Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will now begin the 02/09/2026 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, and I would like to call this meeting to order. Before we begin, I'd like to ask administrative assistant Nicole Disperos to explain the procedure for public comment and participation during tonight's planning commission meeting, which is being held in a hybrid in person and Zoom format. Nicole?

Thank you, mister commissioner. Thank you for joining us for the 02/09/2026 Piedmont Planning Commission meeting. This meeting is being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers. As a courtesy and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the city cannot guarantee the public's access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted and technical difficulties may occur from time to time.

Public comment is invited for non agenda items during the public forum section of the meeting and separately on each agenda item. If you wish to comment and you are in the council chambers, please submit a speaker card to Lemise Chobani on the right hand side of the diets. If you're participating virtually, please raise your hand when the item you wish to comment on is called and leave it raised. Speakers will be called in the order hands are raised. Speakers generally have up to three minutes to make comments to the Planning Commission.

At the end of your speaking time, I will ask you to conclude your comments quickly and mute your audio once you're done. The agenda for this meeting is available on the Planning Commission page of the City's website at piedmont.ca.gov. As is the standard practice, community members are allowed to comment one time on each agenda item. We ask your patience and understanding when there are technical difficulties. This concludes my introductory remarks.

Thank you, Nicole. To start, I will take role. Commissioner Yee? Present. Commissioner Ortiz? Here. Commissioner Zeruchian?

Present.

Commissioner Busalink? Present. Commissioner Cooper? Here. I'm Wayne Roland, chair of the Planning Commission. Kevin, are there any other participants in the meeting you would like to recognize for the record?

Yes. In addition to myself, Kevin Jackson, the planning and building director, we have senior planner senior planners, Pierce McDonald and Gopika Nayar assistant planner, Lameesh Javani and administrative assistants, Mark Anea and Nicole Nisperos.

Thank you. I'd like to also mention that the minutes taker of tonight's hearing will use a video of the meeting to prepare the minutes. With that in mind, we ask that all speakers please identify themselves and speak clearly into the microphone or their device when they address the commission. The public forum is the opportunity for anyone who wishes to address the planning commission regarding an issue that is not on tonight's agenda to do so. In order for all speakers to be heard, we may limit your comments to three minutes. Nicole and Lamise, is there anyone who wishes to speak on a matter that is not on tonight's agenda?

I have no speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

Thank you. Returning to commission procedures, I would like to mention that as commissioners, we are required to comply with the requirements of the Brown Act so that our deliberations are conducted openly and our actions are taken openly. All commissioners voting on an application have been to the project site. We will be hearing new testimony from applicants and neighbors, and we will be hearing comments from commissioners tonight for the first time. Commissioners who have a financial interest in a property within 500 feet of an application property are accused from acting on that application.

And commissioners who have a financial interest in a property between 500 and a thousand feet of an application property may be recused from acting on that application. If recused, the commissioner will leave the meeting during the consideration of that application. Kevin, are there any conflicts of interest related to applications on tonight's agenda? There are none. Thank you.

Applications are frequently approved subject to standard and project specific conditions of approval. A list of conditions for each application that may be required if the application is approved is included in the staff reports that were made available on 01/30/2026. It is important to note that the that other conditions in addition to those already listed may be required resulting from testimony or discussions at tonight's hearing on each application. Moving then to the consent calendar. Are there any items on the consent calendar?

There are none. Thank you.

Before we proceed with the remainder of the agenda, I would like to take a few moments to discuss the procedures for the regular calendar of the agenda. All of the agenda items will be heard in the order in which they appear on the agenda. The commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions of staff when an agenda item is open. At the close of commissioner questions, we will open the public portion of the hearing to allow for speakers. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the commission.

At the end of the three minutes, you will be asked to conclude your statements and the commission may ask the speaker some questions. Once all members of the public have had the opportunity to address the commission on a particular agenda item, we will then close the public comment period for that item. Please be aware that your opportunity to address the commission is only during the public comment period for that agenda item. Commissioners may invite members of the public to answer questions, but otherwise the public comment period will remain closed. After the public comment period for the agenda item is closed, the commission will hold a discussion of the agenda item.

There is a ten day appeal period during which any interested party can file an appeal of any action of the planning commission. For any item acted on tonight by the commission, the appeal must be filed with the clerk city clerk by 5PM on 02/19/2026. The next item on the agenda is item two, an informational report on permit applications received and approved by staff.

Thank you, commissioner Roland. So in the month of January 2026, we had a total of 19 planning permit applications submitted and staff approved 18 planning permits during that period. The majority of those were expedited design review applications. 10 of those were submitted, nine approved, and then there were four and then three approved director design review. And then we had applications, one junior accessory dwelling unit application, a variance application, one s b nine urban law split application submitted, and and that's planning permits.

On the building permit side, a total of 70 building permit applications were submitted during January and 58 building permit applications were approved. The majority of those were residential remodels, 14 applications were submitted, 11 approved. And then mechanical plumbing permits, 13 were submitted, seven were approved, and then various numbers for other small permits. But anyway, that was January.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner questions regarding this? Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this agenda item?

I have no speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

We then move to agenda item number three, a variance and design review permit for 160 Moraga Avenue. Do we have speakers on this agenda item?

I have a speaker card from the homeowner, Frank.

Hi, my name is Frank Neltef. I'm the homeowner at 160 Moraga, we appreciate your consideration of our project. To

give you

a sense, we are a relatively young family. We're in our mid thirties. We have a young daughter. We're big devotees of the mid century building style, and we're very interested in environmental sustainability, which led us to undertake this project. We've been very excited to do a number of energy upgrades to the house, including the siding variances that we're looking for that will all be done to improve the fire resistance of the house, as well as the environmental sustainability of the house, which we're hopeful will allow us to live in it our whole life. Additionally, we've proposed adding a stair up to a proposed rooftop deck. One of the things that's notable about the property is it's it's very small. Our backyard is limited to seven feet. We have a young active daughter. She likes to sit outside.

She likes to birdwatch, draw sketches, look at the planes in the sky. And she's very limited with where she can sit, and she's limited where she can go because Moraga Avenue is an extremely busy street. We have taken all of our endeavors as as much as is possible to put the stairs that we're proposing at an unobtrusive corner of the project, minimize the visual impact of it by hiding it behind trees, and using less visible techniques like having, you know, a a a fence in a railing that is done mostly with wire. We we're really excited about this project. It would it would give us a lot more space.

It would give us a lot more ability to enjoy our outdoor surroundings on our on our otherwise very small project our very small lot, and we really appreciate your consideration thereof.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner questions for the speaker?

I have a question. On the roof, you have a little kitchen counter. That's I guess, is this a prefab or is it going to be custom? And my question about it is, what's the treatment from the street level because it's gonna be visible? And what is the reason it looks like there's a

canopy above it? Great question. So we're we're proposing a prefabricated stainless steel deck. So it'll be very, very weather resistant, very good fit for the outdoors. The way that we've actually cited the deck on the site tries to minimize the visual impact. It's actually on the backside of the roof, so it's less visible from the street. We added the the canopy in response to comments by, I believe, a design or planning official that indicated that it was required to have any any sink or otherwise draining area covered. I believe for rainfall reasons, but I am not the expert there.

Can I

ask a question? Yes.

In terms of studying where you place the deck, did you look at other alternatives beyond the ones that are depicted in these drawings?

Good question. Part of the design considerations that we have here, it's difficult otherwise to the elevation drops off very heavily on this side. So if we were to put a deck closer to over here, it would just be really difficult to go ahead and otherwise put access up to the deck. And here, we would have to either demolish indoor space, which would be a bit of a challenge as the house is otherwise very small. It's about 1,400 square feet, Or we would have to put a staircase that would be in the front setback that would also be accessible to the street, which feels like a bit of a risk.

Okay.

So you considered it considered some options, but decided that the best placement is at the rear of the property?

Correct. Correct. We did a number of different revisions on it, and we had considered either there was there was one place inside of the house that it was possible that a staircase would fit. That would require demolishing one of the bathrooms and all of the closets in our daughter's room. Otherwise, it would be very structurally complicated to fit in.

Alright. Thank you.

I have one more question. You have some next to that area, you have some PV panels?

Correct.

Yes. And what is the angle of those PV panels? What's the reason? They seem to be very, like, you know, the what's the reason to their orientation?

Good. I would have to double check what we had proposed, whether it was 30 or 45 degrees in total. The that was the result of a number of calculations that I think we had done about the sun fall catchment at the site. As a note, the roof is a low slope roof, so they would likely have to be inclined at baseline anyways.

Because it seems to me it was more than 45. But again, we didn't have any indication. So it is 45, you say?

I believe that's the plan.

Yes. And what are you referring to here?

Oh, photovoltaic panels on the roof, the solar panels. Otherwise.

If I might

Because they are visible from the screen.

Yes. But with the California Solar Rights Act, they have shown these panels on their plans, but they are not subject to design review.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin. Any further commissioner questions? Thank you. Thank you for your time. Other speakers?

Yes, I have a speaker card from Anton.

Hello, my name is Anton Kornienko.

Could you repeat that again a little louder?

Yes, sure. My name is Anton Kornienko. I'm a builder for this project as well as my team designs for this project. I think our the case we make in our application is very compelling and we provide a lot of information. Some of the highlights that I want to point out is this is probably one of the things that this city has is the Climate Action Plan.

This is not part of your design review, which you do have it. And this project would be probably one of the most ambitious projects in the city to take the existing structure and bring it to passive house interfit certification. It's not a certificate, it's certification that's done by third party and it's probably one of the hardest certifications in the world to obtain for existing structure.

Can I pause you for a moment and ask you to speak a little louder?

Yes. Yes, the certification I'm talking about Passive House Interfit certification is one of the most rigorous and hardest to get in the world, not just specifically in U. S. And the certifier is independent person. This house after the project is done will consume about 80% less electricity than the code built compliant house, but also will be significantly more fire resilient.

With all the things that we're doing for the fire resilience, it will be challenging to set the house on fire, although I'm not encouraging anybody to try. So some additional comments about the questions that you had. We have considered multitude of locations for deck and for stairs. We've considered the spiral staircase, which we started with, with Lemise. We considered the elevator, which again we figured out we cannot push it through because of multiple regulations that limit us.

And then we considered every one of these locations as well as moving the deck front to the other side of the property and this is the optimal location. Because if we move it to the other side of the property, then that stair becomes a lot longer. So it's even more visible.

COVID-nineteen

of And the

And going

house. This impact location allows for minimal visibility. Plus, we have quite a bit of vegetation, three large trees on the back and the fans that will be upgraded to railing that will get higher as a result that will basically cover even more of the view for the people on the back. On the side specifically, there's a small alleyway of about 3.5 feet.

Hi, your three minutes have elapsed. Please conclude your comments.

Would you want to finish

up just quickly? Yes. Yes, the safety overall of the properties around will increase because again just fire resilience of this building, which means that if fire happens, it's not going to spread. The second is the firefighters ever arrived to put the fire down on the building below on the site, this particular point would be the highest point and easiest point for them to put down that fire.

Thank you.

And are there other speakers?

I have a speaker card from Roberto Diaz, 154.

Okay. Good afternoon commissioners and members of the commission. I see that they were referring to the side alleyway where the staircase is. And, I wanted to represent myself, my wife as property managers. Our daughter lives just on the other side of the fence in Apartment Number 1 is the owner of the property.

And, we are concerned for the safety and how it could become a dangerous liability having a staircase there and the rooftop deck as well. Apparently they're going to have the potential for a barbecue and there's a wet sink area to prepare meals or drinks. So, the potential to celebrate and have a good time up there could create a liability people getting up and down through that staircase. Whether it's adults or children going up to the deck, I think it's rather dangerous location being so close to the property line and I know that they want to encroach on the setback. I feel that they may have considered other locations on the roof to put the deck on, not that it has to be on this corner.

I believe that for debris, potential for things to go wrong during the construction, we had a fire in 2010 on our rooftop things fell off during the construction project and landed on the neighbor's yard almost going through the window of the neighboring property which is adjacent to us and to his property as well. So, it just reminds us of all the risks that go on with construction. And then, you finish the project and you're up on the roof, now there's a whole new element of liability that potentially could affect the neighboring property, which is ourselves and the neighbors to the south as well. Where things could fly off, If there is a barbecue up there, then there's a potential of fire. Not for them as they may be well protected, but for the neighboring properties that don't have all of those protections in construction since our property is a centennial property.

It's not fireproof in any way as we have learned in the past. So we're concerned with the location of the deck. We would prefer for it to be relocated to a different part of the roof and for the staircase not to be so close to the property line. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there commissioner questions?

What do you mean by centennial property?

It is over 100 years old. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I actually had a question for the builder, not for sorry, we didn't go

through Sure. The

Yes. You mentioned something about

the trees. I didn't see any kind

of couldn't tell, at least in the plans that I have. Is there a proposed new landscaping?

You're gonna find that. Okay.

I was just like really where my question comes from is like what was, did you consider sight lines from adjacent properties?

Yes.

And how You

can see pictures. Most of the year, all the trees are green, plus we're adding planters on the other side of the railing that we're going to be constructing. So for the property behind, I'd say 90% of the deck and the stairs is not visible majority of the year. And then one tree does lose its leaves and that's when for about three months of a year they'll see the portion of the stairs going up. Does that answer your question?

Thank you. Any other commissioner questions?

Just want to confirm that on that canopy over the sink, the city required?

Yes, city required us to put a canopy. We did suggest that we would like to put just a simple cover on the sink. We have two choices and if variance is approved, I would like to have those two choices for us to make whether the canopy or we can route the water from the sink into basically downspout to be to just go down so because it cannot go through to regular drainage. Yes. So and we're okay with those two choices. And then we would put the canopy down.

So those are choices of

Yeah, those are choices. I find it like the wind and rain works a bit differently. Yes, and that canopy will provide maybe some cover, but not all the cover. So that's why suggestion of having just a sink that has a cover, my opinion would be better, but that's building department clearly said that's not something they want. They want canopy. We suggested we send them an e mail saying, how about we just get the sink with the cover and they said, no, we want a canopy. We have e mail confirmation to that effect. Question,

did you consider location of the canopy and the sink You know, in relate how how did you how do you come to a decision to locate it there on the deck as opposed to anywhere else? Like further back?

It's it it is for it is further back into the No.

I meant like, toward the southern.

But again, if canopy is like the point of contention, there is no problem of routing the well.

No, was just wondering if It's consider

the optimal location for like furniture layout that we consider. We consider a couple of furniture layouts, how people will be sitting and that would and also it's kind of right above the existing kitchen. So it'd be easy to route town if we want to route it. And we do have downspout like straight down from it, so we can also route it directly to downspout.

I

have no speaker cards.

Okay. There are no other speakers?

I have no hands raised at this time.

Okay. Then we will now close the public comment portion of this agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion. Thomas, would you like to open the discussion?

Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Rowling. I wanted to support the the applicant's desire to have a passive energy efficient building. And all the aspirations that you're trying to achieve, I think, are very laudable. They are more or less outside of the purview of this commission.

And I think given the property, the owner that you have, you're kind of stuck, right? There's very little room to locate the deck and I support the idea of having an open space given the limited amount of property you have. I do, however, have an issue with the location of the deck. And given that your property, your neighbor's adjacent neighbor and the neighbor behind you in Rwanda, they're all tight properties. They're all bunched together.

And I think the location of the deck on the side where you've proposed, I think looms over the Renando property pretty significantly. And as commissioners, we're charged with watching out for or being stewards general plan, the design guidelines, and more specifically neighborhood compatibility and consideration of the context in which an applicant is proposing a change. So if this property was 100 feet long, and know, locating the deck here would probably be less of an issue, but you're pretty much cheek and jowl with the property down slope from Rwanda, and so it is sort of looming over them. And I find that to be an issue of just responding to the context of the neighborhood, right? We've had points in prior applications where neighbors are concerned about view, blockage and privacy issues and so privacy seems to be a fairly important priority for most property owners in the city.

When everybody, anybody makes an addition or proposed a change, placement of windows, which all of which are covered in the design guidelines, those are concerns that are fairly paramount in within the city. And then when you place a deck as close to the Renanda neighbor as you're proposing, I think the privacy issue comes into play. The landscaping, I understand you're trying to propose trees to screen, but trees take a long take some time to grow and then and if I may keep going here. So, you know, I and then I drove up and down Morocco, so that's part of my path to go into different places where I need to go during the day. And the deck, because of the way Moraga is the elevation of Moraga Avenue your property, you you can see the deck, even though where it's placed in the back of the property, it's fairly visible.

So to me, it feels like it would be more appropriate given the context of the properties around you if the deck were either smaller or pulled back away from the neighbor to your downslope. Because if the shoe was on the other foot, if you were the Renonda neighbor and they were proposing a deck on your the roles are switched, you know, that would be a concern. And it's come up with other applications where, again, privacy and so forth are considerations. So I am concerned about that part of this application.

You.

My turn. Okay. Commissioner, you saw that.

Sure. Yes, I want to echo the comments of my fellow Commissioner Yee about the laudability of what you're attempting to do with the sustainability, the energy, the fire prevention. I think that's great. I think it's great that you're making investment the house to upgrade it and make it more contemporary. So with that, I do want to say I would be in support of the street yard setback for building volume, variance for roof eave, insulation materials, have no problem with that part of the variance application at all.

I do echo concerns about just the visual impact and the consistency of the proposed deck with the existing architectural style. When I was looking at drawings A7.2, A8.8, It just it has a kind of a tacked on look. It doesn't seem to have consistency with the roof. I know it would be difficult to have a sloping deck and that's not something you would want to do. But there it doesn't seem to have any kind of integration with the rest of the design of the property.

If you were talking about complete second story renovation where that impact would not be visible to the front of the property when you're looking from the street, maybe that might be something more considerable. But I'm not sure that meets the guidelines 4.01.01, 4.02.01 for decks or 5.01.02. I also looked at the other roof decks that you referenced in the application, 120 Moraga, 140 Monticello, 169 Renata on the same block. But I couldn't see kind of a consistency in the type of deck being proposed versus those. 120 Moraga was not a top story.

It seemed to be a lower deck, so it wasn't like a prominent deck on top of the roof. I didn't see 140 Monticello. I didn't see any kind of stairs. The address, I wasn't I wasn't looking at the right property. I'll give you that.

But and then 169 Renata, I'm not sure if that's a roof deck per se. It just seemed like there was a flat portion on the front, but it didn't seem to be like a usable deck with an entertainment space, any kind of sink or anything like that. So I'm not sure if there's a precedent for this type of design, at least on that block, further out if we took a closer look. But yes. But again, I think it's laudable. Everything else you're doing, just not quite sure about the roof deck being consistent with the design guidelines and standards.

Commissioner Zurichi?

Yes. Thank you. So I kind of would like to second the commending the that you're pursuing the high energy efficiency requirements of the Passif House requirements like the testing and you know, I I know how stringent that is. I've done projects, and that they are very intense. It's a choice, so I commend the commend that.

And, again, similarly, the additional sizing required, right, for the installation in the side setbacks and the front setback, I think those are something that kind of can be acceptable. I share also the concern about the roof deck. The the placement of it, right, in addition in addition to the view, it just seems like a little bit is off path. Like, the roof is very visible from everywhere, whether it's from Moraga or all the way down to Grand Avenue. Right?

It's it just is very visible. Of course, right now with the orange elements, it's it's kind of even more. So I think there's a I don't know. Like, you know, just something is off about it a little bit. I and but I agree that it is quite difficult to locate a deck like that on a roof that's just so prominent.

Maybe the sizing of it. I you know, definitely seems a little off. And that canopy, you know, again, all the way from Grand Grand Avenue, that's something that's, like, really stands out, but and there's nothing similar around. So if you have workarounds for it, I think that would be something that would be worthwhile looking at. But otherwise, I think it's definitely commendable to your pursuing the Passive House certification.

Thank you. Commissioner Ortiz?

Yeah. I mean, I think generally agree with a lot of the statements from my fellow commissioners. I similarly can think I can, approve the the variance portion of it. I think, you know, it's very clear that there's not really many places for you to go in terms of having an outdoor space. I think, it makes a lot of sense as a homeowner to want that.

And there's a lot of it is existing nonconforming. So I like as it relates to the variance, that piece I'm aligned with. Similar to the conversations that have already been had, and, you know, I don't know what the answer is, but finding a way to make it feel a little bit more integral to the existing design of the house, is a beautiful modern, know, mid century house. I think it's the the goal of what I think hearing from fellow commissioners. I I think what that solution is, I'm not sure.

I don't think that's our jobs here to decide. But I think like really the comment is that it does not quite feel integral with the design of the existing architecture in scale as well as just like proportion and where it sits. And so I think in addition also we can get into the nuances of the canopy which may be irrelevant in this conversation. But ultimately, I think that's what I would like to see is just like a little bit more continuity with the

existing architectural form and shape, if you will.

So that's I think where I stand is with the design review, I think struggling with the approval of that based off of the existing design. Thank you.

I think I looked at it a little differently. And I wanted to ask you, Commissioner Zeroukian, because I did not I looked at the house, the property next door and the property behind it, but I did not take this wider view that you're saying that you looked at the house from farther, farther distance and where the roof deck would be visible from very far distance?

So I think the roof deck, you know, there's not much. The whole roof is visible. Right? So I think it's more the integration

of

the deck with the rest of the house, right? But I think I'm talking about more of the canopy because there's even a more extended element that kind of sticks out that kind of is you see nothing similar in the neighborhood or anywhere around.

Okay. Yes, I don't have much to add in that particular area. My focus had been on the properties next door in terms of the issues that were brought up by the neighbors of light. And there's the the neighbors have a very, I can understand their interest in protecting the the ambiance of the courtyard next door. Piedmont doesn't have that many apartment complexes.

And this one is interesting because from the outside you cannot tell how beautiful that is on the inside. And so my interest was actually focused on what may change inside there if something is done over here. And most of what I saw done over there is on the back and I couldn't see it. And again, I agree with the interest of having that ambience protected. I think that ambience probably ambience would probably generally it's protected by the way that the structure is built and all of the courtyard and everything faces in the other direction.

And then I spent some time looking at the entry of light into the properties. And there's an app for everything. So you can just put that property down and pull up the app and the light comes. The the courtyard in this property that next door is just gifted with beautiful light, ambiance, location, everything. Also, the light comes in a way that this portion over here doesn't really impact it.

And when you look through the windows, even at the courtyard property, in order for you to get a good view of this house, you've got to get pretty close and look at angles that are not really the kind of protective views that would be considered in this kind of a setting. On the other hand, I did not spend as much time looking at a distant view. I looked at the space between the properties, and I agree with the neighbors, it's tight, but everything that you do is tight there, that's why we have variances, so that if there's something that everybody else gets the benefit from, this property should have an opportunity to do that too. And so the space is tight. And then on the other side of the fence where the neighbor the neighboring property downhill is, not only is the space tight, but there's something wedged in between the house and the fence.

So if the concern was safety, it would stop right there at that fence because there's more space on this side, which would be encroached a little bit by the staircase than there is on the other side. And the safety issue is an issue on both sides of that. But again, I say all of that as reasons for not denying the variance for anything related to light or views. And even the views, this property, the subject property, is higher than the lower property. And the lower property has limited windows, the doorway looks into the fence and not up there.

So all of those things render the light issue, the space issue not as compelling. But in terms of the actual architectural outcome of putting the structure in that location, I did not find it so off putting, but my view was from the front of the house, the street, what do you see? And I did not see a lot of that portion of the house back there. And everything that this house would do is so close. So we're all in agreement that a variance, especially for the purpose of rendering the house very, very well insulated to a very high degree, that's something that the homeowner should be able to do because everyone can insulate their house.

And this one, you're limited because by insulating it in this preferred manner, you encroach four inches. Well, doesn't it's four inches. It doesn't make a big difference. But on the other part of it, again, I did not take a wider view stepping back from some distance and paying giving attention to the deck from far. My perspective was only what the neighbor on one side would see and the neighbor on the other side would see.

The neighbor on the downslope has solar panels on the roof, which this person sees, now this their proposal is solar panels on this side, but I'm not sure how much they even see those because of the distance here. And so because of the height difference and the height of the upper deck not being so high, I actually do not oppose the upper deck canopy at all. So I would support the project.

Do we have more details on whether or not, like,

a cover on the sink would comply with building?

It could. So the this all comes from storm water regulations with our NPEDS permit from the EPA, and they do not want storm water going into the sanitary sewer drain. So they have an option in this case to connect it to their sanitary sewer draining from that sink, in which case they do need a cover, either the canopy or something attached with a hinge or similar to the sink cover, and the applicants can work with the building department if, you know, that was something that was approved tonight. Alternatively, they could drain it to the storm sewer. You know, could but, you know, storm water, you can't the difficulty there is that water has to remain on-site.

It can't be put to the curb or onto neighboring properties. So in in both manners, the the water going down that has to be tightly controlled.

But the canopy has to be designed such that it will not it will not allow rainwater. So if it is coming at an angle, it will still go in there. Right? So the canopy design has to be such that it will prevent it rather than address only vertically coming down rain.

That's my understanding.

Okay. Is there any further commissioner discussion?

I'd like to Commissioner Rolling, I'd to respond to a couple of your comments. I think your view of this is pretty well thought out. And I guess when I hear all the Commissioner comments tonight, what I distill it down to are probably two or three simple things. One is the deck is going be visible because of the profile of the property, whether it's from Morocco or Esmeralda. So it's going be visible.

Mean, the roof is so flat. If this was a roof that was highly pitched, you could locate the deck on one side of the roof and you'd never you probably would be hard pressed to see it. But this roof is very flat, so it's going to be visible, alright? So the question to me is, how is the placement of the deck compatible with the properties around it? And it's just like, you know, if I'm walking down the street and and somebody's coming into a narrow pathway, you know, I might have to step aside to let the other person pass.

It's just are you being a polite neighbor to to in the placement of the of the deck? I don't. I support completely the owner's desire to have an open space, because you've got a very tight property, you have children, and we support the notion of having space given the context of the property. But I think the placement of the deck needs to consider the neighborhood impacts, and the third item, which is compatibility with the existing building. So, yeah, I would suggest that you take a look at shifting the deck, maybe the scale of the deck or maybe shifting it toward Moraga, maybe at the perhaps consider the center of the building or other commissioners have mentioned the variances that we could support, like the insulation and some of the other, I think, concur with that.

But I think given what we're responsible for, neighborhood compatibility and compatibility with the existing building, that's where I find my disconnect with the placement of the deck.

May I ask a question just to follow-up on this conversation? And I'm trying to rethink my feeling about the consistency of the architecture because it is a low pitch roof. I mean I don't think it could be any more compatibility as far as like lines. You're talking about like placement on the roof. If it was moved closer to Moraga, it would be more visible from Moraga as it So I'm just I'm trying to and furthermore, like because it's on the backside of the building already, it has less visibility compared to the front.

So if we're talking about impact on looking from Grand Avenue, it might not be as impactful from down there, especially if it's not bright orange as the story pulls. And I'm trying to think about like the design of a handrail. What they propose is not like a wooden structure that's going to be solid.

They have

the steel lines. So I'm just I mean, I'm not trying to propose any kind of alternate design, but I can imagine less visually impactful materials or way of doing that. You wouldn't even know it's really a deck unless people were up there.

Well, address your question, the I think the applicants are already considering more transparent ways to design the edge of the deck, you know, with the wire, you know, horizontal wires and cables and so forth. So I think they've already had that in mind. I'm just saying, if, you know, in terms of the mid century modern house, and you know, I live in one, and I think that roofline is a very important line

For mid century modern. For mid century with a low sloped roof. Especially when

you have such a low slung roof.

Right.

You have to interrupt that with with a deck right on the edge and part of it because of the stair line, he actually extends beyond

it. Mhmm.

Yeah. Right? And you're and you're not gonna cut into the roof because that's that's the interior space. Right?

Right. We don't want yeah. Yeah. So again, you know, I I think to me, it's shifting and maybe scale of the deck can be considered and and maybe you could look at alternatives for the stair, because the stair is looming big time against the property next to the applicant or the gentleman who spoke earlier, as well as it looms over the Renanda property Do down the

you mean circular or from like interior access? Or where you I mean, what you

The architect in me says, hey, I got a solution, but Right. That's for them. And there are other alternatives where you could locate a stair, not injure and eliminate interior space, and probably eliminate a variance request. I mean, you have that opportunity, but again, it's placement and scale of the deck and responding and respecting the existing building. I think at the end of the day, if you're able to accomplish all that, which is a big bundle, understand, I think the property will and you will benefit, the owner will benefit from a little more scrutiny on some of these issues.

Is there enough consensus for a motion?

Well, when we're done with the when we're concluded with the discussion. Yes, I'm sure. So so could you elaborate just a little bit more on what you're saying, Thomas?

Commissioner Ying? On which part?

The design part that you're discussing that may more respect the existing architecture or the neighbor, the looming

Yes, I think yes, excuse me, I didn't say I think shifting the maybe shifting the deck away from the Renata property line, and so that it's not looming as much over the downhill property, the scale of the deck, maybe it's a shift, not a complete move, maybe considering some options for the stair.

So maybe to make that kind of a shift, then the solar panels would need to be moved somewhere else?

Right, maybe they could be moved below the deck, or you know, again, they have a what is it, about 300 square foot decks, something on that order, and then the solar panels to one side, know. So again, they're just we can just you can look at shifting some of those things around to see if you can find a solution that that is is compatible for the building. Shows a little little maybe a little more neighborhood consideration. And I think those would be worth it in the long run.

So would you like to propose a motion?

Okay.

I'd like to So again, don't have all the variances down, but I'd like to propose a motion that we Kevin, can we approve a variance and deny the design review?

So from what I heard in this discussion, you could approve the design review permit application. It sounds like you want to deny the deck and stair, so you could do that and add a condition of approval that the deck and stair are not approved as part of this application. And then I would and that I hear you interested in approving the street yard setback variance, structure coverage variances that are needed for expanding the walls to accommodate the insulation. And you could continue the consideration of the rear and side yard setbacks to a subsequent meeting when they if and when they come back for an alternate design review application or design review application for the stair and deck if they so choose. So it's a little complicated, but I can help you through such a motion.

So I'd like to make a motion that we approve the applicant's variance request for the front yard setback, the

Sorry. The structural coverage.

Yeah. Structural coverage and

deny the setback variance. Well, would continue the I'll continue the The side mirror.

Pending a resubmittal of the deck design proposal to the city.

Does that sound right? Sure. That addresses the variances. And you can separate the motion for the variances in a separate motion for the Dick. For design review. Okay. So you've got design review that is also required that the window changes, the door changes and So all

there really are two motions here, right?

You could. You could all wrap it up in one as well.

So why don't we keep it simple and just wrap it up in one?

Yes, I got it. All right, sorry. If you can read my chicken scratch.

Okay. So were you a doctor? So I'd like to make a motion that we approve the Design Review. Design Review, except for the stair and deck design that we didn't which we deny under Design Review. And we approved the street yard setback and the structural coverage variances and continue the side and rear yard setback variance requests.

And then you just finish up by doing the findings, the three for the variance. And then

The side yard sidebar includes both the stairs and the wall.

And the wall? Yes.

Would that be partial approval for one of

the variance?

Yes. Only the front yard sidebar.

Well, would be and according to Lemieux, the side guard variance for the expansion of the walls. So we could state it that way.

Okay. So is the motion fairly clear?

It is. So when you make your findings, you've got the three findings you make for the variances. You're not denying any of them. Approving three and continuing two. They're only asking for variances?

They are. So approving we're approving two, continuing two, right?

Well, yes, and you know, so apparently there's So the side yard variance on the right side is not just for the stairs, but for also the expansion of the wall.

Okay. All right, let me just try again.

Where I was going, though, is when you make those findings for the variances, that's fine. They can be all positive. But when we get to the design review, we're both approving things and denying things, so you need to make both positive and negative.

All right. Okay, so the motion is made, right, And then I'll continue on this. The project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to SECU guidelines, Section 15,301 Class and is consistent with the general plan programs and policies. The variances from the front yard and exceeding allowable lot coverage are approved because they comply with the variance criteria under Sections 17.7 and excuse me, 17.70.040.8, as follows: The property and existing improvements present present unusual physical circumstances of the property, including the lot is usually narrow, limiting the ability to increase exterior wall thickness for installation purposes outside of the required side yard and front yard setback. Okay, so that strictly applying terms of this chapter would keep the property from being used in the same manner as other conforming properties in the zone.

Okay. So I should also say that the other variances are

We'll do that at the end.

Okay. All right.

But I would say the in regards to the side yard variance needed for expansion of the walls, that's part of the approval.

Which I said, exceeding the allowable lot coverage. Well,

but also the side yard setback.

Okay, including the side yard setbacks for increased wall thicknesses for insulation installation. Yeah. All right. The project is compatible with immediately surrounding neighborhood and public welfare because the applicant has provided evidence that the majority of the adjacent lots are larger in size. Accomplishing the improvement without a variance would cause unreasonable hardship in planning, design or construction because the house would need to be demolished in order to locate and construct the site features.

Okay. As conditioned, the project is well, the variances are approved because they comply with design review well, this is design review though.

Partially, partial approval.

So we're not

So you made your three variance findings. Right. Right, so you're going to Design Review. Design Review, we haven't really

So you can say the following, and then just read the ones that are approved.

Okay, so it's conditioned Right,

yeah.

And the project is approved because it complies with the design review criteria under Section 17.66.06o as follows: The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines and Standards, in that the following building features are consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development: the design material, the facade of the house, the roof material, and the window and door material and fenestration pattern. Are

there parts of the deck that are not consistent. You'll want to mention that here And as

the parts of the design which are not consistent with the aforementioned section as follows the stair material and design, the deck design, and guardrail design and material, handrail design and material. Okay. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties, existing views of privacy, and access to direct or indirects. Like because the height of the project has been kept as low as possible. The design does not adversely affect pedestrian or

I would wait on that second one.

Yeah. I think

that So, was quite yeah, so the as conditioned, which would mean just the walls, I think there was discussion about the deck having an impact on Neighbor's privacy and so forth. So you just put in a line there that the commission finds that the deck had an adverse impact on The that part of

design has little or no effect on neighboring properties, existing views and privacy and access to direct and indirect light, conditioned on the design of or consideration of the deck and stair design. Okay. Is that correct or?

No, think sorry.

It's very fussy, It is.

So for that second finding, for the design review, it's about the impact on the neighbors like you, Aaron, privacy. Statement is

not even correct, you know.

So, right, so I wouldn't, so really, the part of the application that you're approving, you're going to find on the positive end of that, that it does not have those effects. However, I heard discussion about the deck that there it did have an adverse impact. Right. And so that's kind of what you're stating in this finding is that as conditioned, because you're going to add a condition of approval that the stair and deck are not approved as part of this application.

Well, mean, shouldn't even read this statement because this is not true, right?

For the deck and steer, but it is for the other elements that you are approving.

Okay. Alright. Okay. The design has a little or no effect on neighboring properties, existing existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light conditioned on the placement and design of the deck and stairs, which do have impact on neighboring properties, existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light.

Okay. We'll go with that.

All right. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the project does not modify on-site parking conditions. The project maintains adequate visibility for entering and exiting the driveway. As conditioned, the application complies with the following guidelines and general plan policies and programs: Chapter three Site Design 3.03, 3.05, 3.11. Building Design, General, 4.01.02.03.

Chapter five, Building Design Single Family Residential, 5.01. And the project is consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element.

So before you go into there, so what you'll want to do also for the design standards and guidelines is cite which of those the deck and stair do not comply with. I

think that you want scale and height, Well, and style no, we're talking about standards.

Design guidelines. Like style compatibility. Well, that's a general plan policy. So I'm moving Commissioner Yee back to Okay.

Okay. So as a condition, the application applies with the following guidelines and general plan policies and programs, except for the scale and design of the proposed deck and stair, exterior stair. And the project is consistent with Chapters three, Site Design Chapter four, General Building Design and Chapter five, Building Design Single Family Residential. And the project is consistent with general plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element. Design and preservation policies 28.1, 28.2, 28.3, not 28.5, 28.6, 28.8, 28.9, 29.1, 29.2, 29.9, and 31.9.

Okay. You say 28.8 I mean 28.2280.5

is because that covers garages, decks and porches. It's not, you know

It's not consistent with not

consistent with that.

The deck and stairs. Right. Okay. And so

And so the project is approved with the following 11 conditions of approval.

Plus Or Plus

Lamees, are any of those specific to the deck and stairs of those 11?

I'm looking

at it.

Don't have Window and door material, window trim.

Right. Yeah, you don't have to go cite them all. None of them addressed that. Okay. So you'll the 11 plus, you'll want to add a condition of approval that Right. The

That the applicant

Oh, no, that the deck and stair are

as not

part of this application.

Okay. So condition number 12, which is the deck and stairs are not approved under this application.

Seconded. Right. So

I'll take a roll call vote.

Vote. Second. Now the motion has been made and there is a second. Is there further discussion? All

right. Commissioner Bieselink?

Aye.

Commissioner Cooper? Oh, sorry. Commissioner Ortiz.

Aye.

Commissioner Yi. Aye. And Commissioner Zeruchian.

Aye.

And Commissioner Rowland. Aye. All right. So motion passes. Congratulations in part. We can talk to staff about deck redesign if you so choose.

Okay. Thank you very much. We now move to Agenda Item four, which is a variance permit for 105 Oakmont Avenue. Do we have speakers?

I have no hands raised at this time.

I have a speaker card from Adam Price.

Mike please.

Oh I'm sorry, should I start again. Alright. I'm Lois Price, the owner of 105 Oakmont and long time Piedmont resident. Thank you for your time and consideration this evening. I request that a landscape parking pad in the driveway setback be the required parking space for my home, replacing the designated parking space at the end of the driveway.

In the over twenty five years that I've lived at 105 Oakmont, I've never driven a car down the driveway and have always parked on the street. The current designated parking space does not meet any of the city's parking space standards, including backup distance, grade, turning radii, and driveway width. Note that the grade is 15%, as indicated in the existing driveway drawings that you've received, and not 17.5%, as I noted in the findings. However, 15% grade also does not meet the city parking space standards. There are five other driveways on my block on the same side of the street.

None of them have the same configuration of narrow, long, and steep as my house. Four are wider at the sidewalk entrance to the driveway, and from a visual inspection, four appear to be less steep than my driveway. While they're similar, my driveway is narrower and steeper than these driveways presenting unique circumstances. The proposed parking pad and walkway in the driveway setback would make off street parking viable for my home, thereby reducing on street parking by one car. The houses across the street have no street facing driveways, so an aesthetic dry riverbed parking pad would be consistent with the neighborhood.

So, when it is not used, the space will appear as landscaping. Most importantly, the proposed changes will provide for safe and natural access to the ADU for myself, my family, and emergency response personnel. A number of years ago, I fell at the parking space location while walking on the driveway. I want to be sure that any falling risk is reduced. The proposed plan accomplishes that goal, and key to the plan is having the parking pad in the driveway setback.

I believe the plan enables my off street parking space to be usable and increases both safety and aesthetics. Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Are there commissioner questions?

Not yet. Thank you

very much. Thank you. Are there any other speakers on this agenda item?

Yes. I have a speaker card from Adam Price.

I'm I'm the contractor on the project. Some people have suggested putting steps in the middle of the double drive pads, but there would be no way to put a handrail up and still have it be compatible with the car. So that was one of the objections we had. The driveway is rather steep, it's 15% and it narrows to seven foot two once we get the fence built and everything like that. When we were constructing the ADU, to back a truck down and it would be a very small Toyota pickup, we backed down to bring materials in.

We had to have somebody guide us down so we wouldn't rip the mirrors off the car. Anyway, so it's a difficult condition and that's basically what I wanted to present. And she was she wanted quite a great expense to put the parking in the front setback and make it very attractive drive riverbed look. I don't know if you looked at the plans, but that's I think a really good solution. And it all the neighbors complaints were that there was not enough.

Street parking. And this would take one more car off the street, so I think it would satisfy that. Complaint. Also, and that's basically all I have to say.

Any commissioner? Excuse me. Any commissioner question? Could you step back up to the podium, please? Yes, sorry. Thank you.

The location of the gate, right, I understand, right, you're adding a fence or a gate at the is the gate part of the review?

No. No.

Just that distance up to the gate, is that enough for a car to park Because you're showing also a big boulder, right, two and a

half feet. Is that gonna take us

would be like a a boulevard so the car couldn't go rolling down down the slope.

Right. It's not taking up car space? No. And and and that slope where the car will park would be the same slope as if you

It's still it's still 15%. Yeah.

Right. So

You just wouldn't be backing up 70 feet.

Right. Right. So you'll be just backing up from the Okay. Okay.

Do we have any other speakers?

Yes. I have a few questions from Adam.

All right. Thank you. I'm Adam Price and current resident at 105 Oakmont. I just have a few additional comments to add just from my own personal experience living there is I would not park beyond the initial setback due to the driveways narrow width, length, steep grade and also lack of turnaround. So you'd be backing up a long distance.

It doesn't seem safe. Parking in the setback, which is what we have proposed, is consistent with how other residents in the neighborhood generally use their driveways. If you walk down the street, either people are parked on the street or in the setback. I believe that an unusable parking space should not be required to be maintained when redeveloping would improve the safety, the usability, off street parking and aesthetics of the property, and I request that you consider to vote in favor of this application. Thank you.

So just one second. You said that you believe that something should not be required to be maintained. What was that?

So I believe that an unusable parking space further down the driveway should not be required to be maintained when it would impede redeveloping to offer safe access by foot, better aesthetics, more improved off street parking in the

setback. Okay. Thank you. Yes.

Were there any commissioner questions of this speaker?

Thank you.

I have a speaker card from Timmy Kalamaz, 37 Bellevue Avenue.

Hi. My name is Timmy Colomis, and I'm a student at Piedmont High School. As someone who has to drive to school every day, I've seen the struggle of not having a consistent and safe parking spot. And I've also seen firsthand how my grandpa had to park on a very steep spot every day and I've seen the struggle that has come with that. And I just think that it would be a lot safer and more convenient for someone who's lived in Piedmont for almost all of their life to have a convenient spot to park. Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no speaker cards.

Ms. Nicole?

I have no hands raised at this time.

Chair Roland, we did receive a letter that was omitted from your second packet from Kate Jeffrey and stating support for the application as well. And that was distributed to you tonight at the dais. Okay.

Okay. We will now close the public comment portion of this agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion. Or did you want to

I mean, had some questions. Before we

Yeah. Then let's back up.

Yeah. I'm sorry. When I meant not now, I I was

Okay.

Well Playing it all with And who would you like to Yes. I have some questions if you Yeah. Just a few questions about the property. Yeah. I have some questions about the variance, the formality of variance as opposed to like kind of the substance and the practicality of how the property is used. I'm just curious if you currently use that front setback area for parking. Do you park

No, don't. Part of the plan you'll see adds sort of a walkway to the side of the parking space. So as it is, it's not usable. It would have to be changed so it could be so you could get out of the car. I

drove by the property on Thursday and took a look around. So what I didn't see was the prior condition before because it's still under construction. But I looked on Google Street View, it looked like in the past that area leading down to the ADU was like overgrown? Am I

It was Hollywood Strips, and in between, it was planted.

Okay.

Yeah. It was landscaped.

Okay. Because I saw some

They were tall. They were It was because I was never going to drive down there. So instead of having a fence, I I just had plants.

Yeah. And and so the other question I have about when you purchased, I guess you moved in or purchased property in 1999, is that?

'ninety nine, right. Okay.

It was in the application. And you've never you've never driven a car down there? Just No. Okay. So, I mean, is is that because it was narrow?

Well, part of it is, historically, there there was a garage that was converted to the house. So, you know, million years ago, you drive down, go into the garage, and you could back out because the whole yard was concrete and then come out the driveway. And

that garage is now studio.

Right. And that's my understanding is that was done in 1967.

Okay. And that was in the application, it says it was approved?

Yeah. I mean, before I moved in, they approved the changes for the house.

Okay. So I mean, am I wrong to conclude that for you to have some kind of usable parking space back there with a turnaround. I mean, don't I'm not sure if you've thought through what would have to be done to make that possible.

Well, there's no space for it because now there's an ADU. So there's no turnaround space that could be used. Right.

Okay. Anybody else have any questions? I do. Okay. When you say Hollywood strips, what are you referring to?

That's when you've got like the two cement like rows. I'm probably not describing it well.

Okay, I

know what you're talking about.

Yeah. So you have the two lines of concrete Right. In line with the tires of a vehicle that would either drive into that area or park in front?

Yes, you drive on those. And then in between there was plantings.

Okay. And so currently you can, if you wanted to park in come in through the driveway and park at that space, you can park on top of those two strips.

Right. I mean, they're not there because of the well, there's some of them are there, most of them are gone because of the construction.

But the parking

But you could park on those strips, but it was too narrow even at that front to get in and out. Right.

So the two strips that remain, a car can move can drive onto those and park?

I don't know if I if they're far enough, what's left. No, I know. But you could drive in, you just could get out because of landscaping. It's just so narrow. Yes, it's just narrow.

Okay. All right. Very good.

Okay. Anything else?

Yes. Another the fencing, was that that was a required addition of your prior approved plan? Am I Okay. You had to put in a new fence.

For part of the ADU, and that's approved.

Okay. But the gate, that proposed gate would come after Correct. But only if we approve the variance

Correct.

Because you wouldn't be able to close that off Yeah. Without a variance. Okay.

Exactly. Commissioner Boussling, the fence has not been constructed yet, but it has been approved. Right. And it is required for the ADU.

Okay. Understood.

The fence on the side.

The fence on the right side.

Yes. But the gate itself is locked yet.

That's correct. Right.

So the fence necessarily will reduce the width available?

Of a narrow.

Yes. As approved, as currently required.

Any further Thank you.

Thank you very much. We will now close the public portion of this agenda item and proceed to Commissioner discussion. Commissioner Musilink, would you like to open the discussion?

This one's tough. There's a lot of factors here, and I would appreciate help in organizing my thoughts and parsing through all the issues. I tried to organize based on, you know, required elements of a variance, you know, because we got a lot of neighbor feedback and trying to understand this with a view toward precedent and practicality. I mean, that's why I asked about what is your current use of that front section. So, you know, there was some also some neighbor feedback, you know, about, you know, does this meet the requirements of the variance?

And I actually, you know, I don't look at quite the same way as some of the comments, but the lot is currently nonconforming. It's only about 60% of the size of conforming Zone A and even the frontage is only two thirds. So it's a smaller lot, but there is already a parking pad whether or not it's usable or not and it exists. And it seems like the usability has been impacted over time by changes to the property approved changes to the property itself. So it's been kind of like designed away, constructed away.

The usability has been constructed away. But it's still not the same type of driveway and parking pad you would normally be able to have if you did have a conforming lot with more space. You would be able to have a wider driveway turnaround radius. So that I feel like that element is satisfied because you currently cannot have the same as a conforming lot would have with more space. Is it compatible with the second factor, is it compatible with the immediately surrounding neighborhood and the public welfare?

Obviously, there's some debate about that with your neighbors. But the question is, is it reducing parking on the property? Practically speaking, no. In theory, it might be approving and helping provide for parking space. I did drive down there just this afternoon.

I saw two other properties on the street where cars were parked in the setback area on other people's driveways. So I'm inclined to say that it's not necessarily a reduction in parking. I don't even think it's necessarily forcing you to utilize more street parking. So I think the general policy would be wanting to encourage you to park on the parking pad, not take up more street parking. So that might lend in your favor.

And third factor is hardship in playing design and construction. I think you would have to engage in some very significant changes to your property if you were to provide for a parking pad beyond the setback area and utilize the existing pad. So I'm inclined to support the variance only because of those reasons as identified by the three factors for variance. But I would invite my other commissioners to also opine and see if I've organized my thoughts, you know, in the way that they also think about it.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Zeruchian?

Yeah. No, I think, you know, you hit on points, right, that, you know, the the property has already this condition where it is quite narrow. It's quite steep. Parking you know, if you are able to get the car down in this parking on this pad. Right?

The pad will need to be reconstructed because it has been damaged by construction activities. So if you do create even if you put the old pavers, not just the two lines of concrete going past that narrow point at the, like, you know, at the at the house, going further down, it's gonna make it quite difficult, right, to get out in and out. So as, you know, practically, right, it will be easier to not park there. Right? You know, still park on the street because of the conditions.

This way, with the improvements that are being proposed, it will actually make the space in front of the house that's set back more pleasant. Right? It's more in line with the rest of the neighborhood and actually beautify this otherwise concrete driveway or driveway down. So I think this improves the situation because of what conditions we have. So I would be inclined also to support the project. Commissioner Ortiz?

Yeah. Mean, I think, you know, the issue of the variance, especially with the requirement of the fence being added due to the ATU. I think practically with that and the slope, just like It makes it really tough to actually use that as a parking spot. And I I think that, you know, as a owner, you have to be able to practically use it as such. And I think I could make the findings that are required to support this variance given that, narrow condition and continuing to that additional fence making it even more narrow than it is today.

And I think the fact that you're able to provide a usable parking spot in the front would not only just satisfy the need for just one parking spot, but also encourage that street parking is not utilized. It would mean that you'd have something that was much more usable in your day to day. So, yes, I mean, I think with that I could make the findings to support this variance.

Thank you. Commissioner You know,

I think Commissioner Ortiz summarized it pretty well. I mean, I think what it boils down to the case for the variance, think, has to do with the width the clear width from the property line now complicated by the new fence to the narrow point of the fireplace, which is around seven, seven point five feet. So I think I walked around the neighborhood a little bit, around Piedmont there are a lot of properties with, you know, a property line with house and then a narrow driveway, and sometimes the driveways, as you pointed out, in your case, you know, can be fairly steep. So a lot of those were built. I was walking on Ricardo today, there are lot of driveways that are, you know, fairly steep.

So if you were just asking for that on that basis, then I'd find it hard pressed to approve it, except for the and I think what it boils down is the width. So I think to me the variance argument you're making because of the width and the safety related to getting down the driveway regardless of the slope, which in many cases the D Mont, are in that 12% to 15% range. I think it's compelling enough for me.

Commissioner Yee, you're saying that getting into this part of the rear yard is too much trouble because and because of the reduced entry space, because of the fence?

There's going to be a fence and The a gate, and then I think the net the net point is that fireplace, which I think the applicant indicated is around I'm sorry, it was like seven feet. It was a foot five or something. You know, normal cars about six foot, two, three, even us.

You consider door clearance.

Yeah. Know, can't get out. Right? So

Chair Roland, also as a point of information, the gate is not that's proposed. It's the fence that was required for the ADU. Right. Can my mic be turned down? Is that possible?

Well, what I'm saying, Commissioner Mohni, is that there are a number of extenuating circumstances here that I think make an argument for the variance. One is the narrow width between the fireplace and the property line, now exasperated by the addition of the fence. Right. And then I'm trying to separate what the applicant comments they made, which we're supposed to do separate personal considerations from, you know, the variance application. So I mean, I respect what the applicant said about, you know, difficulties she's had getting out of the car and so forth.

But, you know, setting that aside, is it reasonable to for the applicant to ask for a variance when the distance they on their property is, you know, seven foot five minuteus whatever the width of the fence is going to be. And so I find that reasonable. Can I follow-up on one before I

you always add your wisdom

at the

very end? So before you comment, I just

want to

flesh out another line of thinking that I had was like about, and me being the attorney, precedent and slippery slope. You look around the neighborhood, and there's a number of properties that may have like garages with a very short driveway. Some of them might have enough depth to have a car parked in front. Driving around the neighborhood, and maybe it was just the time of day, I didn't see a lot of people taking up that parking in that setback area. But the other question is, if we approve a variance for parking pad in the setback area, when the entire neighborhood theoretically has this problem, would a lot of other projects coming later say, hey, we need to be able to use that too, and does that just become the nature and character of the neighborhood?

I mean, in theory, you want to encourage the off street parking, but and as a practical matter, but the formality of the zoning, we'd effectively be ignoring consistently like the zoning requirement by setting this precedent. So I just want to bring that up as a matter of concern.

I think the difference here though, I'm trying to point out is that it's not just using that space alone. It's the condition that's being put in front of us because of the requirement of the fence due to the ADU, in my mind, at least, due to the ADU project. And so that factor makes it just like not physically usable. And in my mind that is really kind of the differentiation here. It's not you know, looking at it in isolation.

And I really am trying to avoid talking about the ADU, frankly. It's not part of what we're supposed to be discussing. I do have concerns that you kind of can design away the usability of an existing parking pad, right? You can make like, over time, the parking pad through various other modifications to the property, it becomes unusable. And maybe just because of, like, size of cars too, but like and we're addressing this on the back end by saying, okay, well, we should just ignore the zoning requirement because of that accumulation of choices there are choices over time to make it the parking pad irrelevant, right?

Well, Commissioner Busey, I share your concern about precedent setting and compliance with the zoning ordinance, and those are critical.

So I think when Napoli comes to the Commission and has a variance request, you know, the there's a condition in the request that is unusual where they cannot use that space or use that existing condition in the same way as another property. For example, if another property owner came to us and they have a same condition these folks have, but let's say their driveway clearance is 8.5 to nine feet, right? We wouldn't grant them a variance because they do comply with at least in part the size of the space. You can park on the slope, maybe it's 15% or whatever, but you can still at least get in and out of the car and do it safely and still maneuver in and out of the space. So I think I share your concern about, you know, how do we comply with the intent and the spirit and law and terminology of the zoning ordinance so that we're not creating an open invitation for everybody on that street to come in and say, hey, you know, you granted 105 of this and you ought to give it to me too.

So I think, again, we have to evaluate each variance request on its own merits and how they stack up against the zoning ordinance and other issues like safety and so forth. So I think in this case, they don't have the space. I think it's a reasonable request. I don't think it sets precedent. I think we're variance is exactly that. It's granting permission to do something which is not necessarily consistent with the zoning ordinance due to an extenuating circumstance. Very good, this is my 2¢.

But to follow-up on what Commissioner Bussolink said, you can engineer the property to where you specifically engineer it to require a variance. For example, in this case, as I'm looking at this, it doesn't seem like there was any intention for any cars to go beyond that where there's a gate proposed. That's all pedestrian activity.

Commissioner Berlin, there is no gate proposed. The the the fence the the gate at the across the driveway is not part of this application.

Okay. So maybe let let me modify what I mentioned or what I what I intended to say. You can create circumstances to where the opening can be narrowed so that you can't really use that for parking anymore. You can also put an ADU in the back where, you know, you had space to maybe maneuver back there before and now you don't. So then you need to have the space up front.

I don't have any problem with that, but those are all decisions that are made. They're it's not like natural condition. And so when you get to the

front I'm sorry, Chair Roland, just one sec one point of information. The fence requirement that's narrowing the driveway is not the desire of the applicant, that is a city requirement. So it's, you know, it's not their choice to put in that fence that's narrowing the driveway. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Thank you for making that point.

Yeah. Apologize for

That does reflect on whether or not it's engineered away from thank you. Getting back though to the front, right now you have a couple of Hollywood strips and you can drive into the driveway the way it is now, but you can't get out. But you can't get out because there's some landscaping stones there, right? So if those stones weren't there, you could get out. So that would be a landscaping choice from a prior term that narrows the space for the usability of that driveway.

So that, I mean, that is, I'm expressing the same concern that Commissioner Buzalink is. On the other hand, these spaces like these, spaces like these are used for parking. And the the question based on the existing configuration is, do you do a whole new parking pad or do you just remove those stones that impede the opening and closing of a door? And so the the the question on that relates to hardship. Is there really a hardship for having to keep this these couple Hollywood strips as the existing parking pad or driveway space where a car can be parked.

One way or the other, you're going to have to modify this space because in order to park a car there consistently, you will have to move those stones that are right that are surrounding the tree. Instead of moving those stones that are surrounding the tree, you want to move those stones that are surrounding the tree and you want to build an entirely new parking pad. The thing that I'm thinking about here is that both of those serve the same function. So is it necessary to have an entirely new parking pad in order to park there? And I've and and throwing that question out to the homeowner, maybe you can answer that.

If I could answer that Oh, excuse me. Go ahead. So the the this is only a variance application. This is not a design review application. So the the on grade improvements do not require design review.

But that's not the point. Right.

So they could repave that spot without a permit. So that means It's really the what's before you is an application to eliminate the existing parking space down the driveway and relocate that to a space in the 20 foot street yard setback, which is in violation of our parking location requirements. So the number of spaces and the condition of that space being uncovered remains unchanged. It' merely the location and there are no regulations for changing a driveway, material design. That is not before you tonight.

So but the variance requires a hardship. I'm searching for where the hardship is in that.

So I would imagine it's since the variances from the location, it's about location. Is the hardship is the location of the space the parking space down the driveway a hardship for parking there? And is it better location in the front? I think that's where the question of hardship would come from.

And so that's the point that I'm getting at is that that space is available to park in already.

Can I ask a quick question of Kevin, you and Pierce? Is it I can't remember. Is there a requirement in terms of maximum backup distance for parking space?

Think it was 50 feet, right? And it's currently, as per the application, it says it's 52 acres. So it's nonconforming already.

And the minimum objective standard for a new driveway is 10 feet. And according to the plans, the pinch point created by the new fence is seven foot three inches.

Can I ask another question? So even though the gate is not being proposed, is there is would there be some kind

of

prohibition in placing a gate as long as the parking pad was in the existing location?

There would not be any need for a permit for a driveway gauge that was outside the 20 foot street yard setback and that was less than six feet in height. That you could do without a permit. As long as it did not restrict the access. I mean, there's driveway gates all over town. Usually, we permit them, they are done with an electronic operation so that it still provides easy access to the parking beyond the gate.

It should be a car gate rather than a man gate.

No. It's not oh, yeah. So right. We're talking about a driveway gate, not a

Not a enclosed fence. Right. Then and what about landscaping? We were talking about they could repave the driveway without any kind of am I correct in saying that?

No.

Okay. What about landscaping, though? I mean like you know, it it depicts landscaping in the, you know, in the proposed

Landscaping generally is not subject to design review. However, if people install items that restrict access to the approved parking spaces, then that would require variance. Okay.

So like planter boxes or

Now those Ball boards,

you know.

Right. Any of those permanent features, they would require variance.

Okay.

So Commissioner Rowling, I think what you're saying is that there is in your is it safe to say, in your view, there is a viable parking space down slope of the property that negates argument

for a variance? No, there's a viable parking space where she wants to place this as it is. It's right here in the front. Right. So so so without a variance, you have a parking space there. With a variance, you have a parking space in exactly the same location.

Mhmm. Without a variance, you are not allowed to park in that

space. Exactly.

Without a variance, you are able to park here.

Physically, but not actually.

But This is a this is a form of a substance argument. Like, you know, can you park there? I mean, practically speaking, yes. Are you allowed to park there?

Could the

difference the difference, the

Just one second. Yeah. You're allowed to park there. Right?

This is not an application about where and where you are not allowed to park. This is an application about where the approved conforming, however nonconforming that conforming space is, is located.

For the off street parking.

For the off street parking. You're required to have two off street parking spaces, non tandem and covered. So they have an existing nonconforming parking situation where that and the location of those parking spaces needs to be not in this 20 foot street yard setback. So the parking space that they have that is somewhat conforming is located out of the 20 foot street yard setback down the driveway and it' not covered. What they are asking here is to locate the approved parking on on-site parking space in the 20 foot street yard setback.

In the 20 foot street yard setback where there's currently this These two strip

where they they where where there's already an existing driveway.

Okay. The driveway, the existing driveway, the way it was described was narrow, so you could only drive through, but then you cannot park there and get off the car. So the proposed design allows for a walkway next to the car so that you can get out of the car and walk down speed. Correct? And so that's the change between using that driveway to park or improving it to be able to park. Does that make sense?

So legally, what they're asking for is this legal definition of the off street parking space, which is required in an existing nonconforming condition

To be located in the setback? Yes.

Then on a practical matter, there is this narrow pinch point at the chimney. And prior to the construction of the ADU, I

think there was a way to turn around in the back and come back out again front wise, probably even way before that, before she

became known. It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter. Doesn't It doesn't matter.

So I just find it not reasonable to expect some of it back 62 feet to the street when they have a seven foot four or five clearance and they'll be going to the paint.

Body shop. Yeah. A lot of body shop where we they should they're, you know, week, you know. So They should have a subscription. Yeah.

I can find that to be, you know, if again, if you had a foot more, then we wouldn't have this discussion. You know, would be a you know, it would be a no deal, you know, so to speak.

Commissioner Yee, call on you to make the motion.

I don't want to make the motions again.

I can make the motion.

I

move approval of the project at 105 Oakmont Avenue making the following findings. Determine that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to sequel guidelines section fifteen three zero one class one existing facilities and section fifteen three zero three new construction or conversion of small structures because it is a minor change to an existing private residence which is less than 50% of the floor area of the structure before the addition and the project is consistent with general plan policies and programs as noted in the staff report. Variance findings for waiving one parking location requirement. The variance is approved because it does comply with the variance criteria under section seventeen point seven zero point zero four zero as follows. The property and existing improvements present unusual physical circumstances of the property including the lot is unusually narrow and long and does not provide adequate room for parking space and pedestrian path of travel outside the required street yard setback.

The alley configuration of neighboring properties results in adequate on street parking so that strictly applying the terms of this chapter would keep the property from being used in the same manner as other conforming properties in the zone. The project is compatible with the immediately surrounding neighborhood and the public welfare because applicant has provided evidence that there are additional parking spaces available on the street to mitigate the proposed parking pad location at 105 Oakmont Avenue. The street yard setback at 105 Oakmont Avenue will continue to be landscaped and naturalistic. Accomplishing the improvements without a variance

would

cause unreasonable hardship in planning, design or construction because the existing required pedestrian path of travel conflicts with the slope of the existing driveway and the existing driveway is unsafe due to its narrowness and slope. As conditioned the application complies with the following general plan policies and programs. Design and preservation element policy 29.1, 29.2, and 29.7. And the project is approved with the following three conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report.

Is there a second?

I second.

Okay. So we have a motion to approve the variance from Commissioner Ortiz and a second by Commissioner Zeruchian. I'll do roll call vote. Commissioner Bucelink? No. Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Yi? Aye. Commissioner Zeruchian?

Aye.

And Commissioner Rowland? No. All right, the motion passes three to two. Congratulations.

We now move to agenda item number five, which is a design. We got one more. Don't we proceed? Yeah. Yeah. Design review permit for 2058 Oakland Avenue.

I just have one thing to add about this project. We received two late neighbor comments that I have printed for your references.

Okay.

Yeah. Let's proceed. I

have a speaker card from Rob Kelly.

I'm sorry. What the what did the commissioners just get?

That's something that mister Kelly wanted to share with the commissioners. Right? These are

Yes. Yes. I have nine of them.

Three extra.

Yeah. Great.

So please provide yourself and let's proceed.

My name is Robert Kelly. I'm the architect for this project. I'm a resident of Piedmont. I've been actively practicing in Piedmont for about twenty five years. I've been to the planning commission many times and my takeaway from being at the planning commission is to work with the neighbors as much as possible to minimize the disruption in the neighborhood and design something that minimizes the impact to the neighbors.

The first thing I did with the owners before they even bought the house, we went and talked all the neighbors about the possibility of addition. Before we started before I put a pencil to paper, before we started the design, again, I went and talked to the neighbors with the owners. We met with the most affected neighbor next door, Eileen, and her primary if you're standing on the street, it's the neighbor to the left. Her primary concern when we met was the view towards this maple tree, and that's something we preserved. Her today, her concerns seem to be more about solar orientation and light to her backyard. Here's the street. Here's the path of the winter sun. Our addition is over here. It has absolutely no impact on the winter sun. It's not in the way.

When I look at the the pathway of the summer sun, the sun's much higher. It's a seems like an ideal location, in my opinion, in relationship to the neighbor's yard. Her yard is pretty far away. So when I think this project through, I think, how do we get here? Why are we asking for an addition? When I look at the home, and it's typical of any 100 year old home in Piedmont, there's a lot of, I think, problems with the layout. When I look at the upper floor plan, there's a bathroom that's stuck in a closet. The closets are oversized and ill connected. There's no master suite. There's no laundry.

So we're asking to improve this house and make it more usable for the year 02/2025. It's the same thing when I look at the lower floor, the kitchen, the main floor, the kitchen's ill is not well related to the house in terms of public space. The old kitchen was pushed to the side for it wasn't part of our primary entertaining space, which it is now. The deck's small. It doesn't allow much access to the yard. So what we're trying to do is fix these problems with keeping as much of the house as possible. It's a beautiful home. I'm feel very lucky to be working on it. It's one of the oldest homes in Piedmont. It has a beautiful yard.

We're trying to retain as much character, and we're trying to improve the character. When I look at we've talked to the neighbors over and over again. I've actively asked them to meet with me and us, the owners, to talk about the project. So, we're trying to consider other ways. Why didn't we add on to the east side of the house facing the bay, away from Eileen over here?

And what we found was putting an addition on the side facing the east side of the bay creates dark spaces in the middle of the house, and it wasn't an appropriate solution. So we're looking at the rear addition as a primary, a repeated, in my mind, a place with the best place to add on to the house. When I look at the back of the house, it's a total disaster. It was added on to over decades. The roofs are all crooked.

There's old elements that don't fit well together. So what we'd like to do is restore the house. When I look this is almost the first time I've been to the Planning Commission without a variance. And primarily, I come here when we're maximizing footprint. We're asking for number one here, which is about a 15% site coverage, and the code allows us about 40%, which is about three times the size of our proposal. In summary, we're asking for relatively modest rear addition of eight feet 10 inches past the back of the side of the house. This is an ideal situation related to the neighbor. It's mostly her garage with no windows. She has no major windows facing this side. Her view is kinda directed towards the back, and we're main

I missed her view out. Mister Kelly, if you're three minutes or

Of the tree view that she wanted to. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Are there any commissioner questions?

It seemed like the depth of the addition, the proposed addition on the back was, I mean, it almost lined up with back of the neighbor's property before the structure before the deck. Was that intentional or just coincident?

Wasn't taken into consideration. We're trying to bump out as minimally as possible. When I look at the whole street neighborhood pattern, almost all the houses go much further back than what we are proposing.

Okay. Thank you.

The owner would like to speak.

Shall we begin?

Please identify yourself.

Okay.

Hi. I'm Anthony Chowdhury. I'm the new owner of 2058 Oakland Avenue. My wife, Morgan, is sick with illness, and so she wasn't able to attend tonight. So I'll be speaking on her behalf. A little bit about us. We are we live just a few minutes away in Rockridge. We have a two year old son who's very active and we spent a lot of the last year in the parks of Piedmont and that's actually how we decided to move here. He loves being there and so we started the search and when we came across the house at 2058 Oakland Avenue, we fell in love right away. And it was primarily because of the historical details.

We love that it's not ornate. It has a lot of charm. It still has a lot of the details from the eighteen nineties. And Rob actually showed us a book that's here in City Hall that it's in one of the books of one of the oldest homes in Piedmont. And as as Rob mentioned, some of the restorations over the years, you know, the the floors in the kitchen are are drooping because the restorations weren't done properly. And we do really want to bring this back to its the charm that it could be in. So we're very excited about that. Also, looking at the project, looking at the house, we knew from the onset it was going to be a project. It doesn't have a modern foundation. It was built before modern plumbing.

The electrical is also over 100 years old. And so we knew that we were going to bring Rob in from the beginning and we did. And like he mentioned, we talked to the neighbors before we even made an offer. We talked to two of the neighbors. We knocked on all the doors, but the people that were available before were if you're facing the house to the right, Scott and Valerie and I spoke to Scott that day.

And then two houses away were also available, Laurie, and we spoke to her. And both of them, we we wanted to hear from them how supportive and open would you be to us doing a restoration like this. And it was overwhelming support from both of those parties. They did mention one concern that the pre they were concerned about the lot split. The previous owner had proposed a lot split, and they were asking, know, what's gonna happen? Are people gonna build condos there or change the density of the neighborhood? And they asked us what our intent was, and that's not our intent. We wanted a single family home very similar to the rest of the houses on the street. And it was nice to see that we all aligned on that. So looking at the plans, as Rob mentioned, the eight foot 10 extension off the back, for us, it's not about adding square footage.

For us, it's really about, like Rob said, making a layout that works to have a kitchen that we can spend time in that you can actually fit people in, a laundry room and and things like that. Originally, when we were designing, we proposed on the attic floor that the attic be built all the way out to the new the new extension, this eight foot 10. We shared these plans with the neighbors and we wanted their feedback. And Lori, the neighbor I spoke about two houses away, she actually was very kind, invited us into her house and showed us that it would take her view of the Salesforce tower away. And and so as you see in the plans today, that is gone and we went with a flat roof and she's agreed that that would maintain her view.

And so we're more than happy to to oblige and take that into account. I mean, in the end for us, this project is we're looking at it as a forever home, but also that we're going to be part of the community and so we wanted to start with that part first. So thank you for your time.

Any questions from commissioners?

Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any other speakers on this agenda item?

I have no speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

Okay, we'll then close the public comment for this particular agenda item and proceed to Commissioner deliberation. Commissioner?

Yeah, Sure. Yeah. As mentioned, you know, I agree with a lot of the what Rob mentioned. This, you know, this is a beautiful house, a historic house, and this addition really improves on the way this house, you know, functions. You know, there definitely, is a, you know, thoughtful consideration about how to make the additions.

Right? You know, this is the right location. We there is a big beautiful yard in the back, so it really doesn't take away from the available space. There's no variances that are being requested here. I agree with the sun orientation.

I don't I don't think it's gonna be taking away any of the sun from the neighbors. And it's a shame that this house has been, you know, modified the way it has been, and it's a great thing that, you know, you're you choose to restore, you know you know, increase a little bit of your square footages. It improves on the use of the house, but it's we you're restoring to the really to the character of this historic house. So that's very much commendable. And also commendable is the setting back of that attic.

I think it really shows also consideration for your neighbors in the same time at the same time, you gain that deck, the roof deck, right, which would be probably fantastic. So all in all, I find this project easy to support.

Thank you. Commissioner

Yu? I second a lot of what Commissioner Tsurukin mentioned. The House is it's great that these older properties are being reinvigorated with and updating to current contemporary standards. I think your neighbor to your left had some fairly strong concerns about daylight view blockage and so forth. But their property and your property are now roughly at the same distance from the Oakland Avenue property line.

So I don't find that necessarily a compelling argument, especially since your property is some 25 to 30 feet, 25 or so feet away from their property. I think impacts on their light and air are fairly minimal. Other than that, from a design reviews standpoint, the changes, the roof on the garage, the added dormers, I think all these things are going to make this house fairly handsome and a good neighbor in the neighborhood. Thank you. Commissioner Ortiz?

Yes. I from a design perspective, commend just the attention to detail around keeping the integrity of the existing architecture. I think that's done very nicely and really improves upon what is there today which is already a very beautiful historic house. Looking at the main concern from the adjacent neighbor, I think I appreciate the sun studies that you've done to show the impact. I mean, when when I was there, it was ten in the morning, think, you know, like, it is hard to tell, but it ultimately, the the view that like, if you look from I mean you illustrated it here.

If you look from the porch which was I think kind of the main area of concern, the new extension really doesn't kind of extend past their existing views. I think there's also some pretty mature landscaping that is there that at the time again were in winter sun was shading a lot of the area anyways. And so I think that impact light and view from the neighbor is not impactful enough to really make a finding that this is not a good design or that it's impacting their views in a significant way. And the light I think is already again because of the mature trees that are there, I don't think it's impacting it anymore than it is today I guess put it that way. So yes, I think with that I can fully support this project.

Mr. Bueslik?

Yes. I would echo everything my fellow commissioners have said. I did go out to the property on Thursday evening around sunset. So even before you presented this, you know, sun tracking, you know, diagram, I looked clearly from, you know, the neighbor's deck. I went to the neighbor's deck as they requested and looked at the path of the sun and and how that might have any impact on the property.

At least with the winter sun, I didn't feel like it was really a concern. I appreciate that you've drawn out the summer path. But even late in the day, I mean, that's going to be seven, 08:00 at night with the highest or the most sun of the day. So considering the existing trees and just angles, I don't think it's going to have a significant impact. I appreciate that you're restoring kind of the architectural detail of the property.

You can just see with the addition of all the new windows and the grills you're adding back to the property. So you're adding those touches of details. That's good to see, very consistent with the design standards and guidelines. And some places, I'm looking at A303, where you're adding some windows and light, kind of making some modifications there. It's very consistent with the rest of the design. Very good. I would support the project. Thank you. So

yes, I agree. The design changes do more closely render the house to the style that it originally arrived in. And I agree also that the changes that have been made over the years have been piecemeal and these changes, as far as the design is concerned, integrates the improvements, bring back the elements render this house a recognizable style. We do take very seriously blocking of lights, blocking of views, and we spent I spent some time there looking at the impact that I could see on the neighbor, and the neighbor has a big blank wall and a small door and some small windows. And even those are not very substantially impacted.

But also, I went a step further as as you did, and I pulled up one of these applications that will give you the the the sunrise and sunset for different times of year. I didn't I didn't do it for the December 21, which would be the at that point where the maybe the the least amount of light would be here. But one fundamental thing about this particular property is that the light comes from the direction and aims at the neighboring house and your house that way. It can't practically nothing you can do can block this light that's coming from that direction. And I did do the light study for today's date.

I'm gonna send this down that way, and then for the architect to keep and the homeowner to keep that application, that I think it might be something that the SunQuest, the Commission, can use in the future for these kind of situations where we want to see the impact of light and shadows over time. Anyway, the project is in line with our guidelines and I would certainly support the project.