff's report. Staff is

[9:46] available to answer any questions. The applicant is qu is present as well.

[9:50] » Thank you very much. Is there any commissioner who has a question for

[9:54] staff?

[9:59] » Yes.

[10:03] » I basically just want to follow up my email because I had uh communicated with

[10:08] staff ahead of time. I pointed out um a few things I think that should be

[10:13] corrected in for the record. Uh one is on page five. Uh staff noted in this in

[10:20] the original staff report. I don't know if uh staff had revised it or not that

[10:26] the zoning uh on page five it was uh noted as

[10:31] district six but it should be district two. Is that correct?

[10:36] » Yes, it is district two. Um, as noted in email correspondence, all of the

[10:40] documents, it's been note all the the changes have been noted. Um, and so the

[10:45] the documents that were released um online for the agenda remain as is, but

[10:50] all of the documents for >> um for the final record will be updated.

[10:55] » Right. If I may just want to go through these because I think uh if uh

[11:00] ultimately if a motion um the we'll make a motion I think it should be noted with

[11:06] the corrections and the page number nine the um in terms of squa uh it should be

[11:17] 15303 class 3 and staff had um um also

[11:24] reviewed that. And also on page 17, uh, same thing with SQA, that should be

[11:32] the same consistent um 15303 class 3 as opposed to 15301 class

[11:43] 3. So um that is just to um seek clarification. And I do have um one

[11:49] question. I'm not sure if this is a question. So um we were the commission

[11:55] was not granted access to um go to the backyard.

[12:01] So um so we were provided with photos which is very helpful but still you know

[12:08] it's we were not able to to really go there. I I I find it u of course uh I'm

[12:15] not able to really go to the property and understand the relationship of the

[12:21] proposed structure to the adjoining properties.

[12:25] um like the setback. Of course, we're going to rely rely on the plan which is

[12:32] um incompliant uh 12T side and rear setbacks and um also um is there a a

[12:42] certain distance that um from the structure proposed structure to the pool

[12:46] that should be kept for safety? Is there something like that?

[12:52] There is no uh zoning requirement. >> Uh in some cities they do have a

[13:00] specific uh setback between any structure or accessory structure to a

[13:05] pool but not in our city. So we rely on the building code. Um so this will uh

[13:10] like any other project have to go through plan check and it would have to

[13:14] comply with all of the building code requirements.

[13:17] » Okay. Uh in regards to the access to the property,

[13:22] um this actually has been discussed before both in planning commission and

[13:27] DRC. There is no requirement um to have access to the property. Obviously, we do

[13:33] our best to coordinate and uh I think all of you will attest that the majority

[13:39] of the uh 99 out of 100 times the applicant will provide access to the

[13:45] property. In this case, I'm not sure what the what the issue was. You can ask

[13:48] the applicant, but in terms of the ability to move forward, the commission

[13:54] has the ability to do so based on the plans. Um, obviously the pictures were

[13:58] helpful. Um but in in terms of a of access again it's not a requirement but

[14:07] obviously it's something that um this commission and all commissions prior

[14:12] like to do and we do our best to coordinate that effort.

[14:16] » Right. Thank you for that. And I I certainly understand it's not a

[14:19] requirement is also not legally required. But I certainly I just want to

[14:24] point out uh to to note [clears throat] that uh I was not able to visit the

[14:30] site. I like that to be on the record. So uh of course so I think I would just

[14:36] like to emphasize the importance that uh the staff um pay extra uh focus and uh

[14:45] goes with the applicant as well. just to make sure that everything follows the

[14:50] plans because that's all we have going on in order to form our opinions and in

[14:55] of course with staff's uh recommended findings. Thank you.

[15:03] » Okay. Does the applicant or the applicant's representative wish to

[15:07] comment on the proposal for a maximum of five minutes? If so, please come

[15:11] forward. State your name and address for the record.

[15:41] Uh

[15:45] uh we we will just uh build it uh swimming pool swimming pool house at the

[15:53] real yard. Uh we put this uh swimming pool uh house

[16:01] and uh inside have is a bathroom and the laundry room. Laundry room just for it's

[16:08] uh before this is a swimming pool is a living

[16:13] uh main house so far. So every time just uh after swimming pool a lot of water is

[16:20] coming to main house it's a flow. So I'm going to just think about a one that

[16:28] just make it a small one. Put it back maybe easy clear just

[16:41] » is that complete your presentation sir. >> Excuse me.

[16:44] » Uh were you were you finished or did you have

[16:45] » Yeah, I'm finished. Yeah. >> Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Um do any of

[16:49] the commissioners have a question for the applicant?

[16:54] Very well. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[16:57] » Okay. I'll now open up this item for public comment. Commissioner Chang.

[17:02] » Yeah. Um >> Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. [laughter]

[17:07] Um for public comment, does any member of the public wish to speak on this

[17:10] item? I'm sorry. If so, please state your name. Come forward. Seeing none,

[17:16] staff, do we have any public comment requests submitted electronically?

[17:19] » No, we do not. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so at this time

[17:23] I'll close public comment, bring the item back to the committee for

[17:26] discussion. Um, and I'll start with Commissioner Chang.

[17:29] » Yeah, I think the addition of the bath the restroom and I guess laundry room is

[17:36] pretty modest and um, given the

[17:42] sighting location, I can make the findings of of compatibility um,

[17:48] and the that there wouldn't be any detrimental

[17:53] effect uh to the development of nearby uses building and that the um proposed

[18:00] uh improvement would not um impact any uh traffic or uh that there's adequate

[18:10] u street that the sorry circulation right so I can make the findings and I

[18:17] support the project. Thank you. Uh, Vice Chair Batnes.

[18:22] » Uh, yes. Um, this it would have been nice to have been on the site, um, as

[18:26] was mentioned earlier, but, um, I part of the reason why it would have

[18:31] been so nice is that the the images online are four years dated. Um, so it's

[18:37] hard to know, but passing by I was able to see a little bit. Not much, but um,

[18:45] based on what I was able to see, I support the project. It seems very

[18:50] modest. Um, I can understand the need for this. Um given that that this ranch

[18:57] house is set uh set back far away from the pool and

[19:03] it it is a very uh uh a very small accessory structure and um there's

[19:10] adequate set setbacks. Um so that's all I have to say. I unless

[19:16] someone else uh has any um uh comments that might be uh maybe they know the

[19:23] house better or somehow know the um the the situation of this particular

[19:30] property better. Um I could support this.

[19:34] » Thank you, Commissioner Chow. >> Thank you, Chair. I can also support the

[19:39] project and um if we were to uh approve the project and I I do like to uh just

[19:46] add note the uh squa and zoning correction. That's all.

[19:52] » Thank you, Commissioner Giles. >> Uh sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[19:57] Um I think generally the project's fine. I have a couple of concerns. Um the

[20:03] plans we got had white out on the dimensions and if I look at the

[20:06] dimensions and I add the dimensions they're more than what is indicated on

[20:10] the plan which seems to me like we wouldn't meet the setback requirement on

[20:14] the on the rear yard. Uh I also noticed from the photos and from the aerial

[20:19] there's a very large planter uh just adjacent to the structure and

[20:24] it's never scale plans but it looks like this structure actually sits on the

[20:29] wall. Um which means if it had to move it wouldn't meet the sideyard setback.

[20:35] So I know I I reached out earlier and had some questions for for staff as

[20:40] well. Um, they said they've been working with the applicant on this to kind of

[20:43] get to a plan, but I I'm not confident that it fits and I don't know. There's

[20:51] not enough information on the plans to show me that it fits and when they

[20:56] actually go to construct it, it's going to be closer to the setback than what is

[21:01] indicated on the plan. So, could I ask you if because you

[21:06] didn't bring it up with the applicant, um, could I ask you if you know any

[21:10] questions toward the applicant would assuage any of your concerns or not?

[21:16] » I would just ask the I mean, I'm I generally I'm okay with it. It's not a

[21:20] huge structure. It's 135 feet. I understand the need. It more comes from

[21:26] if they build it and it doesn't comply. >> Uh, chair. So,

[21:32] » if I may also just make a a comment. I did I was also concerned um about the uh

[21:38] the plans having white out on them because

[21:42] uh you know we need to know what the actual um we need to make sure that the

[21:48] approved plans or plans need to if if the plans need to be changed or if they

[21:52] are approved that they have the correct numbers. I was assuming that the numbers

[21:57] that have been added uh as white out are correct, but I also couldn't quite tell.

[22:02] I tried to make a scale and I just was under the assumption that it did that it

[22:07] must fit because maybe my skill uh skills of making scale are not really

[22:14] perfect. But um I was also concerned about that. That's all I wanted to say.

[22:20] I just, you know, I mean, there's a there's a dimension on the existing plan

[22:24] of 10 foot to to basically the existing concrete line and then they've wided out

[22:29] and said it's 11 foot something. So that's actually moved it one foot closer

[22:34] back. >> Commissioner Giles, could you please

[22:36] state the um page of the plans for the record so that we have a clear

[22:41] » age A1 uh construction area plan?

[22:49] you happen to know. Um, I'm actually very happy that you brought this up

[22:53] because that is something I wanted to check but I got distracted checking

[22:58] everything else. So, in the PDF file, um, is it the same?

[23:06] Is it does it just say 12? >> I don't recall from the PDF file what it

[23:11] said. I was looking at the plans. >> Okay, just the plans.

[23:28] But mine is Oh, I see.

[23:33] And and then if you look at the point that the diminishion up here from the

[23:36] pool to to the >> I think in the future we should maybe

[23:41] perhaps direct some questions to >> applicant and staff when we've had that

[23:45] opportunity. So I would just ask director is it possible to um reopen the

[23:51] portion of the meeting where we can ask >> staff some questions about the

[23:55] » you can ask staff now the questions but if you want to re-engage with the

[23:58] applicant you would have to reopen the post. You did not want to re-engage with

[24:02] the applicant. Correct. I >> I'm more I'm more than happy to have a

[24:04] conversation with the applicant. I'm >> perhaps maybe it makes sense to speak

[24:07] with staff first and see what staff's understanding is of page A1 and the

[24:12] issues that are being brought um

[24:16] brought out right now. So, the required setback is 12 ft from the rear and side

[24:22] yard as shown um on the digital plans. the um if the project were to go through

[24:31] plan check, it would be required per a setback survey to confirm that it would

[24:37] meet those requirements. And as the director had mentioned, there is not a

[24:43] specific um requirement of a setback between the accessory structure and the

[24:49] swimming pool. So if it were to be the distance were be to revised between the

[24:55] swimming pool and the accessory structure um that would be done during

[24:59] plan check and the plans would be to ensure at the very minimum that the

[25:04] 12oot setback from the rear and sideyard would be met to meet zoning code.

[25:09] » And hearing that Commissioner Giles, does that assuage your concern?

[25:12] » Uh that's fine for me. I want to make sure that the owner is aware that

[25:16] potentially it could be closer to the pool than they're currently expecting.

[25:20] So, as long as they're okay, I'm okay. >> Um, can we open the public comment

[25:27] portion? I would like to. Yes. Um, we're going

[25:36] » we'll reopen the public hearing at this time and I'd like to ask the applicant

[25:39] to come forward if you would please, sir.

[25:49] Um sir, did you hear the comments that were made by my fellow commissioners?

[25:54] » Which one? >> Oh, Commissioner Jiles, could you

[25:56] please? >> So, on on the plans that we received,

[25:59] there were some dimensions for locating of the the the restroom and the laundry

[26:04] building. My concern is that those numbers are I'm not sure those numbers

[26:10] are 100%. >> Not true. It's very true. 100%.

[26:13] » So there is a potential per staff when >> you go to lay it out that the structure

[26:20] may move closer to the pool. Are you okay with that?

[26:23] » Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> Okay.

[26:25] » Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Are Commissioner Giles,

[26:30] are you satisfied with that? >> Can I bring up one other Can I guess

[26:35] » hope it's not going to >> No, does it doesn't impact um Yeah, I

[26:39] will ask the I will have the applicant come back. Kipper for one more question.

[26:43] » Sir, if you could come back. [laughter]

[26:48] » Um there there's nothing on the plans that they indicate um stucco and they

[26:55] indicate roof material. My understanding is that this has to match the existing

[26:59] house. So that the stucco, roof, windows, lighting should all match the

[27:07] existing house. >> Yeah. All is 100% match.

[27:11] » Okay. >> Yeah. All sty all this is lifestyle same

[27:15] one. >> Okay.

[27:16] » Yeah. >> I'm good. Thank you.

[27:18] » Thank you very much. >> Thank you sir. We'll close the public

[27:21] portion of the meeting again. I >> I believe those

[27:24] » was in >> Yeah. page 82 I believe has that

[27:27] information >> for the record.

[27:31] » Yeah. Um [clears throat] I I did see it there.

[27:35] Okay. So, we're bringing this back to the commission for discussion. Um,

[27:39] unless any of the other commissioners have any comments, um, I am able to make

[27:44] the findings for the conditional use permit, which are the unique findings

[27:49] set forth in the staff uh, report. So, is anybody prepared to

[27:55] make a motion? >> I'll make a motion.

[28:00] So I move to adopt resolution number PCR26-09

[28:07] approving conditional use permit number CUP25-07

[28:14] at 1045 San Marino Avenue uh with the corrections

[28:22] regarding SQA and zoning identified by staff.

[28:27] » I'll second the motion. Thank you very much. Staff, could we

[28:32] have a roll call, please? >> Commissioner Chang,

[28:35] » yes. >> Commissioner Chow,

[28:36] » yes. >> Commissioner Giles,

[28:38] » yes. >> Vice Chair Batnes,

[28:40] » yes. >> And Chair McKay,

[28:42] » yes. >> Motion carries 5-0.

[28:44] » Thank you very much. We'll move on to uh agenda item number

[28:50] two. And staff, who will be presenting agenda

[28:54] item number two?

[29:28] Thank you, Chair McKay. This is Assistant Planner Ariel Trong speaking

[29:32] for the record and for item number two. The applicant proposes facade changes

[29:38] and the construction of a new 820 square foot second story above the

[29:43] existing one-story home located at 1458 Hampton Road. Because the project

[29:50] involves the addition of a new second story to a one-story home as well as

[29:55] facade changes visible from the street. The project requires design review. The

[30:01] project also includes an interior remodel of the main residence, a new

[30:06] detached twocar garage, an attached onecar garage, a rear trellis,

[30:10] mechanical equipment, front and rear yard heartscape modifications,

[30:14] uh reconfiguration of the swimming pool, basement expansion, and the replacement

[30:20] of the roof. These components are not subject to design review and are

[30:25] therefore not within the planning commission's perview as part of this

[30:28] application. All four required design review findings

[30:32] apply to the new second story and the facade changes associated with the

[30:37] transition of the residence from the ranch architectural style to the minimal

[30:41] traditional architectural style. Uh as described in the staff report, staff

[30:46] made all four applicable findings for the project.

[30:51] Staff did receive one letter in opposition and one letter in support of

[30:55] the project. Both of which were included in the agenda packet. Staff subsequently

[31:00] received one additional letter of support which was placed on the dis for

[31:05] the commission's review. Staff's recommendation is to approve the

[31:10] project. This concludes staff's report. Staff is available to answer uh any

[31:15] commission members questions and the applicant uh is present as well. Thank

[31:19] you. Thank you very much. >> I also believe the letter that's on the

[31:23] dis was also emailed to the planning commission earlier today for the record.

[31:29] » Thank you, director. Does the applicant or the applicant's representative wish

[31:33] to comment? Pardon? Oh. Oh, yeah. Do we Does anybody have any questions for

[31:37] staff? >> Oh, okay. Commissioner Chow.

[31:42] » Okay. So, um same thing. I just want to follow up on make some clarification and

[31:49] would like to have that noted uh if we were to uh move forward. So I um I

[31:55] pointed out I see I saw a discrepancy um between the plans and the staff

[32:02] report of the the ridge height. So um in the PD in the staff report the ridge

[32:09] height was noted as 118 ft and 11 in. However, on the plan was noted uh I

[32:18] believe uh like an inch off. So um so staff had um note also made note of that

[32:27] reviewed and make that correction. So it should be 118 ft and 11 in. Is that

[32:32] correct? 118 and 11.

[32:37] So um for the record it would be 118 ft and 11 in for the existing ridge height

[32:45] per the datim um with the new proposed ridge height being 120 ft 3 in uh for

[32:52] the datim. >> Okay, thanks for your clarification.

[32:56] And um my next uh question is that let me just get my note. Uh I also

[33:03] emailed staff ahead of time because uh upon visiting the job site I noticed

[33:09] that the privacy screening uh vegetation is really not in the control of the

[33:16] applicant is all there's there's really nothing for privacy screening on the

[33:22] applicant's uh rear property line. So, it's all related. It's all on the the

[33:29] adjoining uh rear neighbors um property. So, uh, I asked staff and, uh,

[33:37] we can confirm with with the applicant again, but my question to staff is that,

[33:43] um, if the commission were inclined to add a condition for Evergreen um,

[33:51] privacy screening along the rear of the property. Does staff know that whe

[33:57] whether the applicant would be open to considering that?

[34:03] » Yes. So I did discuss um that particular concern with the applicant um and they

[34:09] are open to exploring that petition that potential uh condition of approval.

[34:15] » Thank you. And since it potentially could come up, um you can approve and

[34:23] make the finding for privacy if the landscaping if you feel that the

[34:28] landscaping is required and needs to be kept in perpetuity and include that as a

[34:32] condition of approval so that it carries with the property and not with the

[34:36] property owner. So therefore any any property owner that that uh carries out

[34:41] that property has to maintain that particular landscaping feature to uh

[34:46] conserve the privacy in order for you to make that finding. So I'm glad you

[34:50] brought that up because I've made that clarification before the planning

[34:53] commission and so it's it's a means that you have available.

[34:58] » Thank you. >> Thank you. Does any other questions for

[35:02] staff from the commissioners? Okay, seeing none, now does the

[35:10] applicant or the applicant's representative wish to comment on the

[35:12] proposal for a maximum of five minutes? Please come forward if so. State your

[35:17] name and address for the record. >> Good evening. I'm Steve Dah with Doll

[35:21] Architects. We're in South Pasadena, California, just adjacent. Uh we're the

[35:26] architects for the applicant. With me tonight is also Gavin Fitch, our project

[35:31] manager. He's got his laptop in case we need to check any full scale dimensions

[35:35] or anything. Uh representative the owner is Zint for the homeowner Celia who's

[35:40] out of town. And then there's a neighbor George. I'm sure he'll introduce himself

[35:44] later. Do you want to hand these out? We have some nice colored 3D renderings we

[35:49] want to hand out to you. It's always helpful. I know the drawings are tough

[35:52] for some people to visualize. We've got enough for staff, too. So, you can all

[35:56] use these as place mats later or something. um really helps to kind of

[36:00] visualize what we're proposing. Um we love this street and uh we we have also

[36:07] uh looked at all the letters uh both in support and concern from the neighbors.

[36:13] So what you have in front of you is is really uh a proposed one-story home or

[36:19] let's call it story and a half. It's a one-story looking home with some dormer

[36:23] windows on the front. So, uh, right across the street is an existing home

[36:27] with the dormer windows you guys went to the site and saw. And then in the legal

[36:31] neighborhood, there's several other two-story homes. So, we want to make

[36:35] sure we're compatible with the neighborhood and everything blends in.

[36:38] Um, there's some other great improvements on this project. Um, thank

[36:43] you to Ariel, uh, who has been very tough and we've worked out a lot of

[36:46] details so you don't have to tonight. Um, for instance, there was way too much

[36:51] uh hard uh escape uh paving in the front yard from previous owners. So, we're

[36:55] going to get rid of that and have a lot more landscaping. And um uh Commissioner

[37:00] Chow, for one of your concerns earlier in the landscaping, isn't it great that

[37:04] the neighbor to the rear has all that landscaping? But if you look at the

[37:08] packet sheet 35 of 119, quite a packet or our sheet A-1c,

[37:16] you'll see that we are proposing landscaping in the rear just for what

[37:19] you've asked about. So um Ariel uh in anticipation of that to to do the right

[37:25] thing and provide privacy has already had us put that into the set. So thank

[37:30] you for bringing that up. It's great that we have kind of a belt and

[37:33] suspender system. We'll have landscaping of the neighbors and also in our yard

[37:36] both. So something will will remain uh for per perpetuity as as your planning

[37:42] director mentioned. So we have good privacy between um uh this is a great

[37:47] design and and you can see the renderings how everything blends in. Uh

[37:51] by removing part of the existing rear of the home and also the garage and then

[37:56] consolidating with the home itself, you have more open space, more landscape

[38:00] available around. Um, there was another commissioner that that brought up

[38:05] earlier, I think, to staff today, uh, wondering about the garage situation.

[38:10] And by, uh, removing one of the threecar garages on the detached garage and

[38:15] attaching it into the home, again, we're opening up the site. And we're also for

[38:20] the homeowner concern, if she comes home late at night, she can drive in, close

[38:25] the garage door, and be within the home for complete security. We have other

[38:28] clients up in Sierra that have bears. We don't have bears here, but you just for

[38:33] her safe uh uh peace of mind, that's why one of the garages is now part of the

[38:38] home. And so that's actually um taking remodeling some of the existing home. Um

[38:44] Gavin, is there anything you wanted to add within our five minutes or Zenta? I

[38:49] welcome and and of course we want to uh answer any questions you might have as

[38:53] well. >> Has nothing. Zint, do you have anything?

[38:58] Okay. Did you want to? No, we're good. So, if

[39:01] you have any questions, we're here to answer those.

[39:04] » Thank you very much. Do any of the commissioners have questions for the

[39:07] applicant's representative? >> Yes.

[39:09] » Commissioner Giles. >> Um, so you noted you're demolishing the

[39:15] garage. Found it odd, but that's your choice. Um, and you you talk about

[39:19] landscaping and yet, um, just noting that you're putting back an awful lot of

[39:24] concrete in the back. So, you're not actually gaining that much landscaping.

[39:27] You're getting a lot of heartscape. Um wondering why I'm struggling with the

[39:34] new massing. Um I visited the property. I did not get make it to the rear of the

[39:38] property. I drove the neighborhood a couple of times. Um I'm struggling with

[39:44] the massing. I'm struggling in the changes to the roof. Um particularly the

[39:49] fact that almost all the homes on this side of the street um and pretty much

[39:54] the other sides except for I'm not counting the twotory one across the

[39:57] street because I don't think it's a great example. Um most of them have

[40:00] hipped roofs um all the way around and you've stuck a

[40:06] very two large very large gables that are now 8 and 12 versus kind of six and

[40:10] 12. I'm just wondering if if you looked at at keeping the hip nature because

[40:15] most of the homes in the in the neighborhood all have hip roofs. Not

[40:18] there's I think the one at Houston has a gable. I think the one down on

[40:24] Monterey has a gable. Maybe a few other ones, but those also tend to be very low

[40:28] gables versus these at 8 and 12 are suddenly a lot more prominent.

[40:34] » That that's a very good question. Um the existing home does have the um hip

[40:39] instead of the gable. And then again working with aerial and on the style

[40:43] change from ranch to the min minimal traditional. The minimal traditional has

[40:48] more of the gables than the the hip. And so and per the San Marino design review

[40:53] code, you really need to stick to the exact kind of constraints of those

[40:58] different styles. But it it's just kind of a fluke in the code. I kind of agree

[41:03] with you that that maybe the hips could could lower the the sense of this and so

[41:08] I'm sure that that we could be open to that. We're just trying to stick to the

[41:11] letter of the law with the design review. Interesting, isn't that?

[41:16] » Um okay. Um the other thing that I noticed and it it shows up a little bit

[41:20] in this rendering and it actually showed up in some of the isometrics is and and

[41:26] I asked staff earlier about story pulling the chimney. Um, right now the

[41:31] chimney is fairly low, has a pretty good proportion to it. Uh, you're proposing a

[41:37] new fire, a brand new fireplace if I'm correct for this. So,

[41:42] I'm not sure code is that allowed to be wood burning or even gas or is it going

[41:46] to be electric? >> These days in the state of California,

[41:49] unless you're rebuilding Aladena, which we're doing homes for, um, you cannot do

[41:54] a wood burning stove inside a home. >> Right. So, I'm that I can't remember

[41:59] what the height of that chimney is. >> And you'll see on sheet A-4B,

[42:04] uh there's a side elevation, and it shows the chimney is 2 feet above the

[42:08] closest roof. Uh by building code, a chimney is supposed to be 2 feet above

[42:13] any roof within 10 ft. But as you said, without the wood burning, that's kind of

[42:17] a moot point. Uh so, this is showing a traditional fireplace, but it can't be

[42:23] wood burning. So it could be lowered because it's not wood burning.

[42:26] » Yeah. And so what led me is is there's got to be if you're gonna be

[42:31] » gas log. It's all sealed boxes these days. So sad to get in.

[42:36] » So my only concern was if it was going to be actually this tall, there's going

[42:39] to be some sort of bracing, some sort of detail that actually supports that

[42:43] fireplace if it is truly that tall or does it get lowered because it doesn't

[42:48] need to be 2 and 10? It's something something to to look at. And then um I'm

[42:55] struggling with the the dormers a little bit and I don't know if there was during

[42:59] the process did you look at a condition um where it it seems um and I need to

[43:07] not let my training get in the way but it seems like you could have fit

[43:11] everything under the front roof without having the dormers. Um

[43:16] » well no the the main reason for the dormers and you'll see that in the

[43:20] section um and we have uh two sections A and B

[43:25] » on sheet A-4D uh the stairwell um is in the southern

[43:32] dormer and we there's no way to get the head height we need to to have that uh

[43:37] without that front dormer and so that's why and as you see also in the section

[43:42] the the bedrooms we've shifted to the rear so the main mass passing is to the

[43:46] rear to lessen to the front. So, it's not the bedrooms, but it's the

[43:49] stairwell. >> So, the stairwell, yes, I understand

[43:52] that. But the the closet, >> you could you've got plenty of room to

[43:56] to do a >> So, we we were going for the the

[43:59] cemetery on the front with the two dormers. Uh we tried say a single one,

[44:03] it just uh although there is across the street, but you said it's not a great

[44:07] example across the street with a single dormer.

[44:11] Okay. So,

[44:21] I have a question. Oh, >> um, so following on Commissioner

[44:25] Giles's, uh, comment about the dormers, um,

[44:29] I also have a concern on that. So, you're going for a minimal traditional

[44:33] architectural style, but wouldn't you agree that dormers are rarely included

[44:38] in the minimal traditional? >> No, I would not agree.

[44:42] » You would not agree. No. >> Okay.

[44:47] Any other questions for the applicants representative?

[44:53] » I guess I do have a question. Um, so I also uh wrote uh to the staff earlier

[44:59] today about the um dormer size um because I'm concerned that it is that

[45:06] they are um well my question was about measurements

[45:11] and how much they the size of the dormers and how much they project out

[45:16] and how just basically the sizes and because they're I couldn't tell exactly

[45:21] how much they projected out. There are some measurements that are useful that

[45:26] gave me some sense of the size but I wasn't able to really understand exactly

[45:31] and visually from the um from the um

[45:38] pictures like this that we received um they do seem to be more prominent than

[45:44] some of the others um that I've seen but it's difficult to tell and looking at

[45:50] the fact that the two dormers existing one of the dormers is for a walk-in

[45:55] closet which obviously can be modified. Um, and the other one is for the stair

[46:00] stairwell. Um, I understand that stairwells it's pleasant for them to be

[46:06] sizable and have adequate room for for for

[46:11] its purposed, but it does seem like those could be

[46:17] uh made um a little bit smaller and that that might help this um quite a bit. I

[46:25] also um that that's really the comment. I'm

[46:30] would like to ask you if there are really any real obstacles to reducing

[46:36] the dormer for the stairwell because you have it now um like in the width I think

[46:42] you have I believe I wrote it down earlier but um I think it's

[46:48] um 8 feet wide. Is that right? I don't I wish

[46:54] » I can I can find my notes, but it seemed like there was room for that to be

[46:59] smaller both in depth and in width. So, the stairwell on the inside is 7

[47:08] foot n so that we have about 3'6 or so on both sides and then the center um

[47:15] portion and the railing. So, it's it's already pretty minimal. Um, and for

[47:20] people in furniture, that's the only way to get up and down. So, it Yeah. Right.

[47:26] I mean, I think I think code is is 3 ft, but I understand that we're looking for

[47:32] a comfortable situation. I'm just um asking also in terms of the depth

[47:38] perhaps with the number of stairs that you have, which I counted and kind of

[47:43] was um trying to figure out how much room that would take. It seemed like

[47:47] there was some leeway for that to result in a smaller dormer. And I'm asking you

[47:54] if you uh looked into that and the possibility of trying to make those

[48:00] dormers um smaller in whatever way

[48:08] » for for the stale for the stairwell in particular because obviously the walk-in

[48:12] closet is a more flexible situation.

[48:16] » It's a good question and and let's go look at sheet A-4D.

[48:21] Uh there's two sections A and B. And so in the bottom of the sheet is section B,

[48:27] and that cuts um right through the stairwell that goes up through the

[48:30] dormer. And and we've just reduced it down in every direction.

[48:35] » What page are you on? >> Um sheet A-4D.

[48:38] So in your packet, that's page 49 of 119 or sheet A4- D. D is in David.

[48:48] I was referring to A-3B for my

[49:00] Yes, that's that's a uh second floor floor plan. And what I'm referring to on

[49:05] the other sheet is a section through that stair um that that shows how it

[49:11] works also. But yeah, both are irrelevant. So on sheet A4-D

[49:16] you'll see the head height uh clearance is right at the hallway. Uh we've done

[49:21] the maximum number of stairs. I mean it it's it's very tight. I

[49:27] » I mean again like you know you have hallway and walk-in closet that are

[49:34] adjacent to those stairs. So, I'm would like to ask if there is some

[49:41] way to adjust those those. The hallway doesn't can't shrink.

[49:48] The walk-in closet, of course, is is flexible, obviously. I can't uh uh put

[49:54] my foot down on that. >> Okay. Thank you.

[50:00] » Commissioner uh Giles brought up an interesting thought about gables versus

[50:04] hips. um about the two main uh roof lines. If those two dormers were hipped

[50:10] instead of gabled, it could really reduce the massing. It gets down to the

[50:14] design review guidelines, but those are interpretive. We tried to stick to the

[50:18] letter law and do dormers, but um gables, but if those were hip, that

[50:22] could make a big difference. Just saying. Try to be helpful here.

[50:26] » Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you.

[50:29] » Do any other commissioners have any questions for the applicant's

[50:32] representative? Yes, I have um a follow-up question and

[50:37] also um a new question. So um I think that uh do you currently have two AC

[50:44] units or HVAC units along the property line?

[50:50] » The the existing home right now? >> Yes.

[50:53] » I I I'm not sure. >> There are two.

[50:55] » There are two. Yes. >> Okay. And but uh you're proposing

[50:58] eventually you only have one unit >> or do you still have two?

[51:04] » Just showing one the the [clears throat] upstairs minimal could be a separate

[51:06] zone on the one system. >> Okay. Because uh in the staff report and

[51:11] also on the plans there one shows one one shows two. I just want to make sure.

[51:16] So >> okay thank you. So just one um

[51:19] ultimately. So I do want to get back to uh finding number two which is the um

[51:26] because the other ones my fellow commission commissioners had had

[51:32] conversation with your discussion. I do want to get back to the the privacy

[51:36] which is uh finding number two um the proposed structures designed with

[51:41] development with manner of balance of reasonable exploitation of privacy. So

[51:46] the the the two items or the two um contributors so to speak in this one is

[51:53] the okay >> 50 ft for so I think that separation the

[51:58] distance it's it's one factor uh yes we can consider that as a pro uh privacy um

[52:06] factor is it far enough so but in in the meantime like I pointed out before the

[52:13] um the distance separation alone phone doesn't really um mean that it's it's a

[52:19] guarantee of privacy. The other factor is the landscaping. So you um you said

[52:25] that you actually have a landscaping plans installed. Uh if I look at your

[52:30] photo, can you just can you just um describe a little bit of what you're

[52:36] proposing in? >> Yes. If you look at sheet A-1C,

[52:41] we're showing and and specifying what the tree planting schedule is. There'll

[52:45] be 1 2 3 4 five six uh trees put in. Um and it specified the trees on there.

[52:54] It's a dwarf. Um and boy, this is a great Latin name.

[53:00] » Arborvite. Thank you. And mature height is 18 feet and the drip line radius is 7

[53:06] feet. And this is a privacy tree uh blocking adding to the the the neighbors

[53:12] privacy screen is already completely adequate. So this is in addition to

[53:15] that. So we have on both sides of the fence.

[53:18] » So these proposed trees are they between are they just lined up in the along the

[53:25] rear property and between the pool and the wall.

[53:28] » Correct. >> And there is no issue planting them.

[53:31] They they will do well. >> Yes.

[53:32] » In your estimation? >> Yes.

[53:34] » Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> Are there any other questions for the

[53:40] applicants representative? >> Uh yes, I have. Chair,

[53:43] » vice chair. >> Thank you. Um I'd also like to ask about

[53:46] the um the roof. Um I noticed in the plans

[53:52] it's perhaps a discrepancy, but perhaps it is correct. And I just want to

[53:55] understand in many areas it's listed as that the proposed roofing material is

[54:00] seed cedar um simulated shake but then um in another place it says

[54:10] um lightweight concrete tiles and it it says seedor to match existing as if

[54:16] there's already seedor. It's confusing and I just wanted to ask about the

[54:20] roofing material that's proposed for the entire structure.

[54:24] Are we able to match the existing roofing?

[54:27] » Yes. So, uh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah, [laughter]

[54:32] » he's gonna speak into the microphone. >> Sorry.

[54:35] » And identify yourself. >> Hello, my name is Gavin Fitch. I work

[54:38] with Doll Architects. I'm the project manager for this property. Um, so for

[54:44] the architectural sheet, A-4E has the full list of materials shown.

[54:51] Um, and then item number D on that list calls out the proposed roofing material,

[54:58] which is the Cedar Walden synthetic roofing product, which is a pre-approved

[55:03] San Marino roofing material. And, uh, the color of choice for that product is

[55:07] Walden. um for the existing roof material. Um

[55:13] some portions of it are that which is why we are our goal is to take the

[55:18] existing material and match it with the new ones because there is technically

[55:23] more overall roof material uh we would like to take the existing and then blend

[55:28] that with the new for the proposed overall because we want to maintain what

[55:34] there is for the roof material. So wait, the existing roof material is there's no

[55:39] cedar on it, is there? >> There's a little bit of it. It It's a

[55:44] hodge podge roof. >> Okay. So the proposal is to do the

[55:50] entire house in seedor. In other words, keep what seedor is there in Walden

[55:55] color. >> That is correct. And then

[55:57] » to take that around to the whole house. >> That is correct.

[56:01] » Okay. There's another I realize now why I was so confused. Like on a-4a

[56:08] it says seedor to match existing in Shiloh.

[56:14] » That is a discrepancy. Shiloh is just a different color of cedar.

[56:18] » Okay. So >> that is a discrepancy.

[56:19] » Are we going to >> fix that? Yes.

[56:23] » Okay. So that was just a mistake or it's that there is also cedor in Shiloh

[56:28] existing on the house? >> No. The correct color is Walden.

[56:32] » Okay. So what is there right now? The seedor the parts of the roof that are

[56:37] seedor are Walden. >> Correct.

[56:40] » Okay. So there is no Shiloh. You'll just correct that can be noted and corrected.

[56:46] » Yes. That is a discrepancy. >> Okay. Thank you.

[56:51] » I have a question. >> Commissioner JS.

[56:54] » Um if I read this plan you're changing

[56:58] » Commissioner J. Can you speaking? All right.

[57:01] » If I look at sheet A3 C, you are changing every single roof pitch

[57:08] on this house from 6 and 12 to 8 and 12. What existing roof is going to remain?

[57:14] » It's not the existing roof to remain. We're going to be preserving the roofing

[57:18] material. >> So, you're going to take the roofing

[57:19] material off, save it, reapply it. >> That is correct.

[57:23] » Interesting. Thank you. So just to

[57:29] I understand completely. So ultimately all the roofing material will be the

[57:35] same or be consistent. >> That is the goal. Yes. It's stay

[57:38] consistent. >> When you say that's the goal, it it's

[57:41] just like is it going to be? >> Yes.

[57:44] » Okay. >> When the roofing tiles are removed,

[57:47] contractors tell us generally there's a percentage that are damaged that cannot

[57:50] be preserved. >> Okay. But our goal is to preserve as

[57:54] many as we can and use those as the primary material. And then for any that

[57:59] we don't have left to cover the rest of the roof, those will be new.

[58:05] » I have one more comment. >> Commissioner J. If we approve it, I want

[58:11] to make sure that you are aware that the shed roof is 1 and a half to 12 and 1

[58:19] and a half to 12 for this material requires an underllayment. So I don't

[58:25] want to see come back and see a rolled roof because you didn't want to go

[58:31] through the effort of basically the cedar only being a decorative element at

[58:35] that point. So >> yes, and that's going to be part of our

[58:38] submittal to the building department showing the waterproofing and showing

[58:42] all the correct materials as will be required to ensure the house doesn't

[58:46] have leaks because you're correct at that roof slope it would be decorative

[58:51] but we also want the roof to be homogeneous in material and we don't

[58:55] want it to be patched work which is why we're showing it even though you are

[58:59] correct it will be decorative. >> Okay. Thank you.

[59:03] » Thank you. Any further questions for the applicants representatives?

[59:09] All right. Thank you very much.

[59:14] » I'll now open up the item for public comment. Does any member of the public

[59:19] here wish to speak on this item? If so, please come forward and state your name

[59:24] and address for the record. And you have three minutes.

[59:27] » Okay. Uh, my name is George Fu. I live at 1474 Hampton Road. So my home is the

[59:35] one right next to 1458. So when Mrs. Sun uh first moved into the

[59:43] neighborhood, I had the opportunity to meet her as well as her brother uh uh

[59:50] Shin Tao. And since then, I've had several discussions with them. And it

[59:56] was clear that uh there was a lot of work to be done. And that pretty much

[1:00:01] confirmed my suspicions because just in looking at the exterior, uh, I could

[1:00:08] tell that there was very little maintenance done by the previous owner.

[1:00:12] Very nice people, but they just didn't spend the money. And in talking to uh,

[1:00:18] Cinta, it was clear to me that Mrs. Sun was prepared to uh, commit significant

[1:00:25] resources to uh, get the job done. And that was confirmed when I saw the plans

[1:00:31] two months ago. And um I found the design beautiful,

[1:00:37] classical, and matching the character of San Marino and the H and the Hampton

[1:00:43] Road block. I like the fact that in designing the

[1:00:48] house, they designed it for the minimal height

[1:00:52] so that what you don't have is a huge McMansion that overwhelms

[1:00:58] uh the property. Uh the other thing that mo me and my

[1:01:04] wife were concerned about when we first heard about the twostory thing was

[1:01:10] privacy. The distance between our two properties is only 20 ft and our master

[1:01:18] bedroom and master bathroom faces that side of the house.

[1:01:24] So there was a concern but then when we looked at the design uh we were pleased

[1:01:29] to see that there were no windows being added to the second floor facing our

[1:01:34] home or the home on the other side the other neighbor that all the windows were

[1:01:40] either front or back facing. So that relieved our concerns and uh we were

[1:01:45] pleased with that. And then the other thing we really liked was um even though

[1:01:51] now I'm only concerned about the front yard, not the backyard. I like the idea

[1:01:57] that they were removing concrete and replacing it with green space. Uh, as I

[1:02:02] recall, the previous neighbor used to uh uh uh they must have expanded the the

[1:02:10] concrete in the front of the house cuz they were certainly parking their cars

[1:02:14] there and it it just didn't look right. So, I was pleased to see that. So,

[1:02:19] needless to say, I support the plan. I think uh it's a beautiful and classical

[1:02:25] design and I thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Fu.

[1:02:33] Seeing no other members of the public here, staff, do we have any public

[1:02:38] comment requests submitted electronically?

[1:02:40] » No, we did not. >> Thank you.

[1:02:43] At this time, I'll close the public comments and bring the item back to the

[1:02:46] committee for discussion. Um, and I will start with Commissioner

[1:02:51] Chow.

[1:02:54] » Thank you, Chair. Um, I think I can support this project. I do I can make

[1:03:00] the findings of all four. I did hear some reservations, some comments from um

[1:03:09] two commissioners and uh I definitely uh I'm open to further discussion

[1:03:17] um of course but at this point I think um with some conditions perhaps uh even

[1:03:24] that the applicant uh had addressed uh in the plan pointed out the uh privacy

[1:03:31] the um vegetation for screening purposes and I would still like to potentially

[1:03:38] condition that. Other than that, that's um that's my comment.

[1:03:43] » Thank you, Commissioner Giles. >> Um

[1:03:50] I'm struggling. Um I'm I'm not sure uh the roof tile is going to match. Having

[1:03:58] done this on my house and tried to match roof tile with cedar light at the time

[1:04:05] there there is a color change. Um so with what's been on the roof and

[1:04:11] weathered versus what's new. Um so just that's just a little bit. I I I think

[1:04:17] they can mitigate that depending on if they put all the new up front and they

[1:04:21] leave the old at the back. Um

[1:04:26] I don't I can make the findings. I I I would kind of like to see if there was

[1:04:32] an opportunity to look at the hip solutions and and and

[1:04:37] maybe look at seeing what we can do about the dormers.

[1:04:43] » Thank you, Commissioner Chang. Um, [clears throat] for the most part,

[1:04:49] I'm I'm comfortable with and and can make the findings for the design review

[1:04:56] of of both elements of the second story edition as well as the changes to

[1:05:00] facade. Um, I agree with some of the comments that um,

[1:05:06] uh, Commissioner Chow made. Um, so I think uh, you know, with those

[1:05:11] conditions, I I'd be able to approve the project. Thank you.

[1:05:14] » Thank you. Vice Chair Batnes. >> Uh yes. Um I I I think I'm uh that I'm

[1:05:22] not the only commissioner who's concerned about the dormers. Um I think

[1:05:26] that when we call something a minimal traditional, there are no projections or

[1:05:31] or dormers on minimal traditional styles. I mean, I I'm I I think that

[1:05:37] this isn't really a minimal traditional house, but I uh you know, redesign, but

[1:05:42] I I think that it's um has been done very thoughtfully um in

[1:05:49] many ways and I think that the dormers while not being minimal traditional are

[1:05:57] are not um are not out of the question. Somehow the style um

[1:06:04] isn't inconsistent with itself. Um, I am concerned though with the size of them

[1:06:09] and I would like to see them uh just rejigged a little bit to

[1:06:16] uh project out a little less from the structure because I think that that's

[1:06:21] the only thing that is really taking away from from the style. Yeah. Um maybe

[1:06:27] the hipped hipped uh dormer might be um might be a better choice. Um that's up

[1:06:37] to the architect to figure out if if we ask for that to be uh redone perhaps

[1:06:43] just some uh small measurements being um you know some small changes um to reduce

[1:06:51] the size of them. Um even even a small smallalish change could make a really

[1:06:57] big difference in the look of these dormers I think on this uh house. So, I

[1:07:02] would like to see that. I would also I also agree that the chimney is too high

[1:07:07] um for the scale of the house. And um if it's possible, I would like to see that

[1:07:12] reduced in size. And from what I'm understanding from the applicant, it uh

[1:07:16] that's a possibility given that it's I believe not possible to have it be a

[1:07:20] wood burning house. So, it seems that there is a there are some ways that that

[1:07:25] the dormers could be um reduced in size um to be more appropriate for this

[1:07:31] house. And I I hope that we um will ask that they be um uh redesigned. And other

[1:07:40] than that, um I think the privacy issues seem to be um have done have I think I

[1:07:47] can make the findings for privacy. Um I think though that the dormers will

[1:07:52] reducing the dormers will help to reduce the visual bulk and um even manage the

[1:07:57] roof drainage maybe better. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I think in terms of the

[1:08:04] findings I I could make the privacy finding with um um with a condition

[1:08:11] relating to um um m maintenance of the new landscaping in the back. And as the

[1:08:19] director indicated, it could be in perpetuity. I do want to perhaps have a

[1:08:24] little bit of a further discussion amongst the commission because I am

[1:08:28] concerned about um finding number one and I am concerned about the comments

[1:08:34] that were made by the neighbor in the legal neighborhood on Wembley who was

[1:08:40] mentioning that um or I think it was no. Yeah, on Wembley um who was mentioning

[1:08:46] that uh there is not another um seconds story property on Hampton other

[1:08:54] than the one across the street which I do I think we can all agree is not an

[1:08:58] exemplar um and really appears to have a popup um addition on it which would

[1:09:04] never be approved um with today's design review guidelines. And I'm my concerns

[1:09:09] are, you know, [sighs and gasps]

[1:09:12] that there is a clear um um precedent in that legal neighborhood.

[1:09:21] And um

[1:09:25] you know, as it says on on page 16 of the design review guidelines, the

[1:09:29] stronger the established pattern, the more important it is to maintain the

[1:09:33] character of the neighborhood by respecting those patterns. And so I want

[1:09:36] to get the thoughts of my fellow commissioners as to whether the massing

[1:09:42] of this project uh makes the project um incompatible with the legal neighborhood

[1:09:48] because we have a very unlike many streets in San Marino. This is indeed um

[1:09:57] a very wellestablished pattern. um you know other than that house across the

[1:10:03] street um I don't think that dormers you know they're very rarely used with

[1:10:08] minimal traditional architecture so you know maybe the issue is the nomenclature

[1:10:14] maybe this you know in my humble opinion I don't know that it's necessarily um

[1:10:20] minimal traditional um I do have issue with the size of the dormers whether we

[1:10:26] agree they're included in a minimal traditional architecture or Not. Um

[1:10:32] and then um

[1:10:44] is any I I want to get the thoughts on my of my fellow commissioners. Um, we

[1:10:50] have this this um rendering for the front and I do appreciate that the

[1:10:56] project has thoughtfully pushed the massing toward the back where

[1:11:00] it's not going to be seen from the street and yet does the does the does

[1:11:05] the um addition on the back concern anybody in terms of

[1:11:10] compatibility with itself which is another finding we have to

[1:11:15] make. So those are my thoughts. I am concerned a little bit about that. Oh,

[1:11:19] finally um the and I thank my fellow commissioners for their question

[1:11:24] that were very apppropo on the roof. I would like to see um a very clear

[1:11:34] description of exactly what is going to be done with the roof, how it's going to

[1:11:38] be done as opposed, you know, I I I it might be worth a continuence just for

[1:11:42] that. I mean, I have other concerns. Maybe I'm outnumbered by the commission,

[1:11:46] but I'm not comfortable with the plans as they are right now in terms of how

[1:11:50] the roof is described. So, does anybody else have any similar concerns or not?

[1:11:56] » When you say the roof, are you talking about the material? Yeah, I mean the

[1:12:00] inconsistencies within the plan itself and mentioning I mean we've savage

[1:12:05] » we've had we've we've definitely the the applicant has applicants representatives

[1:12:09] have definitely um made clear what they mean but it's not reflected in the plans

[1:12:14] is all I'm saying. It would really have to be stated very clearly in conditions.

[1:12:18] Um so those are just some of my thoughts and I welcome further discussion

[1:12:25] » if if I may chair. I believe that if there were no dormers,

[1:12:31] front dormers, that I could approve this with those conditions like with

[1:12:37] specifying the roof, etc. I believe it's the dormers that make this

[1:12:43] a little bit incompatible with the rest of the street. I think that you can have

[1:12:48] a a second floor with the ex the proposed shed

[1:12:55] dormers in the back. And I think that the existence of the second floor the

[1:13:00] way it's been proposed aside from the front dormers.

[1:13:05] I think it's well done and it won't be out of place with the neighborhood. Even

[1:13:09] though it's correct, of course, that the neighborhood appears to be um all one

[1:13:15] story. We don't see the backs and maybe there are shed dormers with a second

[1:13:19] story in the that we didn't see. But I think the problem for me is that the

[1:13:24] front shed dormers. So perhaps we can have a discussion of do the other people

[1:13:30] on the comm on the um commission think that that is do they agree with me that

[1:13:38] that is the main issue here with it being inconsistent with the

[1:13:41] neighborhood? And if so, can that be

[1:13:47] um can that be changed to can that be modified to make it more acceptable or

[1:13:53] is it not possible that the dormer's existence

[1:13:58] could that is it not possible to make it more consistent with the neighborhood?

[1:14:07] just a thought that if the if if the dormers were removed that chimney is

[1:14:12] going to be really um prominent in a way that's

[1:14:18] doesn't make I don't know how much sense that makes

[1:14:21] already thing it's very pro it's a very

[1:14:25] prominent chimney with or without the dormers um I think it's a little bit

[1:14:30] deceiving from the elevation perspective that that you don't really see how far

[1:14:35] how deep it is behind there with the dormers. So, I think if there's an

[1:14:40] opportunity to lower it because it's not a true chimney, I think that would help

[1:14:45] benefit the character. I I would I know there are other examples in San Marino,

[1:14:52] not in this neighborhood, but there are other examples in the city where there

[1:14:55] is a second story addition under a continuous roof without dormers in the

[1:15:01] front >> dormers

[1:15:02] » with no front dormers and that have not changed the character of the house.

[1:15:07] » So I I feel >> I agree with that and I've seen that.

[1:15:10] I've I've observed that myself as well. So, I I I feel like

[1:15:15] not giving the applicant direction on how I would fix it, that there is a

[1:15:21] potential opportunity to make some adjustments in the plan to maybe tuck it

[1:15:26] under the roof.

[1:15:30] So, I would if I don't know how we go about it. if it's a continuence to have

[1:15:35] them come back. I think if if we could if they can come back to us and clearly

[1:15:40] show uh an opportunity in what they've done,

[1:15:44] I I think I can make the other findings. I could support a continuence

[1:15:50] » and I would also and I I agree that you know I think we've we've made comments

[1:15:55] suggesting removing the dormers entirely or perhaps

[1:16:01] um you know making them much smaller or whatever the the applicant can make

[1:16:06] adjustments as they see fit. And I given the fact that there are no uh that and

[1:16:13] the chimney I think that if I understand correctly the rest of the commission is

[1:16:17] is okay with the privacy can make the findings for privacy this evening.

[1:16:22] » Privacy doesn't bother me. I think it's it's it's 50 ft to the rear property

[1:16:26] line >> as long as we make the condition. Yeah.

[1:16:28] Yeah. So given that this seems to have a clear direction in to the applicant, I

[1:16:35] mean it's sounds like for for me a condition um a

[1:16:41] uh you know one more continuence

[1:16:46] seems reasonable. >> And would we not only would we als I I I

[1:16:51] would support giving some further guidance. I I would support anything

[1:16:55] that needs to be said to be said now to give the applicant as much guidance as

[1:16:59] possible um including um making any corrections in the plans that have been

[1:17:05] noted um discussion about the roof etc. I think um my main focus today of course

[1:17:13] has been the the privacy and uh but after hearing all the

[1:17:19] concerns from at least three commissioners

[1:17:23] uh I think that I can see uh how maybe the majority of the uh commission would

[1:17:29] like to see a continuence. Uh just my take the the dormers uh themselves the

[1:17:35] front ones I know were in discussion um they don't bother me as much. I can see

[1:17:44] um certainly the chimney can come down um not as tall and perhaps the dormers

[1:17:53] uh can be sized down reduced in size uh accordingly. Um, with that,

[1:18:02] I probably can still approve the plan, of course,

[1:18:06] without seeing it. Uh, assuming we were headed to a continuence, but in the

[1:18:11] meantime, uh, we have, um, you know, u strong opinions, uh, not wanting to see

[1:18:18] any dormers, but I just want to say that personally for me, I think the dormers I

[1:18:24] I would find it still meet the guy uh, the findings. Cheryl, if I if I may have

[1:18:29] comments. Um, so I understand the reasoning for the architectural design

[1:18:36] in order to minimize the overall massing and disruption of the existing home. Um

[1:18:44] actually if you look at it and how the designer and architect has approached

[1:18:50] it, it's actually a pretty novel approach because to the comment about

[1:18:54] the closet and the staircase being where the dormers are, that is to uh in

[1:19:01] basically have the least impact to the front facade of the house facing the

[1:19:05] street with the majority of what you raised uh chair uh chair McKay about the

[1:19:11] quoteunquote pop up at the act which may not be compatible with itself. We've

[1:19:15] seen designs like this come before the planning commission and design review

[1:19:19] [snorts] where traditional homes with very

[1:19:22] similar um fireplaces right in the center of the

[1:19:28] home have been effectively removed and then um I'm actually looking at the

[1:19:33] house right now. that's on Sanita where the popup then occurs within the roof

[1:19:38] line uh but it occurs at the front towards the street and then eliminates

[1:19:44] the the the fireplace entirely and then I believe the rear of the home is where

[1:19:49] there's dormers right so if you look it's a matter and I think this is an

[1:19:54] important context that to understand is for what is being proposed it's a matter

[1:19:59] of constructibility if you look at his floor plan and how

[1:20:03] he's placing this two bedrooms, two baths, the staircase that needs to be in

[1:20:09] place to get access to the second floor and a walk-in closet. That's why we are

[1:20:15] proposed what's in front of us. So, if we're wholesaling, telling or asking the

[1:20:20] applicant to redesign, then the floor plan on the second floor effectively

[1:20:24] becomes null and void um because the way he's approaches the way he's approached

[1:20:29] it. Again, that that's that comes to the the

[1:20:34] designer and how he wants to approach it and what he wants to propose. But we've

[1:20:38] seen this type of approach and design before. We've seen wholesale changes

[1:20:44] where this kind of two dormers ace, you know, very asymmetrical type of layout

[1:20:51] as proposed um was not the approach. Uh then the overall design changes

[1:20:59] completely. So, I'm not under the, you know, I'm not in objection to the

[1:21:05] consensus that this whether it's truly compatible with the neighborhood.

[1:21:10] However, um I just will reiterate I can make the findings and I think the home

[1:21:16] within what it's trying to accomplish and to be as compatible with the

[1:21:22] neighborhood as it can be given what we've heard from some neighbors. I think

[1:21:27] it's a good design and that's that's what I think. Um,

[1:21:32] » so just to understand you, Commissioner Cheng, so you um and I and I concur that

[1:21:40] some of the issues that we've raised were intentionally incorporated to make

[1:21:46] this as subtle as possible, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily

[1:21:50] compatible with the neighbor. So do you find that finding or do you not find the

[1:21:54] finding find you know >> of compatibility with the neighborhood

[1:21:57] » number one? >> Yeah I think

[1:21:59] » as as presented >> I think as presented the the there are

[1:22:04] dormers that exist on the neighborhood with the one example and it's not a

[1:22:08] great example either. I think this design integrates the dormers in the

[1:22:14] most compatible way with the home itself and the neighborhood. Um, and it it's

[1:22:20] very and it distinctively is because of what they've trying to achieve uh in the

[1:22:26] overall design. I think that's the important that's the important piece to

[1:22:30] pick up is it's not arbitrarily that one dormer houses the stairwell and then the

[1:22:35] other houses a walk-in closet. I mean if he if the walk-in closet was reduced to

[1:22:41] I think it's 80 or 90 square feet from you know that 80 square feet to let's

[1:22:46] call it half you know 40 square foot or less walk-in closet then you start to

[1:22:52] reduce you know the size of the dormer right you pull it back you start to

[1:22:56] maintain your walkway be your hallway behind it etc. Um, but the staircase,

[1:23:02] you know, it kind of unless it's relocated or placed in a different

[1:23:06] location, you have to have the minimum number of treads and the minimum number

[1:23:10] of heights and the the 90, you know, the turn radius. So that's why so I'm just

[1:23:16] I'm I'm sharing more of the the design and the design and intent is more of

[1:23:22] what is presented here than what we've seen previously like a

[1:23:27] wholesale removal of the fireplace, a popup in the middle and still within the

[1:23:32] roof line of the existing home. That's all.

[1:23:35] » And and I concur that as I said already um that this was intentionally done

[1:23:40] right to make this subtle. But is there any concern that this could establish a

[1:23:46] precedent as the neighbor on Wembley mentioned? Yes.

[1:23:49] » Um, you know, that's that's that's my concern that this may be a subtle

[1:23:52] incorporation or and and and you know, I may be outnumbered in terms of whether

[1:23:57] it's compatible with the neighborhood, >> but is this going to establish a

[1:24:01] precedent where the next time it is not going to be settled like this? Um and

[1:24:06] and I don't see except for the the the the property immediately across

[1:24:12] the street which I do not think we should be using as a comparator. Um

[1:24:16] because it would not be acceptable today. Um

[1:24:22] you know it's a streetscape that is very has been preserved for a long time as it

[1:24:26] is. So anyway, any other comments?

[1:24:37] chair. Uh, if I may, um, based on the direction that I feel the

[1:24:44] commission might be going, um, I think it would be prudent to re-engage with

[1:24:50] the applicant to see if there are meaningful to these, um, potential

[1:24:54] changes because what you don't want to have is you go through the trouble of

[1:25:00] saying, you know, or listing all of the suggestions and then them coming back in

[1:25:05] a continuence and not really doing any of

[1:25:08] Um, so I I think it would be best to reopen the public hearing, uh, re-engage

[1:25:13] with the applicant and first let them know exactly what you want to see and

[1:25:18] two, if they're meaningable, so that, um, you're not wasting your time and

[1:25:23] their time. >> Thank you, director. Um, so we will

[1:25:28] reopen the public portion of the meeting. Um and may we have the

[1:25:34] applicants representatives representative or representatives as

[1:25:38] appropriate come forward um

[1:25:44] does anybody want to express on the commission um some of the

[1:25:51] » I mean I think that the applicant has heard um three you know yeah so I think

[1:25:56] I'm not really sure what we're asking except for

[1:26:00] » a response >> a response Yeah, I suppose.

[1:26:03] » Thank Thank you so much for all of your thoughts and and for us it's a bit of a

[1:26:07] mixed bag. There's four individuals of you and so we're getting some different

[1:26:11] ideas. Um and and uh Commissioner Chang, thank you so much for recognizing what

[1:26:17] we're trying to do. It's a very tight fit to get that second floor and they're

[1:26:21] very difficult and we tried working with Ariel who's been terrific to put that

[1:26:27] mass towards the back so it feels more compatible with the one story that's

[1:26:32] predominant on the street. The dormers seemed acceptable. I I like some of the

[1:26:37] earlier uh thoughts from Commissioner Giles that even though looking at the

[1:26:42] book and and the exact guidelines, the minimal traditional with the the gable

[1:26:47] that the hips could really work on both the front roof portions of the one-story

[1:26:52] portion of the home and also those dormers. Um I I think uh hearing you

[1:26:57] loud and clear, the closet of course can move back. I think there's a way to move

[1:27:02] the stair back say a foot and and maybe uh eight or nine inches in width and and

[1:27:08] you guys were pointing out earlier that little changes could make a big

[1:27:12] difference and I'd love to give that a try. The tricky part for us is do we

[1:27:17] spend all the time I mean every single drawing changes and there's so much time

[1:27:21] back and forth could we even make the next meeting in a month because of the

[1:27:25] submitt dates ahead of time. We we reduce everything we push it back. we

[1:27:29] drop it down and then the the consensus of the commission a month from now is we

[1:27:34] we just won't accept the dormers. We've wasted everyone's time. So, it would be

[1:27:38] great to have a feeling I don't need five votes. I need let's just be blunt

[1:27:42] three votes to pass this thing. Is is there a way if we will the chimney too's

[1:27:48] got to come down? The chimney and the dormers have to be reduced and pushed

[1:27:51] back and and the hips would really help instead of the dormers. I think these

[1:27:55] are great suggestions. I think it' be a better design. is more compatible with

[1:27:59] the neighborhood. Um, we don't want to set a precedent. This is so specialized.

[1:28:04] Um, every single home you you look at is specialized. There's no open season. If

[1:28:10] you approve this for everything else, um, if somebody's as clever as we are,

[1:28:14] bless them and and let them into the neighborhood. If not, then turn them

[1:28:18] down. Uh, yeah. So, you let me know. Can can we reduce and and thank you so much

[1:28:25] um director can we reduce and lower things and hip them in the front end and

[1:28:30] make this work or is the front dorm is just not acceptable and then it's a wipe

[1:28:34] out of this the whole design.

[1:28:39] » What is the consensus? So you're suggesting that you would be amanable,

[1:28:42] the applicant would be amanable to further recessing the dormers and

[1:28:48] reducing the size >> and and

[1:28:51] gabling them. >> Yes. All those things.

[1:29:00] » I'm curious what Commissioner Giles is thinking about.

[1:29:06] Are we going to close this and take it to discussion or because

[1:29:11] » well I want to know if there are any other questions for the applicant

[1:29:13] representative >> while I have any questions no because

[1:29:16] » well anybody on the commission I mean sure because you know I can close it

[1:29:21] again but if there's going to be a discussion that's going to raise a

[1:29:24] question I really don't want >> right no I don't have further questions

[1:29:27] because yeah um also just to state my previous kind of comment Again, uh I can

[1:29:35] see um a different plan with the uh dormer reduced and the chimney uh be a

[1:29:43] little bit shorter.

[1:29:48] I've um I've been through the process. I know

[1:29:51] your pain, so I'm trying to respect what you've done and and the presentation. Um

[1:29:57] having done my own house and reduced the dormers, we we looked at everything. We

[1:30:01] looked at the hips. I I could make the findings at that point if if you came

[1:30:05] back with a with a true effort on on making the changes.

[1:30:10] » Vice chair, do you have any questions for the applicant's representative?

[1:30:14] » Uh I don't think so. I I think I just want to maybe clarify when I said a

[1:30:19] little change can make a big difference that we're talking about feet and not

[1:30:23] inches. You you said feet as an example and I just want to say that that's

[1:30:30] » we got to do better. >> I I mean without telling you exactly you

[1:30:34] know how to design something or that there's any minimums or any certain

[1:30:37] massing that is required or whatever you're going to come back and we're

[1:30:42] going to evaluate it. >> I I understand that you're you

[1:30:47] understand um that this requires some some work.

[1:30:52] » Yeah. [laughter] Right. >> Okay. I mean, I I also could support a a

[1:30:59] well-designed serious reduction in but still having

[1:31:04] some front-facing dormers

[1:31:08] » and and um >> as a continuence.

[1:31:11] » Understood. [clears throat] Um would you welcome a continuence to a

[1:31:16] date uncertain? I think we should just do the next meeting and we'll try our

[1:31:19] best and we'll let uh your wonderful staff know. If we can't make it, they'll

[1:31:24] let you know.

[1:31:28] » Director. >> Uh no. Well, I hesitate just because I I

[1:31:31] don't know that we'll make the the deadline because obviously Ariel still

[1:31:35] has to make a staff report, has to review the changes. I don't mind if we

[1:31:40] want to do a date uncertain with the expectation that we might come back to

[1:31:44] you and say we need a continuence to a date

[1:31:48] specific date or a date and certain just because they couldn't make the deadline.

[1:31:51] » Would it be better just to do two months instead of one month?

[1:31:55] » Two months I think would be adequate. >> We don't want to push staff either.

[1:31:58] » Right. So I think in two months but we also want to be cognizant which was

[1:32:02] something I was going to do in the director's report. We really only have

[1:32:05] three meetings after this one. September, October, November because

[1:32:08] typically traditionally we have December uh dark. So um I do think two months uh

[1:32:15] we don't have anything pressing on the books uh

[1:32:18] » for October >> for well yeah because we don't have any

[1:32:22] deadlines statemandated deadlines or anything like that that we need to push

[1:32:25] this year. So um I do think the two month is is

[1:32:30] » more realistic >> more realistic and fair.

[1:32:32] » Yeah. Chairman McKay, may I just add something procedurally?

[1:32:36] » Certainly, >> if we're going to continue it to a date

[1:32:38] certain that I would recommend you keep the plan the public hearing open

[1:32:42] » so that they don't have to go through a renoticing process.

[1:32:46] » So the the public hearing would remain open and the public hearing would be

[1:32:50] continued to the meeting in October. >> Uh specific date, right?

[1:33:07] at the 28th. >> October 28th would be the next in two

[1:33:12] months. I'm sorry. >> Okay.

[1:33:17] Any other questions for the applicants representative or comments?

[1:33:22] » Thank you so much. >> Very much. Thank you. Well, uh, okay.

[1:33:28] So, um, >> so we would recommend a motion if that's

[1:33:33] the desire to continue this project with the public hearing open to October 28th.

[1:33:39] » Right. So, I will

[1:33:46] is this number two? Okay. So, I'll make a motion to continue

[1:33:51] design review case numbers DR24-95 and DR26-04

[1:33:56] at 1458 Hampton Road to the regular meeting of the San Marino Planning

[1:34:01] Commission of October 28. Um, keeping the public hearing open. Is that

[1:34:08] sufficient? Okay, that is my motion. Is there a second?

[1:34:12] » I second that. >> May we have a roll call, staff?

[1:34:16] » Commissioner Chang. Yes. >> Commissioner Chow.

[1:34:18] » Yes. >> Commissioner Dials.

[1:34:20] » Yes. >> Vice Chair Batnes.

[1:34:22] » Yes. >> And Chair McKay.

[1:34:23] » Yes. >> Motion carries. 5 Z.

[1:34:25] » Thank.

[1:34:37] And moving on to the consent calendar. Uh are there any comments on the minutes

[1:34:43] or do we have a motion? >> Yes. I

[1:34:45] » Commissioner Chow, >> yes.

[1:34:48] » Commissioner Giles, >> yes.

[1:34:49] » Vice Chair Batnes, >> yes.

[1:34:50] » And Chair McCay, >> also abstained from the last meeting.

[1:34:54] So, I will abstain from the vote. >> Motion carries 40.

[1:34:58] » Thank you very much. Do we have a director's report?

[1:35:00] » Sure. Thank you. Um, want to highlight yesterday, uh, some of us were at the

[1:35:06] Huntington Library. Um, Commissioner Chow was there, uh, for the

[1:35:10] groundbreaking of the lab project. um a number of compliments from many of

[1:35:16] the attendees on the work that the planning commission did for that project

[1:35:20] that staff did along with our consultant. So it was a uh it was a a

[1:35:26] nice ceremony uh well received well attended and so again just wanted to

[1:35:32] extend those compliments that were given to the planning commission for all the

[1:35:35] efforts made um not just on the lab project but also on the uh scholar grow

[1:35:40] project which now we have two projects going on at the same time. uh I think it

[1:35:46] was close to a quarter of a billion dollars of of improvements going on

[1:35:50] right now that we with the small staff uh undertook. So um a lot of great pride

[1:35:57] there and a lot of gratitude to all of you for the hard work and effort. I mean

[1:36:01] because those were obviously big projects with a lot of documents that

[1:36:05] were involved and and obviously I've said this many times all of you are

[1:36:09] volunteers not employees. you're not getting paid and yet you spend a lot of

[1:36:13] time and effort on these uh projects. So, we really appreciate that.

[1:36:18] » Um also wanted just to uh as you know um 535 mill was appealed

[1:36:27] uh to the city council. Uh the city council reviewed that I believe that was

[1:36:33] in the June meeting if not May. uh that project um or the direction from the

[1:36:39] council on that project was to have a denovo uh meeting. So, they'll hear it

[1:36:44] from scratch. Uh that is scheduled for September 25th. And the same applicant

[1:36:51] also appealed the planning commission's decision for 1469 Bradbury. And so, they

[1:36:57] will have the city council will also hear that uh and determine what course

[1:37:01] to take. And so, I will update you. Um, I

[1:37:08] don't think I will be able to update you on the next meeting because I think it

[1:37:11] happens after uh let me just check real quick.

[1:37:20] Yeah. So, uh, the next plan commission meeting September 23rd. So, the next or

[1:37:25] the council meeting will be the 25th. So, I will update you on the October

[1:37:29] meeting. >> Both of those will be at the same

[1:37:31] meeting. The Genova reviews at both of them. Yes.

[1:37:36] » Um and then uh just also let you know in

[1:37:40] terms of staffing, we held the second interviews for the assistant associate

[1:37:45] opening. Um I am confident that an offer will be extended by the end of this

[1:37:51] week. So hopefully we'll have someone here pretty soon to help out both Aubrey

[1:37:56] and Ariel who done a tremendous job uh keeping uh projects moving forward. And

[1:38:02] you know, I can report that we have no backlog. So, great job for both Ariel

[1:38:06] and Aubrey. And that concludes the director's

[1:38:10] report. >> There are no other appeals

[1:38:13] » that I'm aware of. No, [laughter] I don't think so.

[1:38:17] » Can I ask a question? >> Sure.

[1:38:19] » Um, Stoneman update. >> Uh, yes. So, in terms of Stoman, uh

[1:38:26] I think I had mentioned to you in in the last director's report of the previous

[1:38:31] one, the city council approved the uh contract for a consultant to review the

[1:38:35] performers. Uh the consultant is currently doing that. So our goal is to

[1:38:43] review those and provide uh the council with some viable u candidates so that

[1:38:51] they can then proceed with giving staff direction.

[1:38:54] » There were 13 submissions. >> There were 13 submissions. Correct.

[1:38:56] » And 13 are being reviewed or is all them review?

[1:38:59] » All 13 are being reviewed. Um and so it's going to take a little time

[1:39:05] but we're getting there.

[1:39:09] And what about the other location? I think at the um at the bank uh Codewell

[1:39:15] Banker is it >> the mixed use project?

[1:39:18] » Oh, the uh yes, the 18 units. Um an incomplete letter went out to the

[1:39:24] applicant and so um we're just waiting for their response.

[1:39:33] Well, I'll just state for myself and for the commission, I'm sure, that uh all

[1:39:38] the auditory comments are very welld deserved for staff. It was a very heavy

[1:39:43] lift on the Scholars Grove project and that's literally and figuratively

[1:39:47] because I remember the box of notebooks that we all had, right? Uh that was a

[1:39:52] huge undertaking. So, very well done. >> Yeah. Um funny you bring that up. uh

[1:39:58] former plane commissioner Shelley Bole came in and dropped off that particular

[1:40:04] box of [laughter] so he's like here here you go and I was

[1:40:07] like well thank you we'll know what to do with it so um yes but

[1:40:13] » assistant planner Cissoonian gladly took my box of of notebooks when it was done

[1:40:18] it was a huge thing yeah >> now any of that u is still coming back

[1:40:23] to the planning commission at all >> any of

[1:40:27] » further further uh construction or progress or need

[1:40:31] further approval from this point on >> for the Huntington project.

[1:40:35] » Yes. >> Uh no no no uh unless there's some sort

[1:40:38] of um of significant change to the project

[1:40:45] that uh would require plan commission review. Otherwise, it's just

[1:40:51] construction right now and so it would just take its course. Nothing to come

[1:40:56] back.

[1:41:01] Yes. >> May I ask a question about a previous

[1:41:05] project? >> You might know what I'm going to ask

[1:41:07] about. It is the project that the commission heard about two years ago um

[1:41:12] just off of Huntington on that side road. Um

[1:41:17] and I just don't know what the status is of that right now.

[1:41:20] » Which >> all the way west? I don't have the

[1:41:23] address right now. Um the one that was uh

[1:41:28] » East West Bank they demoed is the one that where they demoed the building.

[1:41:31] » The one that was the one that you know was being taken over by squatters. The

[1:41:36] one that >> Oh yes yes yes yes. Um we had a um new

[1:41:43] buyer, new property owner. Uh they demolished the house. Uh I believe

[1:41:51] they have an application for a new house.

[1:41:54] Yeah, this submitted. So, they're going through the review process.

[1:41:57] » Okay, that's a big development. >> Okay, thank you.

[1:42:03] » Do we have Thank you very much, director. Do we have any written

[1:42:06] communication or public writings for distribution tonight?

[1:42:09] » No, we didn't. >> Thank you very much. Since we have no

[1:42:12] further business to discuss, tonight's meeting is adjourned at 7:38 p.m. and

[1:42:17] the next San Marino Planning Commission will be held on September 23, 2026 at 6

[1:42:23] PM in City Hall Council Chambers. Wishing everyone a good night.

Regular Planning Commission Meeting - August 26, 2026

Transcript