Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You know? It was like it was in the

We will now begin the 01/12/2026 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, and I would like to bring the meeting to order. Before we get started, I would like to ask administrative assistant Nicole Nisperos 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 chairman. Thank you for joining us for the 01/12/2026 Piedmont Planning Commission meeting. This meeting is being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers. As a courtesy and technology permitted, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the city cannot guarantee that 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 anywhere in the council chambers, please submit a speaker card to Lameesh Chobani on the right hand side of the dais. If you are 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 are done. The agenda for this meeting is available on the Planning Commission's page of the City website at piedmont.ca.gov. As a standard practice, community members are allowed to comment one time on each agenda item. We ask your patience in understanding when there are technical difficulties. This concludes my introductory remarks.

Thank you, Nicole. To start, I will take role. Commissioner Yee?

Present.

Commissioner Zarukian? Present. Commissioner Busalink? Present. I'm Wayne Rowland, chair of the Planning Commission. Commissioners Ortiz and Cooper are absent tonight. Kevin, are there any other participants in the meeting that you would like to recognize for the record?

Yes. Staff yes. Staff members besides myself in attendance are senior planners, Pierce McDonald and Gopagunayer, associate planner Tiffany Edwards, and assistant planner, Lemise Chobani, as well as administrative assistants, Mark Anea, and Nicole Nisner Nisperos.

Thank you. I would also like to mention that the minutes taker of tonight's hearing will use the 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 now. In order for all speakers to be heard, we may limit your comments to three minutes. Nicole Lammies, 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. Seeing none, we will close the public forum. 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 that 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 planning 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 the 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 the 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 01/02/2026. It is important to note that other conditions in addition to those already listed may be required resulting from testimony or discussions at tonight's hearing on each application. The next agenda item seeks the approval of minutes meeting minutes for the 12/08/2025 regular meeting of the Planning Commission.

Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak concerning the meeting minutes for December 8?

I have no speaker cards.

I have no answer as of this time.

Is there any commissioner discussion?

I reviewed them and they appear accurate.

Good enough. Yes. Do I hear a motion then

Commissioner Busalink? I would therefore like to make a motion to approve the minutes.

I second it.

Okay. So we have a motion from commissioner Busalink and a second from commissioner Zeruchian to adopt the meeting minutes from December 8. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Buselink?

Aye.

Commissioner Yi? Aye. Commissioner Zeruchian?

Aye.

And commissioner Rowland? Aye. Alright. Minutes are adopted. Thank you.

Proceeding to the consent calendar. Kevin, are there any applications that have been placed on the consent calendar?

There are not. Okay.

Then we proceed to the regular calendar. And before we proceed with the remainder of the agenda, just want 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 the staff of staff when an agenda item is opened. 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 three minutes, you will be asked to conclude your statements, the commission may ask the speaker some questions. Once all members of the public have had an 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 an agenda item is closed, the commission will hold a discussion of the agenda item. There's a ten day appeal period during which any interested party can file an appeal for any action of the planning commission. For any action for any item acted on tonight by the commission, the appeal must be filed with the city clerk by 5PM on 01/22/2026. The next item on the agenda, item number three, is an informational report on permit applications received and approved by staff.

Thank you, chair Roland. So as we do every month, we will report on building permit and planning permit application numbers. So planning permit application numbers for December 25 are back up to normal after a bit of a dip in November. We had a total of 32 applications submitted. That included 10 expedited for director level two Planning Commission, five accessory dwelling unit permit applications, applications for fence design review, a junior accessory dwelling unit, two variances.

We also got an application, three applications for SB 9 development. Staff also approved 26 applications in December. On the building permit side, we had a total number of applications submitted of 104. These included the usual types of permits from change to previously approved permits to residential remodels, mechanical, 13 of those, and a good number of solar permits as well. The staff approved a total of 91 building permit applications in December.

So I'd be happy to answer any questions about that if you have any.

Are there any commissioner questions? Public comment. Are there any questions from members of the public?

I have no speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

We will now move to agenda item number four. Consideration of recommendation to the city council to adopt the objective design standards for one to four unit housing, multifamily development, mixed use development, and accessory dwelling units to adopt related amendments to the zoning ordinance and Piedmont design standards and guidelines, and to adopt zoning ordinance amendments that are staff recommended code maintenance items.

Thank you, chair Roland. This is a project we've been working on since August 2024 and have had quite a bit of public engagement on and and obviously study sessions here at the City Council. A lot of this is mandated from state law. So I'm going to turn it over to Senior Planner Gopaginayar and also our consulting team from Good City Company.

Good evening. This is the final stretch of this project. We are very excited to bring this before you for recommendation. Kevin Gardner, our lead project consultant is here and he will be present he will be sharing a presentation and giving you a brief update about the project and the amendments proposed to city court and the Piedmont design standards and guidelines. So without wasting much time, Kevin?

And also Karen Murray from Van Meter Williams Pollock. Van Meter Williams Pollock has been collaborating with us on these standards. Next please. So, purpose of objective design standards is to streamline design review, provide clear and consistent expectations, and also comply with state law, which requires that housing developments be reviewed with objective standards only. So with the building types in these standards, it includes the one to four unit residential development, accessory dwelling units, multifamily residential, mixed use residential, and commercial developments that are approved ministerially.

And that's the important part of this. These are all projects that

are

reviewed ministerially. Next, please. These are the different chapters. So there's a chapter for introduction explaining how to use the standards and which projects they apply to. Then there's a different chapter for each type of development type. So the one to four units, the accessory dwelling units, the multifamily mixed use and commercial, and then there's definitions in Chapter five. Next, please. And then the remaining slides I'll go through relatively quickly. Some of these you've seen before and it's also covered in the staff report. But please don't hesitate if you want me to stop on any particular thing if there's a question or we can go back to slides as well.

The way the standards have been organized in each chapter, there's the site planning and then there's the building design. And then with each of those categories is a series of bullets, some cases something in one section is also addressed in the other section as it applies to both site planning and building design. Next please. This shows the page structure. So this is really just showing where to find what.

One thing we want to clarify is that there are some guidelines in here. Those now as although these are objective standards and the standards are measurable, The guidelines are really meant to provide some guidance particularly to designers to get a little closer to intent in terms of really what is the intent, what are some maybe best practices that could be applied. But when it comes down to it, it's the standards that are enforceable. We've also defined if there's a term that's in Chapter five, the definitions, then that is also shown in italics. So if it's an unfamiliar term, people can go look at that in the glossary as well.

Next please. As Director Jackson mentioned, we've had a series of engagement through the process starting with the Harvest Festival and then on down through I think our last one was a community open house back in April. And then we've had a couple of planning commission study sessions. There have also been planning commission study sessions on the related zoning code amendments and the design guidelines amendments. Next please.

And then we also want to extend a thanks to our Planning Commission Subcommittee, Commissioners DeJodea, Ortiz and Yi have all participated. The role has been to collaborate with staff. So we met with them throughout the process, 10 meetings to date starting from the approach to drafting the standards, looking at a community survey that was conducted, looking at feedback that we got on the preliminary standards and the public review drafts, and then ultimately making recommendations. Next, please. And the public review draft was posted on November 7 for thirty days.

Comments were received through December 7. Those comments have been included in the staff report as Attachment D. Next, please. So these next slides I'll just go through quickly just to note, I'm not going to go through every single thing because it's also in the staff report. But these are all recommended revisions that have come from either the public comments received or from further staff review. So, starting with the first one, changing the topographic maps from twelve to thirty six months. Next, please. This was one where it's probably the more complicated one. We had two sections that looked very similar. So and in fact they even had the same purpose statements.

So this is related to site access and design, which does apply to both site planning and building design. But in order to clarify we gave them new titles so that they're a little more distinguishable and a different purpose statement for the site access and visibility. Next please. Also moving one of the graphics which seem to really talk more about the design of the building than the site planning. So this was moved over to the building section and then a new photo was added to the site planning section.

Next please. There were some changes from review by the fire marshal related to the wild land urban interface fire code Part seven twenty four of the California Code of Regulations. This is really to tee up what our current practices within the City Of Piedmont versus what we had originally written in the staff in public review draft. Next please. And then also we had some comments on we had some specifications about native low water usage plants, which is all great, but in terms of finding a more objective definition of those, we've revised this to show the East Bay Municipal Utility District document plants and landscapes for summer dry climates, which is something everybody can then look at and find plants.

So it's a little less discretionary than the previous language. Next, please. We had a comment on a maybe curiously specific dimension for board siding that didn't seem to really be accomplishing anything. So that's been crossed out. It was to have a board exposure at least six inches.

But as we know with particularly historic homes, you will often see boards that are smaller than six inches and there seems to be no reason to change that. Next. This is also related to the fire marshal. Now we're going into the accessory dwelling units. So very similar change to language to remove what had been previous standards and instead refer to Part seven of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

That relates to different standards for both the ADU as well as the fencing. Next please. And then we found there was an inconsistency with the definition that was for landscape and landscaping versus what was in the zoning code. So the intent has always been to if something's defined in the zoning code to leave it alone. In this case, this one got past us and we had a different definition for landscape landscaping than what's in the code.

So this has been struck with the zoning code and replaced with the zoning code definition. So those are for all the objective design standards. There's two other resolutions that are looking for recommendations this evening. One is for the amendments to the zoning ordinance. I'm not going to go through them all.

These are all the different bullets and they are outlined both in the staff report and the resolution. And generally, these are all amendments that would be needed in order to comply or true up with the objective standards. Next, please. And then finally, recommendations to the currently adopted development standards and guidelines document. This one, some of it's moving things out of the document.

So, ADUs, mixed use, and multifamily residential had previously resided in this document. They're now being moved over to the objective design standards document. And then let's see what else do we have here. Just a few other updates related to for example front yard enclosures with the general plan, just some smaller details. The design guidelines will continue to apply to single family projects that involve remodels or additions.

So the objective standards just apply to projects where there's new housing being built. Next, please. So the Planning Commission Objective Design Standards Subcommittee has had a recommendation and we welcome further discussion if Commissioner Yi would like to provide related to the recommended revisions. We've reviewed all of these with both Commissioner Yi and the full subcommittee. And they both agreed with the changes that's been presented to you.

But if there's further questions, we can also discuss that. Next, please. So I won't read all this. This is directly out of the staff report, but these would be the actions that the Planning Commission would be considering. And it's three different resolutions, the first for objective design standards, the second for the zoning code amendments, and the third for the design amendments to the design standards and guidelines document. Next, please. So with that, that is the consultant presentation. I'm available for questions and as well as staff.

Are there any commissioner questions?

No. Thank

you. Thank you. Are there any questions from the public on this particular question?

I have a speaker card from Gary.

Good evening and thank you. The state housing law draws a bright line. Streamline ministerial housing approvals may be governed only by clear measurable zoning rules, things like height, setbacks, lot coverage, access and safety, not design preferences, product specifications or policy goals disguised as objective standards. What's before you tonight is a 54 page regulatory system that goes far beyond that. When layered onto the application process and required submittals, it becomes a de facto discretionary process that's not streamlined.

It delays projects, creates roadblocks to development and defeats the legislators by right housing framework. That under that directly undermines the purpose of the state's mandated ministerial housing approvals. Cities that have already tried this have faced state intervention and loss of some local control, including Beverly Hills and Santa Monica under the builders remedy. Adopting the standards package in its current form put Piedmont on the same path. Cities should be making it easier to build not making it harder.

And I also need to raise a due process concern. The commission materials say that this has been developed over since 2024 and cites a schedule of community input. But let's be clear, the full 54 page standards were not released until November 5. In fact, just prior to the release at the Planning Department's August 2025 open house, only six high level concept slides were shown and staff said the standards were still under development. After the standards were released and full public comments were accepted, just showed them by the consultant here, and they were incorporated to a revised version of the standards in front of you tonight.

Now, the revision was never recirculated to the public, so the document you're voting on tonight is not the one the public was asked to comment on. The draft also shows signs of being rushed and internally inconsistent with standards that conflict with one another and even the existing neighborhood conditions, forcing applicants to guess which rule controls. Some of these so called objective standards go far beyond traditional zoning. A clear example is the bird safe window requirement. And to give one concrete example from the 54 page draft, it literally requires a pattern on the glass intended to reduce bird collisions with markers at least a quarter inch in width or diameter spaced at most four inches apart vertically and two inches apart horizontally.

This is a product level material specification being imposed as a condition for housing approval. Standards should be short, predictable and limited to core development metrics, not a 54 page catalog of micro requirements that blend objective standards and design guidance. So I respectfully ask the commission to do three things: first, release the revised draft for public review Second, cut this back to a limited set of truly traditional standards that reflect the state law. And third, send the draft to the State Housing and Community Development Department for review because rolling out unlawful standard exposes Piedmont to enforcement and litigation. That's the only way Piedmont

can protect technical comply with state law

and avoid unnecessary legal risk. Thank you.

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

Oh, I just didn't catch the speaker's

We did not get your name. Gary. Gary, your last name? Zalewski. Zalewski. Zalewski. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Thank for hearing me. Cheers.

I have a speaker card from Matt Dorrigo.

Hello, I'm Matt Dorrigo at 171 Oak Road. Good evening. I wanted to be clear at the onset that I understand Piedmont is required to comply with the state ADU laws. Not opposed to ADUs in principle, and I'm not asking the city to violate any state laws. What I strongly opposed to is the idea that the ADUs should receive no meaningful review at all. I live next to a recently constructed two story ADU that has had severe and permanent impact on our property.

So is this on this agenda item?

I believe it is in regard to these standard object or the objectives that you're trying to evaluate and how you make use of those. I thought it might be more appropriate and maybe you could pause the clock. Proceed. Well, I thought it might be with eight, but maybe I think it's appropriate here. I live next to a constructed two storey ADU that have had severe and permanent impacts on our property.

We've lost significant sunlight, experienced a major reduction in privacy and seen fundamental changes in the character and usability of our outdoor space. These impacts are not theoretical and they are daily and irreversible. There is no review framework, none of these impacts were meaningfully evaluated. There was no opportunity to assess the sitting, the massing, the orientation or the window placement in relations to the neighboring homes. Once construction began, there was no recourse.

I am particularly concerned that the objective standards alone are being treated as sufficient even when they fail to capture real world consequences. A checklist cannot replace judgment when buildings are placed only a few feet from the property line. I also want to raise a specific technical concern regarding the height and elevation while the city may regulate maximum height is my understanding that the finished floor elevations and final grade are not adequately evaluated or locked down. In practice, this allows for foundations to be set higher than anticipated increasing the perceived height and bulk of the structure even when the roof height is technically complies with code. These elevations are only confirmed after construction when there is no opportunity to require the building to be lowered or sunken further into the site.

Finally, I want to highlight a serious process concern related to parking and access. Well after construction began, the property owner is now raising an argument that in order to provide access to the ADU and the rear of the in the rear of the property, a legitimate off street parking would need to be eliminated. To be clear, no variance has been approved yet. However, this concern was clearly identified before the plans were approved, and it only being raised now after construction is already underway and the impacts are locked in. This creates pressure for the city to consider a variance as a retroactive remedy.

If such a request is brought forward, we want to state clearly that we strongly oppose it. Variances should not be used to cure foreseeable issues that were documented in advance, but deferred until after construction. Thank you. I'm not asking I was also interrupted. I was asked for thirty more seconds. Sure.

Go

ahead. Thank you, sir. Not asking for the city to stop ADUs, I'm asking for the city to preserve every ounce of local authority that the state law allows you. By strengthening objective standards related to the height setbacks, windows replacement placements, massing near property lines, finished floor elevations, parking to ensure that these issues are resolved before construction and not after. Compliance should not be abdication. When meaningful review disappears, the burden of these decisions fall entirely on neighboring homeowners with no recourse as once construction begins. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

The next speaker card is from Kimberly Taylor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Commission. I also am here to speak to you about the moved ordinances and how the City Of Piedmont might apply them. The city should seek to balance competing interests, avoid conflict between neighbors, encourage collegiality, camaraderie, and collaboration within our community. I understand that ADUs and SB nine homes increase housing stock in California and create value for building homeowners.

However, they also materially impact the home value, privacy, light, views, use, and enjoyment of neighboring properties. A home is a cornerstone and primary investment for many families, including mine. Piedmont should not allow one resident to sacrifice neighboring home values for their own personal gain. Now, admit in the hustle and bustle of the holidays, I did not have the chance to review the 54 page document that was released on November 7. It is my hope that it would address some of these issues.

Piedmont currently requires design review for things like fences and windows. It should do so for ADUs and SB9 homes in a thoughtful manner. I'm therefore moving the Piedmont Planning Commission to adopt a least intrusive standard for ADUs and SB nine homes. That is Piedmont could approve ADUs and SB nine homes consistent with state law while requiring that the design and the positioning of the builds are the least intrusive possible given the unique needs and interests of the neighbors and of the lots itself. This would allow Piedmont to follow state law while minimizing harm to neighbors.

Examples of considerations or elements that could be taken into account include placement of on the lot, use positioning or size of windows, frosting of windows, requirements to build privacy screens that satisfy the needs of both the homeowner and neighbors, allow neighboring properties to build privacy screens that are higher than six feet without requiring a variance or fees for permits, require natural growth barriers to be mature plants installed at the commencement of the construction so that they are in place when the ADU or SB nine home is occupied. Include a continuing obligation to maintain those natural barrier privacy screens so that the benefits run with the home, and noise in parking ordinance which account for the increased population density. These are measures that this commission could take to support its residents while aligning and following to state law. It is my hope that those requirements would be included in that Finally, 54 page a critical benefit of establishing design standards is that they would require neighbors to come together to review, provide input, and collaborate. By itself, this would serve as a procedural mechanism for the airing and consideration of grievances.

There is real intrinsic value to being heard.

Would Thank you for your comments. Please conclude your comments at

this Thank you.

Mr. Chair, may I share my final sentence?

Sure. It

would also be an important due process protection for neighbors to defend the value of our real property investment, the privacy of our families and the enjoyment of our homes. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any commissioner questions of the speaker?

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have speaker card from Kate Waldron. Hello. My name is Kate Waldron, and I am living at 111 Oakmont Avenue. Personally, I am not against ADUs in our community, and I understand that they are creating extra housing. But I do believe strongly that ADUs need design regulations to minimize the impact on neighbors.

I grew up in Piedmont and came back to live in Piedmont for the community in the beautiful neighborhood. My next door neighbor is currently constructing a giant two story ADU, which is severely impacting my families and other neighbors. This city could have and should have done more. The following are suggestions that seem small but would have had positive lasting impacts. First of all, window placement.

This two story ADU has more windows than my house, and most of all of the windows are facing neighbors. None of them are directly facing her own house. I have multiple windows that are looking directly into my 15 year old's window. Something could have been different. Frosted windows on second story bathrooms would have been an easy fix.

Allowing fences taller than six feet tall without permits or extra money, ceiling height of two story ADUs, limiting roof overhang. Currently, know it can match the existing house, but when the existing house has a large overhang, it really should count towards the four feet from the property line. Planting trees before or after, if it has to be, the project at the cost of the owner, I personally have spent thousands of dollars buying mature trees, the largest I could, to plant on the fence line that are still going to take a decade to grow to be as tall as this ADU. Also, fences. The purpose of a fence is for privacy, and my neighbor is trying to put a fence that has three fourth inch slats, three fourth inches gaps between the slats that defeats the purpose of privacy.

Overall, design standards for ADUs are clearly needed in our community. I hope that future neighbors to new ADUs do not have to experience what I have, and as a community, we can do better.

Thank you. Any questions of the speaker? Okay. Any other?

I have no speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

Okay. We will now close the public comment period for this agenda item and begin commission commissioner deliberation. Any commissioner like to begin the discussion? Commissioner

I had a chance to is this on?

It is.

Okay. I

had a chance to work on these design guidelines for the part of last year. And I think, like a lot of these things, the ADUs represent some change. And I think the city needs to balance between the requirements of that are mandated by the state, as the first speaker, a public speaker mentioned a few times in his presentation. And we have to balance that with because a lot of the laws the state passed governing ADUs allow them to be ministerially approved, and that process is already established through the state ordinances and bills that have been passed related to ADUs. On the other hand, the design guidelines objectives were to go not beyond what the state's requiring, but to try to give the city some measure of judgment, I think that was brought up by a couple of the public speakers about how to marry the state's requirements to our community.

And that's what these design guidelines are meant to do and achieve. So many of the items that were alluded to amongst tonight's speakers having to do with building site orientation, parking, materials, window placements, a lot of those issues are addressed in the guidelines.

And The standards.

Sorry, in the standards, objective design standards. And that's what they are, objective design standards. We pulled them out of, you know, many of those phrases out of the zoning, the existing zoning ordinance, made them objective design standards so that they could be ministerially reviewed, but more importantly, it could give guidance to the applicants who are seeking to build ADUs, something to get their teeth into and understand what the standards are in order to design and build ADUs that are that will fit in this community. So the state has their requirements that's mandated by law. The city has its needs as reflected through the general environment of Piedmont and then amongst the individual property owners who are either building ADUs or next door to ADUs that are being proposed.

And so, you know, that's the role of these guidelines is to balance those two objectives and to see if there's a way to give guidance to the applicants to design ADUs that are amenable and work within the city's context and in the neighborhood context, and then ultimately allow staff and the Director of Planning and Building to ministerially approve these per state law. So if you haven't reviewed the standards, I encourage you to go through them because they do address some of these a number of the issues that have been raised by the speakers this evening.

Thank you.

Yes. I think I totally agree with what Commissioner Yee mentioned. I have not been involved as much, but I I have looked through them, read through them, and I am in total agreement with what Commissioner Yee mentioned.

Thank you.

Commissioner Geselic?

Before giving my comment about the actual proposed ordinance, I wanted to thank Commissioner Yee for serving on the subcommittee and the commissioners that aren't present tonight. So maybe they're watching from abroad perhaps and the staff and the outside consultants. Because if you look at the staff report, I mean, it's five zero seven pages long. It took a lot of time and effort to put together. My impression of this project is that the city is effectively trying to reclaim some semblance of having standards for SB nine and ADU projects for and also comply with the state law, as Commissioner Yee stated.

So I think it's important to have some kind of standards, objective standards for approving these ministerial permits. We as commissioners don't necessarily get to review those they come in. We hear reports about them being issued. In theory, we can see director level approvals and look at those documents. But oftentimes, and maybe the public doesn't know this, but you know, for some projects that we receive, there's applications for design review.

Part of the project includes ADU, part of it does not. And we don't have the ability to make judgments about the design of those ADUs. So it's a ministerial level review, not for us. That said, you know, maybe the director can comment or the staff can comment on this. But as far as the first speaker is concerned, you know, and this is also related to, you know, a different agenda item.

But, know, the state level, you know, agency, you know, apparently reviews ordinances passed by the city to to be in compliance with, know, the state mandates for these things. So as far as the city, you know, complying with the state mandates or not, you know, that is also being reviewed as we as we pass ordinances going along. So, you know, the concerns that are that are laid out about being too restrictive or, you know, not allowing that, you know, ADUs to be built, you know, reasonably speaking, you know, there is a higher level, you know, state agency that I'm sure will make itself heard and, you know, impose further modifications to even whatever design standards or ordinances that we recommend the State Council passes. So I appreciate everyone's comments about that. And, you know, ordinances, the standards, they I my impression is that these are living documents.

They get modified over time. We try to do our best, As they go along, the subcommittee and the staff have tried to do their best. And hopefully, we can move forward and even correct as we need to as we go along.

And I can yeah. So I can confirm, as you can as demonstrated by tonight's public speakers, there are competing interests here, applicants who would rather have fewer standards apply and other neighbors who would like to have more standards apply. I think we balanced those and the document that we brought to you not just for accessory dwelling units but also one to four unit housing units which would include a single family home, multifamily that's either a standalone multifamily or part of a mixed use development with commercial on the ground floor. And so all of that is in the objective design standards that's before you. That document as well as the proposed modifications to zoning ordinance, as well as the revisions to the design guidelines have all been reviewed by the city attorney's office and particularly to make sure it's in compliance with city law and all the standards are in fact measurable and known beforehand to applicants.

So it's been vetted thoroughly by several parties. We've had our consultant team are really good at putting together these standards of and had history of doing this type of work for other jurisdictions. So I think what we have before is a pretty strong document that will really help Piedmont comply with state law as well as allow development that's appropriate as much as we can. And in that vein, I'll mention that the state recently passed legislation that prohibits jurisdictions from applying any objective design standards to accessory dwelling units that are no larger than 800 square feet. So much of what's in this would not even apply in that case.

So in that instance, a lot of work has been put into creating some guidelines and then an outside entity, the state steps in and makes a lot of that work moot.

Right. They would still apply for larger than 800 accessory dwelling square foot dwelling units, but yes, you're correct.

So there's the challenge.

So yes, so basically tonight we are asking you to make recommendation to the city council with three resolutions. One for the adoption of the objective design standards, one for the revisions to the zoning ordinance that bring it into consistency with those standards and then also revisions to the design guidelines that are now purely design guidelines and no longer contain both standards and guidelines. And CEQA determinations are part of each of those resolutions.

Thank you. Now is that in the form of three motions or a motion?

I believe you can probably do that under one motion that and then whoever makes that motion could, I would say, basically read the recommended action at the top of the staff report. That's probably the safest way to go about it.

Okay. Commissioner Yee, having participated in this whole effort, would you like to take the honor? Sure.

Might also well, let's see. I was looking sorry, Commissioner, I was looking for something here. I don't think I can find it. Okay. Sorry about that. I'd like to go ahead and make a motion that we the Commission adopt the objective design standards for one to four unit housing, multifamily development, mixed use development and accessory dwelling units to and make a recommendation

to the City Council. As provided in Attachment A.

Right, as provided in Attachment A.

And then two. Do you have the staff report open?

Am

I not doing this properly here? Okay. That's what I was looking for.

All

right. So and then number two, adopt the attached Resolution Attachment B recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending divisions 17.2, 17.28, 17.3, 17.32, 17.34, 17.38, 17.46, seventeen point five four and seventeen point six seven to bring the city code into compliance with the objective design standards and various staff recommended updates to codify best and current practices. And number three, adopt the attached Resolution Attachment C recommending that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Piedmont design standards and guidelines that are related to the objective design standards, and some staff recommended updates to codify current practices and procedural changes.

Thank you. And if I could, I will just mention that those resolutions note that the this is exempt from the environmental quality California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA guidelines 15.061B3. That's it. Is that the motion? That's the motion.

Is there a second? Second.

All right. So we have a motion to approve a recommendation to the City Council for these three items and from commissioner Yee and second from commissioner Buzalink.

Before you call the vote, I'd like to know if there's any further discussion on that. Some of the things that we hear from our fellow Piedmonters do resonate.

Sure.

In particular, we were it's difficult to arrive at perfection on this, but we also have mandates from the state. Kevin, how Commissioner Bussolink mentioned that these are living documents, and we know that they generally are, but how would that evolve if we were to find that, first of all, if the state gives us a little bit more wiggle room, or if we just take a little bit more wiggle room, how would we do that, look, going forward, at some future date?

Well, as commissioner Bieslingk mentioned, he's used a common term that this is a living document. So as we put it into practice, as we do anything, sometimes we find that what we thought was reasonable or regulation that we thought would work one way. Maybe it's not as clear as we thought or it's not quite doing the job that we thought it would. And basically, we come back to the commission and the city council to make revisions. Mean we as you know we've made quite a few changes to the zoning ordinance here in the last couple of years related to housing and other issues and here we are looking at other policy documents like the standards and the guidelines, revising those.

That'll just be ongoing for the foreseeable future.

Thank you, Kevin. I just wanted the public to hear that. Also,

if I may, Commissioner Roland, the objective design standards, there is a process outline for each of the categories. For example, ministerial design review for one to four unit developments, multifamily, mixed use developments as well as ADUs. And one of the hallmarks of that process is a pre application meeting. And there, I would imagine the applicant would come to the city staff with an idea that I have a property, I'd like to possibly build an ADU, here's where I'd like to place it, here's the size and so forth, so that the Objective Design Standards are a tool to inform, again, inform the applicant as well as allow staff and the applicant to have a common denominator about what the expectations are. All right?

And so at this pre application meeting, you know, a lot of the issues that were brought up, you know, legitimately by public speakers this evening could be addressed or could be at least discussed there so are we can minimize impacts on neighboring properties. A couple of speakers tonight raised the issue about window placements or amount of glass on ADUs. That is actually addressed in the design standards. So again, the goal here is to marry the state's requirements for housing because we are behind the entire state is behind. We have to address the issue in our little town of 11,000 people.

We have to against state mandate address how we're going to fulfill our arena requirement or required housing stock. And so at the same time, we do have an existing environment in which build and design or design and build. And we all love living here, that's why we have wonderful people showing up this evening. And so again, it's like a lot of these things, it represents change. It's a human endeavor.

And it's the guidelines or the standards are not perfect, but they're as apropos as we could make them, given the environment that we're trying to achieve within this lovely community. So we're I'm hoping that when we go forward because ADUs that were designed up to this point, built up to this point, we're using the design guidelines and standards in the zoning ordinance. And this hopefully improves on those standards and allow them to be streamlined. As the first gentleman spoke, is this a streamlined process? It's intended to be a streamlined process at the ministerial level with the director so that people proposing ADUs don't have to wait an order amount of time to see progress.

So hopefully, as a community, we can use the process to vet a lot of the issues that were raised this evening and more.

Thank you. Kevin, you want to call a question? We have the motion. The roll.

Oh, I'm sorry.

What question?

We're ready. I guess we're ready. Are we ready? We are ready.

All right. So again, we have a motion by Commissioner Yee to recommend as indicated and second by commissioner Bussling. So commissioner Bussling? Aye. Commissioner Yee? Aye. Commissioner Zeruchian? Aye. And commissioner Rowland?

Aye.

Alright. Motion passes. The tentative date for the city council to hear this recommendation and consider these documents is February 2.

Thank you. I wanna thank the members of the public who provided testimony on the subject. Thank you very much. We now move to agenda item number five, study session on subdivision standards and lot development.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you, commissioner. This project has been underway for several months beginning in May 2025. So we're kind of right in the middle of it. And it's there's several general plan policies sorry. There are several housing element programs that we are trying to implement and we have engaged the services of Diet and Badia to help us further those and get those accomplished and implemented as much as we can. And Andrew Hill from Diabody is going to give us a walkthrough. Pierce, did you want to add anything on that? So this is basically a study session.

It's a nonaction item, but I think it'l be intriguing.

You, Kevin, and good evening commissioners. My name is Andrew Hill and tonight' study session is going to focus on small lot subdivisions and standards. So this is part of the expanding housing options initiative, which involves exploring different strategies that the city can take to expand housing choice for people of all income categories in Piedmont consistent with state law. You may remember in November, we did a study session with you on inclusionary zoning, which was also part of the expanding housing options initiative. This is a another study session intended to review policy choices with the commission and receive feedback from you all.

Next slide please. So the expanding housing option initiatives has five focus areas and the study session tonight focuses on two of them. Smaller housing that costs less to buy or to build buy or rent and streamlining the rules for dividing land and creating condominiums. Next slide please. For context, in recent years, the California State Legislature has passed a series of laws that are intended to catalyze a production of small scale housing developments and starter homes by streamlining the approval pathway for this type of project.

These laws apply statewide and while they do curtail local discretionary authority, the city does have some latitude in how they're implemented. And those laws additionally do present opportunities for Piedmont to expand homeowners homeownership options in the community to make it easier for people who work in Piedmont to find housing locally and to help those who grew up in Piedmont stay in the community as adults. Next slide, please. So, the objectives of our study session tonight are to provide an overview of those new state laws and to receive feedback on some key policy questions where the city has latitude in implementing them. Next slide.

So in terms of the legislative background between 2021 and 2025 the state has enacted a series of new laws that are intended to catalyze a small scale ownership oriented housing production. The laws are listed at the top of the screen here. They include SB nine, Senate Bill six eighty four, Senate Bill eleven twenty three and Assembly Bill 130. These laws facilitate small lot subdivision and fee simple ownership with a streamlined approvals process and they represent a shift away from discretionary subdivision control and toward ministerial objective approval. Next slide please.

The first of these laws is Senate Bill nine, which was passed in 2021. That law focuses on single family properties and it allows homeowners to split their property into two separate lots and build additional units without a public hearing or discretionary review. The qualifying homeowners under this law have the right to a maximum of four units across the two lots and those units can be single family homes, duplexes or accessory dwelling units. To be eligible, a property must be outside of natural hazard risk areas and it must not contain any designated historic resources. The law also establishes owner occupancy requirements to encourage to discourage the speculation.

Next slide please. The second of the laws is Senate Bill six eighty four, which was passed in 2023. This law focuses on multifamily zoned land and it requires ministerial approval of subdivisions and multifamily projects involving up to 10 units. To be eligible for subdivision or development under this law, properties must be five acres or less in size and the resulting lots must be at least 600 square feet. The law enables the production of fee simple starter homes, common interest developments and housing co ops without sequel review or discretionary action.

The law also creates a sixty day action window. Once the application has been deemed complete, the city must approve or deny the application within sixty days. Next slide please. The third law is Senate Bill eleven twenty three, which was passed in 2024. This expands the ministerial approval pathway created under SB six eighty four to single family zones.

So this law allows for the subdivision of single family properties with ministerial approval. To be eligible, parcels must be at least 1.5 acres or it must be 1.5 acres or less and the resulting lots must be 1,200 square feet. A maximum of 10 units is permitted under this law. The city has the option to also permit ADUs and junior ADUs on the property in addition to the 10 units if you choose, but you're not required to do so. And this law also extends that sixty day action window for approving or denying the application.

Next slide please. The final law is Assembly Bill 130 which was passed in 2025. This is essentially a cleanup bill that clarifies a few things. It clarifies that new lots created under through subdivision can only be sold, leased or financed if they contain a habitable unit. It adopts CEQA exemptions for housing projects of 20 acres or less and it clarifies some ambiguities about remainder parcels leftover after the subdivision of a site count towards the density or not.

So next slide please. So what does this all mean for Piedmont? Next slide. I think the most consequential of these laws is really SB nine given the number of eligible single family properties in Piedmont. However, the city has already adopted a two unit housing ordinance and related objective development standards and has prepared an application checklist.

And so the regulations are relatively up to date. Next slide please. SB six eighty four has relatively limited applicability in Piedmont as we're showing the sites where it would apply on this map. It applies only to parcels of five acres or smaller that permit multifamily residential development. In total there's 51 of them including 33 in Zone 3 and 18 in Zone D.

Given the relatively small size of these parcels, it's unlikely that any of them are going to be subdivided to create single family subdivisions. Instead, if anything SB six eighty four is more likely to result in multifamily developments of 10 units or less. Next slide please. Senate Bill eleven twenty three also has relatively limited applicability in Piedmont. It applies to vacant properties with single family zoning of and the size of the properties has to be 1.5 acres or less.

In total, there's about 45 of these in Piedmont, including 37 parcels in Zone A And 8 parcels in Zone E. But given the size of these, not all of the properties could accommodate 10 new lots that meet the minimum standards established. So all of that just to give you a little bit of context about to what extent these laws could be applicable in Piedmont. As I mentioned, SB six eighty four and SB eleven twenty three apply statewide in all communities with eligible parcels. However, the city does have some options for how to implement these new laws.

And what I'd like to do with you tonight is get some commission feedback on some key related policy questions. Next slide please. So the first question is, should housing be required on each subdivided parcel? Both SB six eighty four and SB eleven twenty three give the city the option to either allow for the subdivision of eligible parcels without any housing construction on it or to require that if those parcels are subdivided housing must be constructed. Now, if the objective of all of this is to promote homeownership options and smaller housing in Piedmont, then I think requiring that housing be constructed on any lot that's subdivided pursuant to these laws would make sense.

Doing that might also limit the possibility of the potential for speculation and land flipping as well. Next slide please. So the next policy question is whether to permit accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units on subdivided parcels. And as I mentioned, the laws give the city the option to allow ADUs and junior ADU construction in addition to the 10 units that would be ministerial permitted. Now Piedmont has already updated the zoning code to prohibit that and so currently the code does not allow for that.

However, there may be some situations when it might make sense to consider that. So for example, Piedmont could allow ADU and junior ADU construction on any subdivided parcel if and only if the property owner makes a commitment that some of those new units would be deed restricted for lower income or moderate income households. So essentially in that scenario, the city would be offering additional units in exchange for a commitment to affordability. So that would be possibly one situation where you might want to consider allowing ADUs and ADUs in addition to the Ministry of Permitted Units. Another scenario could be only to allow it on larger lots.

So establish a large lot threshold and allow junior ADUs and junior ADUs only on those larger lots. Or a third scenario could be to combine those two options and say only on larger lots above X size threshold and only if some of the new units created are deed restricted for lower moderate income households, only in that case would those additional ADUs or junior ADUs be permitted. So a policy question that we're looking for your input on tonight. And then the final policy question is whether to permit subdivided lots to be subdivided again in the future. And here state law makes this an option provided that the minimum lot size standards established in the law can be met.

Now in Piedmont, given that lot sizes are generally quite small already and that in many cases there are a lot of lots that are already don't meet the minimum lot size standards established in the zoning code. Then because of this, this option doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense in Piedmont. But again, it's a policy option that we're looking for your input on. Next slide, please. So based on your input tonight, we'll be preparing an update to the subdivision ordinance and we'll bring it back to you for your consideration.

In addition to implementing your guidance on these policy questions, the updates will also be made to clarify a few things, including the ordinance will be updated to clarify the types of project that are eligible for ministerial approval and the types of subdivision that are not. It'll be updated to require to establish those required processing times. So there's a thirty day requirement for determination of completeness of an application. And then after the application has been determined complete, there's a sixty day action window that I mentioned for both SB six eighty four and eleven twenty three. So that'll be clarified in the subdivision ordinance.

We'll also clarify that any required improvements or dedications are limited to what's established in the Subdivision Map Act and we'll add some new definitions for key terms like vacant, starter home, and designated remainder. Next slide, please. Additionally, updating the subdivision ordinance is also an opportunity to implement some best practices. Currently, the ordinance references standards in a subdivision manual. That subdivision manual has never been completed or adopted.

And actually best practice would be to take any applicable engineering standards and embed them in the subdivision ordinance themselves that provides clarity for property owners or developers so they understand clearly what they're meant to do. And then given the local context oh, and so in some cases though, it might where the city already has adopted engineering standards, for example, or standard plans and details, you can reference that other document without having to embed all that detail in subdivision ordinance. But overall, the point would be to be very clear and direct property owners and applicants precisely to which standards would apply in which situation. Next slide please. In talking about which students would be embedded in the ordinance, I think we would definitely want to consider the local context here in Piedmont and have standards that address hillside development, grading and site access among other topics.

And in updating the ordinance, the city may also want to consider updating regulations around condominium conversions and new condominiums as well. So next slide, please. So with that, just a quick look ahead to the timing. As I say, we're going to take onboard your feedback tonight and make the amendment to the subdivision ordinance, and that will come before you again at a hearing later in the spring. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions. And on the next slide, we just have the specific points that we wanted your feedback on tonight when the time

comes. Slide.

There any I have

okay. Go ahead. No, please.

I have a question. There was there was a question of the option to allow let's see. Subdivision without housing construction or to require housing on each subdivided parcel. And you say requiring housing makes sense if object the object objective is to expand homeownership options and promote smaller scale housing that is affordable by design. If we were to require housing, what form might that requirement take?

Because maybe somebody doesn't build any housing on something. Maybe they had good intentions of building housing on something, but they didn't. Are we gonna be creating some kind of enforcement mechanism that chases people down and says build a house? Keep in mind, there's also that it it has kind of the element of the vacant parcel tax that you have in San Francisco, you have Oakland, but in San Francisco it has been challenged and it the the vacant unit tax there was over overruled or overturned, it was thrown out because it violated the US constitution. So this is kind of close.

Can you kind of elaborate on how that might operate?

Yeah, that's a very good observation. And I think what we would want to we want to think this through more carefully, but one way to do it would be to put a time limit on, you know, if you're approving a subdivision and making and the ordinance makes it conditional on constructing housing to say within what time limit that must be done or to establish what would happen if that that time limit is not met to think about I can think about for example, interest rates might go through the roof for example. And then even though as you say the property owner had the best intentions of building housing, it becomes financially infeasible. I think we would want to put some parameters on that in the ordinance as well to think of those eventualities.

I would also mention that really what we are thinking here is that in addition to an application for subdivision they would submit application for housing development and that' really where the city' authority here is to review and approve and issue permits. We can't force somebody to construct something.

So if we have a law that says that they have construct something and we can't force them to construct something.

I don't think we would have a law that says they have to construct something. I think we would have a law that we require a application for housing development along with the application for subdivision.

And you're saying hopefully it works out?

I think that's what a lot of law is based on is hopefully it'll work out.

Okay. So be because we because you're saying we can't go beyond that and force them to build on that property?

Well, I don't know that we can't, but I don't know that we want to. Pearson may have something out there.

The city could make it a condition of the subdivision. So the subdivision is approved if the housing is built. If it's not built, they still have their property, but the subdivision wouldn't be approved.

Or could it be reverted back?

It would be reverted back, yes.

After a period of time. Right.

Reverted back to what? To its original state before September. Original state? Yes. Okay.

It Just kind of a follow-up question, tangential. I mean, there's a limit on, you know, the design review permit usually has an expiration date. You have to pull a building permit. And likewise, building permit, want you to follow-up within a certain amount of time to make sure there's progress before. If we require this and we have like a short time line and it expires, I mean, a person would have to go through the entire process again. If it reverts back, they would have to go through an entire process again to do the subdivision and and the permit.

Of course, this is a study. Like, you know, we're looking at options. Right? You know? So if there is a mechanism, the mechanism has to be thought through as to if there's a condition, what does it entail? Maybe you you pull a permit up to a certain point. You give it enough time. And then with that, after that, there's another period so that it is tiered so that it's not like just they are they have their hands tied. It's like, you know, understanding the time it takes to get permits, get ready for construction, and all that. So definitely, it's some options to think about. Yeah.

Thank you, commissioners. And just one other point of information. The city does meet need to meet its regional housing needs allocation, its arena in the housing element, and we do not get credit for subdividing a property. We only get credit if we approve a housing unit and then later if that housing unit is issued a building permit.

Well, was going to ask a question related to that. I'm looking at a document that came from your office from October, which has a little chart that says the City of Piedmont's RINA allocation from very low income to low income to moderate to above moderate income. And the whole concept of enhancing housing options is to provide a framework to create more housing, right? That's what this is all about. I'm trying to understand how hypothetical this is and how realistically and I'm not sure if this is question for you or for Kevin and the staff.

In the chart that was created, we have 163 units in the very low income range, 94 in the low income range. So between and then 92 in moderate and two thirty eight, which is more nearly half in the above moderate. So in the low income and very low income, we're talking about two fifty or two sixty units, which represents about 44% of the five eighty seven units that are Piedmont's obligation to the state. So is this enhancement of housing options intended to bridge that gap? And are we trying to achieve 44% of the units as low and very low income?

Mean, where are we headed with this?

Right. I think in answering your questions those two slides that I show about the applicability of the laws are relevant here. I think the potential for small lot subdivisions according to these laws is relatively limited just because of the size of the parcels and the current zoning. So with that in mind and then these projects are complex and new. So I don't think you're going to get a large number of units out these two laws in particular.

If any units are built through these small lot subdivisions Just because they're smaller, I don't think they would necessarily be affordable to moderate or low income. At market rates in Piedmont, they're likely to be affordable to above moderate households. It would only be if as I was talking about in the context of whether you want to permit ADUs and junior ADUs in addition to these units. And if you were to put stipulations in place that say, yes, you can have those additional ADUs and junior ADUs, but only if you make if in exchange for a commitment to affordability, that type of strategy would be the most likely way that you would get below market rate housing from small lots subdivisions.

Commissioner, I can add to what Mr. Hill has said. Intent in bringing this forward is not necessarily to meet rena requirements for the lower income housing. If if I think really what we're the state has enacted laws that allow for this, and so it behooves the city to have regulations on the books that govern such laws and development and for the city to retain as much local control over that that meets our development goals and our housing goals. And so I think to a large part, because our built environment in our existing land development are very small, very few lots that these are applicable to.

As Mr. Chao mentioned, I don't think we're going to see a lot of this or much of it or any of it, but we need to be prepared if and when that should happen and to try to glean as many affordable units as we can out of it. So that I'll just frame it like that.

Going back to kind of the reversionary interest in blending these concepts together, the idea is to create incentives for certain types of projects. So if you have a reversion and you make somebody commit to a certain type of design or some kind of development as a condition of the subdividing, I mean that makes them commit to actually building. I mean we already have certain flag lots that face strong public objection or perhaps even impossibility of being developed. And I guess you don't want to create a situation where people are dividing. And then maybe there's a shift in how the state policy is directed and then those lots become unbuildable in the future.

So I think it makes sense to tie the development to the subdivision.

Right. To kind of to bring it full circle. Because if it does not if it does not have any teeth or if it does not create a mechanism to encourage that, then what's the advantage of of creating a such a incentive? Right? That's my question. Like, if we think about it and think it through all the way, if it's not providing anything or if it doesn't give us the the mechanism to enforce, then what what are we achieving by providing the option?

And I also think that we don't want to be at war with with small property owners about whether or not they built on some lot or didn't, you know.

I think we're kind of moving into a discussion. I and it might behoove us to hear from the public before we Sure. Continue and and and Sure. Give direction.

Sure. Thank you, Kevin. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak on the subject?

I have no speaker questions.

I have no hands raised at this time.

Doctor. Okay. So we proceed.

I'm sorry Chair Ruhlund just one point we haven't prepared any mechanisms or draft language for the commission's review tonight this is really just to get initial feedback so that we can take those thoughts into consideration as we prepare any draft mechanisms or language.

Yeah. And that's why we're bringing Yeah. Yeah. These are more on the form of questions rather than

Yeah.

A a a decision. Right?

And and part of it is, from my point of view, it's very clear that if you want housing, you're going to be better positioned if you create incentives

Right.

And rather than disincentives or penalties or anything like that. Right. So I have another question that relates to the question of should be regarding should subdivided lots be eligible for future subdivision. And, you know, I think in pictures, so I kinda have the the thing that came to my mind look thinking about that is the those little dolls where you open up the box and then there's another little box and then you open up that and there's a smaller one and there's a smaller one and there's a smaller one and there's a smaller one. I I asked the question on housing development.

What is the community going to look like when it's developed according to the rules that you set up? And I'm not sure if we're looking for that. And so I'm thinking, and this is just feedback, that subdividing subdivide, subdividing lots that are already subdivided might be going just a little bit too far on the subdividing in the subdividing direction. That's my point of view on it. And I'm and I'm thinking that making sure not to just shoehorn as many units on a lot as possible.

Making sure not to do that as a civic plan for building new houses housing is probably making sure not to do that is probably a better idea than to try to do that.

So that brings up a couple of things. One, in order to better organize a response, perhaps Mr. Hill can mention the things we're asking for feedback on, and maybe we can start with the subdivision of subdivided lots.

Well, that's a good idea.

And that way we can have a discussion, get some feedback on that, we'll move on to the next one. I will say that, you know, it's not my decision, but I agree with you that maybe the under these laws, we might not want to be allow for subdivision of subdivided line lots under these laws, but somebody could use these laws to submit an application for that, and then they could come back to subdivide again, but it would be under the regular discretionary process for subdivision. And that would always be an option for them, in which is a public hearing and so forth, but they wouldn't have the ministerial process.

Mhmm.

And for that, for the subdivision of subdivisions, isn't there you know, if there is a a clause or something that says this is the minimum you can get to. Yes. Right? Regardless of how how many time, if you have if you have that condition is not met anymore, then you cannot celebrate again. Right? Although it is allowed, but you don't meet the condition, the minimum size condition. Right? Rather than prohibit subdivision of subdivisions, you know, use that minimum lot size to regulate that. Can I can that be? This is more of a

Yeah. That's an option. The the minimum lot size is prescribed in state law, pretty small. 600 square feet for the multifamily and 1,200 square feet for a single family lot.

For the multifamily, like we saw in some of the plants, like, are not that many. No. Right? So we can really evaluate. Right? I'm gonna do a quick study as Mhmm. What we will end up with and evaluate whether that makes sense or not. Because in the same vein, was thinking, when you look at the s p nine and the map, you show all the areas in yellow, which is pretty much most. Is there and I don't know if it is a too big of an exercise. Is there a value to look at, like, know, as an urban planning kind of an exercise?

Look at the whole city of Piedmont. Is there some kind of direction we can provide saying that, like, know, create some areas where certain guidelines apply apply? I I don't know.

That that would that would be rezoning, changing the geographic area of the zone, and that would have to go to the the voters in our proposition.

So we're giving you our inclination Yeah. What Right. What strikes us in response to this material. But you have some particular areas that you would like to get feedback Well,

this was one of them. And I have a if you could put up the slide again. I have the three discussion questions on there. But this was one of them. What I would just say in context for this particular question of whether to allow the subdivision of lots that have been subdivided.

This is a lot that was written in Sacramento to apply statewide, right? And I think they're thinking of communities perhaps in Southern California with big lots that can really be subdivided multiple times. They're not thinking about Piedmont that already has very small lots. So I would offer that this is really not an option that was designed with Piedmont in mind. And considering as I said, how many the general size of the general small size of lots here and already you have lots within Zone A that don't meet the minimum lot size standards established in the Zone A code. It doesn't seem like a great option

for Piedmont. Piedmont has actually been already been through that. Already been through the process because some of the lots were gigantic from the original founders of the city. And now

Like The Havens property. It's all Wildwood Gardens now. It's all subdivided from that property.

So I think further subdividing a property, I wouldn't feel great about.

Yes. Okay.

Yes. So that our third question. The first policy question was, should housing be required on each subdivided parcel? And this was the topic that Commissioner Roland raised it right at the top. What are the potential unintended consequences of that and how do we address them? So I think we got some good direction to go away and do a little more research and come back, articulate a more thoughtful response to that and what the conditions and the process might be. But I welcome other comments or questions on that topic too.

I I think when you're coming with your feedback, it will be good to kind of present what are the negative impacts if we do not require housing. What what is what are the options that are possible? That way, it becomes really clear. Right? And then we can, you know, say, you know, we should go in this direction or the other.

I mean, what is the downside of acquiring housing on subdivided parcels? Right? Is this applying to all zones or just the Zone A and E or?

So it depends. It would only apply in the case that a property was subdivided pursuant to either SB six eighty four on multifamily zone properties or SB eleven twenty three on the single family zone properties. So only in those cases then the subdivision ordinance would say if that's the direction we received then, know, if you subdivide according to these laws, must also build housing. And it would elaborate the process and the conditions that

we've checked. So it's only on those two?

Correct. So what would be, for example, on single family Zone A, what if somebody were to take a larger parcel and subdivide it, and we don't require them to build housing on it, that doesn't make sense to me for some reason.

I agree. And it is only the vacant lots in Zone A And E that would be subject to this. I mean, our whole goal here is to encourage and allow for housing development. And so for me, on the regulatory end, thinking about staff time, it seems like a waste of our time to go through a subdivision process if there's no resulting housing.

Right. I

know that

that's Or at least no approved housing. I mean, you never know what market market conditions are gonna happen or funding fails, but at least, you know from the get go that we are going to this exercise required by state law and have some assurance that the result will be the additional housing that we the state requires us to provide.

And and that the lot is actually buildable

Yes.

Because there's a real plan Yes.

That can

or is approved as opposed to here's a lot, and for whatever reason, you know, there's something about the lot that makes it completely unbuildable.

Because I will say that in Zone E particularly, several of those lots that are vacant don't have frontage on the street. They are at the back end of a huge lot with a mansion on it. And so if somebody were to say, alright, well, want to subdivide that for housing, how are they going to get there? I mean, we don't have flying cars yet.

So One can hope.

Or the other way to look at it is if we don't want somebody to subdivide a property and then sell off the subdivided piece. Yeah, it's speculation. Well,

one of the provisions in there is that they're prohibited from doing this. Correct. That slide?

Yes. That's a that's a correct that's one of those cleanup items in AB 130

Yeah.

That that any subdivided lot has to have a habitable house on it.

Commissioner Busselink? So I didn't want to say, I mean, I could definitely conceive of some malicious uses of subdividing to basically make an entire area around someone's property unbuildable. So they keep their neighbors out by having a bunch of buying up and creating a bunch of unbuildable lots or

But if they buy it, it's theirs.

Until they stop paying the taxes and it gets seized by the state and then no one can build and they're not paying the taxes on the private. I mean you can I could conceive of some bad uses of subdividing this way?

So what I'm hearing from seems to be a consensus that we should approach this with the requirement for housing.

I I don't I don't say that. You know? I don't I don't necessarily

Well, I'm not saying that you have to build it. But Right. With the reversion, like, if you want to divide if you want to subdivide using this particular law, you at least have to propose a buildable, developable lot. If that if you do not build, if you choose not to build and you're not forced to build, then it reverts back and there's no subdivision after a certain amount of time.

I'm trying to put this in the context of the concerns that people address today. So now you have this sliver of a lot that's buildable, barely buildable, but it's shoehorned in between some other lots and it was already tight. And the people are concerned about privacy and the privacy screens of foliage and all of those things that we hear about all the time. If they're going to be building on this sliver lot, maybe they should go through the whole process and it should not be something ministerial is my point.

That's out of that's out of our hands.

Is it?

Yes. That state law requires the subdivision is a ministerial process, and two, they have state law allows for the housing development to be ministerial.

So I go back to my point of, you know, I'm not sure about the enforceability of a requirement that you put a house there.

I think alright.

Please. Well,

I think we haven't what we need to do is come back with proposed amendments to the subdivision code that addresses this issue. And the commission and then the city council would need to determine whether or not that's in the city's best interest. But at least I'm hearing three out of the four commissioners here tonight would prefer some requirement of housing being approved along with an application for subdivision under these laws.

Well, also, like to me, the keyword is what's in the city's best interest. Because why would we allow somebody to subdivide a lot under eleven twenty three, which is basically mostly Zone A and Zone E, right, which is already governed by the zoning ordinance about what type of building you can build on it, right? It has to be a residence, right? So the implementation of 11/23 still has to fall within the guidelines of the zoning ordinance. You can't subdivide a lot and build a McDonald's next to a it's a dumb example, but next to a single family, right?

So I think there's governance on that issue already. And so I think the idea of requiring the lot to be buildable, subdivided lots to be buildable and I'm leaning toward unless I hear from somebody smarter than me about why we shouldn't require housing on the subdivided parcels.

Hey, wait a minute, man. Then

I think there's an oxymoron and a lot of these laws. I mean, they get to be so complex that we forget that there's an underlying goal the city has to enhance and improve the city living and working environment. And then we have the zoning ordinance as a kind of a backstop to prevent ridiculous development on subdivided parcels. So with that in mind, then really what we're talking about is a strategy to get more housing, right. And we worked on projects where you don't work sorry, I've worked on projects where in foreign countries where you subdivide a parcel and the developer has a certain period of time in which to implement much, much more strict than here.

And that's because there's an overriding public interest involved. Right? And that should be the principle here, not necessarily the same tactics, but the interest of the city in terms of its housing stock, its affordability for folks who far the administrative staff who can try to live in Piedmont, right? And I think that's what this should be all about. My disconnect still is how do we reconcile all this stuff with that chart? Yeah. That's to me the whole to me is the big hole.

I think so again, I go back to this expanding housing options initiative actually involves 11 different programs and I think that the intent is to chip away a little bit here, little bit here to try and make progress towards those numbers. It's not there's no one magic bullet that's going to get you 50% of the way right, right. It's a little bit here, a little bit there, a little bit cumulatively together with the Morocco Canyon project. All of these things come together, know, and maybe not all of them work out. Some of them might work better than expected, but through this combination, a whole quiver full of arrows to try and I make a

get it. And I agree with you that we're not going to chip away at the five eighty seven by one project. I'm trying to understand from the City Council's point of view, how much of this is wishful thinking and how much of this is real, right? Moraga Canyon is probably a bit more real. But for example, the sites along Grand Avenue, I mean, it will take years to implement some of those multifamily commercial sites, right, because there are already improvements on them now.

So my disconnect is the five eighty the arena requirement and affordability. Are we really creating a framework for affordability? And the way it sits now, I don't know that we're heading in that direction. Even the ADUs that we talked about in the previous agenda item, I suspect a lot of those ADUs that are pulled are kept either for family use or for I'm just talking out loud here, or so forgive market rate. For whatever reason, I don't know how many of those ADUs really become affordable.

That's a good segue into the third topic about the below market rate question.

And I think your question also highlights how these 11 programs are really all interconnected. For management purposes, we're bringing the two sort of pieces at a time, but they are interconnected because this gets to the question of inclusionary. If there's inclusionary requirements on a 10 unit development, if there's an in lieu fee that applies to some of that then that helps to speak to the affordable component.

Yes, I guess all the things that we're doing inclusionary zoning which we talked about two meetings ago, this expanding housing options, the RENE requirement, how they are all related. I don't see an avenue at this point about how affordability is really

addressed. I

think we made a lot of progress to get the framework forward. I just don't know that we have a means to close the gap for affordability. Again, you guys are in this more than I am. Help I me

would say that our tools are doing that are very limited. And that I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Need to take this incremental steps and do what we can, particularly in this case, maybe if we allow ADUs and JADUs on subdivided lots of a certain size, maybe we can attach a deed restriction that it be occupied by a lower, very low income tenant for a period of years. And that way, get something, maybe it's a handful of units, but it is something It's showing the state that we are doing as much as we can to meet our reallocation for the lower income units.

Well, if you could figure out if there are other ways to put more teeth into some of these policies, and it would be I'd be interested in hearing it.

Yes.

As I think my fellow commissioners would.

Yes. Absolutely.

So I think we have enough clarity on Yes.

I wanted to ask you before we conclude, is there anything else you want feedback from us on?

No, this is it. I think this was actually a very robust discussion, and I think this you've given a lot of very thoughtful comments. So thank you.

For the record on this, and I don't know if anybody else has any comments on it, but requiring below market rate is a condition that I mean, I personally, I don't like the idea of setting requirements like that. There's an enforcement mechanism, how do you maintain monitoring of that? I don't know, but I'm generally not inclined to

We have a history of it for Certainly when parking was required for ADUs before the state prohibited us from requiring parking, we had applications for ADUs that saw an exception to the parking requirements and they could do that if they agreed to rent to lower very low income tenant for a period of ten years. We won an APA award for that program. And so and what it does is annually, the owners have to submit information on the occupant and their income and so forth. So it's something we've done and could do again.

Interesting. Okay.

Wouldn't be my favorite either.

Yeah. I don't know how others feel, but would not be my favorite. Yeah. We're looking for options. Right.

There aren't many.

I'm just going

to claim.

There aren't many.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We now proceed to dinner break. Oh,

was going to ask is there a dinner break.

And how long of a break would you like to take or recommend we take?

It's 07:30. Now we can go back at eight.

Okay. Very good.

You got a gavel?

See you at 08:00. Meeting is called once again to order and we move forward to agenda item number six, which is a fence design review permit for 21 Cambridge Way. Are there speakers?

Yes, have speaker card from Linda.

You, Chairman, members of

You panel can identify yourself?

I do. We have the architecture here trying to support me all the way. Thank you. Actually this time I came to verify to clarify the last time, the last meeting of the height that because the drawing wasn't there and so thank you for coming, take a look at it. So mainly the fence is like privacy.

So all we want is like a six feet fence that you see every below six feet fence there. And most of our height is pretty clear, but the thing is like certain once we go because it's vertical is horizontal fence and it's like certain area is actually higher than six feet fence even though from 19 Cambridge side. So I just want to clarify that there is six feet and then go along because of the slope, There's some areas that are taller. And I also wanted to I know that 20 feet from the I want to add an additional seven feet that was to 19 Cambridge front gate to close it off. That's all I'm requesting.

That's it.

Okay. And are there any commissioner questions?

Just want to make sure everyone's clear how the fence looked and the height. We're not trying to build I mean certain areas is like seven feet, but with the design, there's no way we can draw it this way. So we have to certain area have to be, like, more than six foot.

This is just a question. I know what we oh, sorry. More of a question. The the nature of the terrain is such that it's slope, and, you know, we we have to have that staircase effect with the fence. Yes. And you try to you mentioned the six feet. What was the the consideration? Did you did you did you kind of when you design or when you installed the fence, did you consider six feet to be the tallest because it changes? Yeah. It changes. Horizontal. Oh. And then your terrain changes. The terrain changes. There is a minimum and a maximum. Did you consider your maximum to be six feet? Your minimum to be six feet or an average? How how did you go about?

Minimum is six feet. And then as long it goes down, it I our our design fence is horizontal and because it's also sloping down. So it's like like, we got, like, six feet here, but by the time we get down here, it's on, like, seven foot.

So the minimum, like, you know, this is how you you install it. Yes. So the minimum at six feet, and then depending on how long how much you go horizontally Yes. Will increase to in places seven feet. Or

Yes. Some areas only, like, five feet.

Got it.

So it really depends on the wherever the elevation is

Got it.

With the retaining wall.

Mhmm. Yeah. And have you considered going to the maximum being sick? What would have happened if you went with the maximum of six feet?

Okay. And what would have

been the minimum? Like, was it would that have been Like, feet?

Yeah. When we go to four feet, then there's no reason for a fence because there's no privacy. The reason why we're having privacy is a minimum six feet and then go slope against.

Thank you.

Any other commissioner questions?

So how excuse me, how accurate is on that drawing in front of us?

It's accurate. Currently built some Can of the fences

I ask the question please? How accurate is the grade on the 19 Cambridge side?

It's I will say at least 90% is pretty accurate because we do have a survey.

Okay. Because the applicant may I'm sorry, not the applicant, the 19 Cambridge owner claims that parts of the fence are over eight feet, but I can't tell from

Oh, yes one if he's

not perceiving the fence correctly, and that's why I'm asking is the grade accurate on his side of the fence versus your side?

Yes. The grade is pretty accurate, you know where this line right here, because he have a steps on his side, the eight feet is actually at his step side. That's why it's actually one to eight feet, which is like what number is this? Seven, Mark that's the eight feet one. If you go from number seven down here because he have his step down there. It go from here, it's only, like, where his step is, it's six feet. But because he has steps, I'll go all the way down there. That's why it's one feet.

You do show eight feet, four and three quarters.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But our retaining wall is there. We just have to follow from measure from his side of the step. That size eight feet. But actually from from our retaining wall here, it's only like five foot and a quarter inch from there. We try our best.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Are there any other speakers? I have

no speaker cards.

I have two hands raised, so I'm going to allow David to to speak. David, you are, able to speak when ready.

Kobi?

Can you hear

me, Nicole? Everyone?

Yes. You're we can hear you. Okay.

Thank you. I think the whole thing, you know, what it is that says is inaccurate. And I think by last time, the the the commission, he pointed out that the concern, the elevation, I said it's very legitimate, very reasonable. I think based on the builder and the contractor, they should do what exactly to build. Okay?

And I had to go to the city, check how to measure measure the from the heights. Each section measure from the dirt, the lowest dirt to the to the top of the fence. That's the way city, the standard. I think I'm not a contract. I even go to city few times to make sure that I think the builder, 21 Cambridge, and the country should know that.

And also what is say is is not right. The country should planning very carefully by follow the prudent prudent pooled permanent last time. Maximum six feet from 19 Cambridge Way, which major for the lowest the each section of fence, the lowest to the the top of the the the fence. By saying that, actually, after that, I found out I when when they build the back portion of fence, I was trying to be reminded them, I don't want to try to tear down, rebuild again. I said, you guys are building too hot.

They're not happy. Not not even talk to me. The store continue doing this. Until October, the redo the the building from the portion, that was after the permit was the next step, commissioner meeting, put a maximum six feet from from my side. But the the I talked to the the worker, the main worker there. I think you guys are building too high. I think you probably you should, you know, building exact city, ask me to do it. And if there was not angry shooting me the nail gun. Okay? Luckily, I I I I dodged it off.

And this is what what's going on. I think it did deliberately not follow the follow the follow the pull the permit. From my side, you know the the entire project is is adversely impact on my my house. My house is so dark now, and the fence are gonna be all like, the view, all the lights. Unfortunately, all the lights and the view is from 21 Campus West.

The house is blocked my view. If the fence is currently high, whole entire side view is disappear. In the even the all the way in the backyard, I cannot see anything. I used to have long blocked view. The front house, the house of 2021 Cambridge is from one story to three story.

Mister mister David, we're gonna ask that you conclude your comments. Your three minutes have expired.

Yeah. I just I just wanna ask. I just wanna make my house lot so dark. The fence and the fence is too high. It's it's gonna be more making my house very dark. Also, in the front of the pushing, and I told you I I said in the there is a soil line there.

Thank you.

Thank you. Always in the easement.

Thank you.

Because I'm not supposed to build on the soil.

Thank you. So

I also have another hand raised from Gloria. Okay. Gloria, you can speak. You have three minutes.

Okay. I think I think I oops. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

Let me make this up. Okay. Can you hear me hear me?

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Judy Judy, you

you need to turn off the other devices in your presence. You can only have one device open to the meeting. Otherwise, we're gonna hear that echo.

Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm gonna unmute it.

You okay. Is everything okay now?

Better. Sounds good.

Okay. Alright. Thank you, everyone. Thank you for your time. So I'm here just to to a few points. I mean, one is we know they didn't really follow the crude plan as last time. They just build as they wish. So they don't care all the resources we spend, all the time we spend. The second one, I just want to remind you is this close proximity between the two houses, especially the fence. You know, whatever, like, small little fence we had before, it was, 10 feet away from us.

Right now, it's what? You can barely, like, pass one person. It's less than three feet. Think about it. Like, just three feet away, you have such tall fence, how that's going to affect your life. I hope you got you you can put in in my shoes to think about it. This is really, really big impact. You know, for all the past meetings, we have been talking about the impact on our house and, you know, we have been, like, displaced, you know, all that stuff. But I can really, really feel how dark our house is now and the air, how stuffy it is. And now, I mean, I think we showed you guys some pictures of the mold on the fence panels.

You know, because it's so close, if the fence is, like, 10 feet away from us, I'll probably care much less. But think about how how directly that impacts our life. And this is is really, really something you guys have to think about it for us. You know, the the we for for the '21 campaign, think they have been in that mindset. They always think about what's what they want.

They want the fence to be big and tall for their reasons, but they never think about it for us. They just, okay, this is our property. We have all the rights to do whatever. But this is significantly affected our life. The lies, the air and the views, all that has been give us significantly decreased the value of our property and it really, really negatively impact our lives.

So at here, we just ask the commissioners to stick to the whatever you guys proved before. Even though personally, we don't think we want the U. Six feet, but we, you know, we we honor what you proved before. You know, especially the front section, our landing. If right next three feet away from your house, have a eight feet fence, how that's going to impact our life?

This is this is, you know, I it it just in in incredibly hard for us. If you step down your house and step on the nanny, you have a eight feet of fence right in front of your face. Again, think about the proximity, I think that is really critical for you to understand our situation. Thank you for your help. Thank you for your support. And we really appreciate your understanding. Thank you.

You. Are there any other speakers?

Have a speaker card from Derek.

Maybe three times now and planning staff for preparing all the document. I just point out a few points. Can I see the elevation view? Both house got a really high floor in the front and then the back, the slope, you know, slope because slope. So in the front, we got about anywhere between 10 feet to at least 10 feet high.

So when they pointed out that they don't have the light, that's not totally accurate. If you see that at the macro maybe from the 17 back to number 14 or so, the fan is partly below their floor and their windows. So there is no obstruction. There's no nothing about blocking the light. And the measurement that I have appeared in my personally measured, I went out there twice and put the tape on on this property side.

That the measurement of that and based on my professional skills, I did that. So there is no falsify the measurement here. Anybody can do measure and I think that he is did verify that in the field also. Okay. Regarding the more that we're talking about the air things like that, more if they actually got to open the breathe through, there is no more.

What they found maybe there was some dirt, cement that would be open the fence and that can be scraped up. Just point out a few things. There's a lot of things that I point out and we totally disagree with that. And it kind of in a way, we'd be happy to meet again in the field if we need to, to verify the high, how much impact there window the lights. Thank you.

Commissioner questions?

Thank you. I do have one. Sorry. I do have one question. So at the meeting of October, the condition of approval was or one of the conditions of approval for the fence.

So under five, fence height, It says prior to the issuance of a change to the approved plans, building permit for the fence, the applicant shall provide fence elevation drawings showing that the fence along the property line shared with 19 Cambridge Way is no taller than six feet in height measured from adjacent grade on the 19 Cambridge Way property. Okay. The final design of the fence shall be subject to staff review and approval. Prior to the final inspection, the height of the fence will be confirmed by staff. So when I look at your drawing,

I

think because of the way the site slopes off, in many cases, in each of the big fence panels, start out at six feet and then you

Minimum six feet, right.

Right. Well, you start out at six feet and it goes to anywhere from 6.5 to seven over seven feet because of the way the

That's right.

So if again, if I just eyeball this and took the average, so I'd say your fence is probably maybe six inches higher than six feet on average?

Average, yes, that's right. Seven feet, six divided by half, yes.

So how did you end up there when the condition of approval was no taller than six feet in height measure from the 19 Cambridge side?

Well, that's

the right.

That's the reason why we come back here tonight to clarify that.

Well, to clarify it or but I thought the condition was pretty clear. It can't be more than six feet.

Well, at that time we didn't have the elevation and we said that's six but then now that we realized that.

Well, for example, you could have started out at 5.5 feet as your starting point for each of these panels is six feet, And then if you start out at five, six, your average would be about six feet.

Well, I'm five feet five, but there are other people who are five'six feet taller, Mr.

Harrington. That's not the issue, sir. The issue is the condition was six feet, no taller than six feet from the 1960

That's the condition and

Was that clear to you or not?

It was clear, but then that's why we're here tonight.

Why are you here then?

That's we're going to ask for six feet fans. It was allowed at six feet. Normally unless we're going to change the design and we're to follow the contour, everything is going to be six feet.

You didn't though, I

mean We

We already

built the fence.

Yeah, but then it was one of the design guideline that they want the fence to be stepped.

Well, we understand the fence has to be stepped, but I think the intent was that the fence would be no maximum six feet from the 19 Cambridge property.

They also allow it to be eight feet also, maximum at eight feet.

I think, okay. I'm saying that your fence design, the stepping is fine. It's logical, all right? And yet in some places, you're 7.5, seven foot two you know, on one end of the panel. What I'm saying is, what you could have done was started out instead of six feet, say five foot six, and then your average would be six feet, which is what the condition of approval.

But the design didn't recommend that. They say that six foot, so we're based on that information that I

But the design condition of approval says no taller than six feet in height measure from the adjacent grade at 19 Cambridge Way.

Well, understand that. That's why we're here. Unless we're to change the design of fence, we're not going to the horizontal run, they're going to follow the contour. Then we maintain six

We're obviously have a difference of opinion here.

Chair Yee, just a follow-up question. The condition says there should be a drawing prepared and then presented, then built. Yeah. You did. You built, and then you are present did you present the drawing before you build?

No. We did not, but then, like, it will kinda go ahead, build. I wasn't there, but then there was some oversight, in a way it's a blessing that would allow me to know what is the height. At the minimum of six feet right there and then I step up, there's another six to 12 inches, so we come seven feet. Now, have a really accurate.

Commissioner Roland, if could just provide a little bit of background. I was the project planner that reviewed the the resubmittal of the fence elevation. And there was, I think, sincere belief that this design was six feet tall. But because of the way this the city code measures height, I had to point out that some of the areas where the stairs are or where they're retaining walls, the fence was greater than six feet. And so after discussing it with the applicant and their design intent, the decision was made to bring it back to the planning commission so that you had a chance to see these elevation drawings that weren't available to you before.

And then the the issue of the existing grade and the stairs and how that changes fence height under our code. I'd also like to point out just really quickly, we did receive a an additional comment letter that was distributed at the dais tonight from 15 Cambridge.

Supporting the project. Right? Yes. I

have a question. In the drawings, I don't see any kind of, like, detailed drawings about the fence design as to whether or not you're putting horizontal boards on the 19 Cambridge, the adjacent parcel side? Or is it going to be left open?

It's left open. So

what you're asking is to change the approval to a slightly higher height based on an understanding a new understanding of how height is measured by the city. And you're essentially asking us to to approve this six foot fence that you thought you were building more or less based on perhaps a misunderstanding of the method of calculating the height?

Not just that, but I think that our first approval did note about eight foot fence, correct me, Pierre. Then because after discussing with Tan, I mean, then we bring it back for the council to reconsider that. But at that time we did ask for eight feet.

The plans, the landscape plan was a condition of approval for the original expansion and remodel of the house. And at that time, they requested an eight foot fence. And I said, well, I can't approve an eight foot fence. I can only approve a six foot fence. So the landscape plan was approved with a six foot fence. And when the project came back before you,

it

was to build up to an eight foot high fence. But that condition number five was placed limiting it to to six feet on the 19 side.

Mhmm.

So again, I worked with the applicants. I looked at the design and the elevations. Although, I could understand why it might be seemed to be a six foot fence because predominantly it is six feet tall because we measure to the lowest adjacent grade, and there are stairs and and terraces in on 19 Cambridge, the resulting height was greater than six feet. And so it was brought back to the commission.

So now if you if you were to to to stick with the six feet exactly as it's measured, as you say, what would that look like? Because this seemed fine to me when I looked at it, just being

there. And

it did not seem disproportionately high. So what would it look like if you were trying to go with a defined six feet that would actually produce lower levels? Would that have a rather jagged look in terms of the design? Or would it feel too low in in points? What what would

that I think it would introduce an an a significant increased number in the steps of the fence creating a sort of sawtooth design.

Sawtooth. That's that's what I was thinking. Thank you for the term. It does not have a sawtooth design, but it's only it only does not have a sawtooth design because it's a little higher in some spots than six feet. And so on average, say, Commissioner Yee, it's about six inches higher?

Eyeballing it. Yes, it's about six inches taller than

Now considering the irregular nature of the topography, it doesn't flow at the same rate. So it's got some jagged nature of the slope, which might mean if you followed that slope completely, literally, you would have either a jagged or sawtooth look if you were trying to slice off those extra six inches everywhere. So that the design the question is, does the design come out although it's a little higher than six feet, does it come out better? And also is that just the result of trying to navigate an irregular topography?

I think it's it's not uncommon for fences not to follow grade exactly.

Mhmm.

You know, whether this design is improved because it doesn't doesn't follow grade exactly. I think that's for the commission to decide. But it's not unusual for fences to especially if they're horizontal board fences to have a stepped appearance where certain areas are slightly taller.

Okay. Thank you. Any other commissioner questions?

Thank you.

Thank you. We will now close the public comment portion of this agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion. Would anyone like to lead off the discussion? Rafi? I mean Sure. Commissioner Zaruki.

No problem. Again. The site itself. Lens to some challenging You know, one has to resort to some Acrobatics to kind of find the perfect balance between following the topography of the land and achieving a pleasant silhouette, if you will, of that the top of the fence. We can see that there was an intent, like, you know, an intent to follow a six foot height.

Granted that six foot height ended up being at the shortest height. But I think if anything, it would have shaved only six inches. Like, the whole thing, you would have to shave six inches, and I don't think that would make a difference onto the look. The the fact that it prevents light or not. Right?

It doesn't alter the quality of life much. That six inches we're talking about, it really will have a negligible effect on the surrounding areas, whereas it will create a big issue trying to kind of keep that six inches all along. So it is always a challenge to kind of follow the contour. I think the contractor create tried to achieve something that strikes a balance. Either way, it is a complex exercise. So I don't think it creates an undue burden.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. I'll go next. There's I want to say at least three issues that come to mind that I want to discuss. First issue is I am not particularly pleased with the idea of coming back with a design that is in contradiction with a previously approved condition when there's been a maximalist approach taken to go beyond what has already been approved. I appreciate the fact that there's an aesthetic and privacy goal in mind.

And so I'm flexible. I'm not saying I wouldn't support the design, but I don't like that situation, especially when the fence has already been built or the construction has already been done and you're effectively seeking like approval of something that has gone against a direct condition like it's setting of condition. That aside, we're just talking about the design. I think between points five and six and points six and seven, that like large section at the back of the house, I don't know about that large of a step. I don't think it's I know it's difficult that you might necessarily be increasing height beyond six and breaking our condition mandate to have a starting point.

I think a more even step would be a better design. And then there's like a very small step to the right side. So I just didn't understand that kind of visual discrepancy. And even standing right at the corner there between the houses and seeing how you were protecting the privacy, like I can appreciate what you were doing there, but it just felt very abrupt. It's a very abrupt change in height.

And then again, I'm a little concerned about the visual impact on both properties. It not having horizontal boards on the neighbor side. So it seems like it should provide for aesthetically pleasing fence on both sides of the fence. I don't know if anyone from the neighbor side expressed an interest in doing any kind of design or adding to the fence or changing the design on their side, but that is a concern that I'd have. That's not aesthetically pleasing from their side.

Those are my concerns. Thank you. Commissioner Yee? I appreciate

the comments from both Commissioners Zeruchin and Busseling, and I share some of the same concerns. I think there are really two issues here. One is the spirit and adherence to the Condition five from the prior meeting. And then the second issue is just the extension of the fence into the setback, which is really what they're asking about is the setback. So on the first issue, I don't have any issues with the design of the fence.

I mean, like Commissioner Zeroukian said, there's this great condition that you have to manage, right? And there's a big step on the as you get toward the backyard side of the end of the fence, and you have about a five foot big step right there, and that's because the neighbor at 19 has a big step right there. So I generally get all that. So in terms of the design itself, it generally seems fine with me. I do have an issue with the six foot requirement that we conditioned that we approved last time you were here.

And to me, the solution is pretty would have been pretty simple if you had instead of starting out at six feet as your low point, start out at five foot six. And then your high points would be seven feet, like six foot six or something like that. And that to me, even though it doesn't literally adhere to condition number five, adheres to the spirit of what we're trying to get at. And again, we're listening to your neighbor too. Your neighbor is concerned about the height of the fence.

And in this case, because the properties and the houses are so close together, I think it's I think maybe your neighbor is overstating the lack of air and all that. But proximity is a concern though. And I think it's good that to me, the fence should be an average six feet. And that would be in the spirit of what I think we that would be in the spirit of adhering to Condition five, and it takes into consideration a little bit of your neighbors' concerns and fences make good neighbors, right? So I'm and again, as Commissioner Zukreen said, you know, six inches probably won't make that much difference.

I guess not. You know, mean, I wish we weren't put in this position because if we had gone if an applicant not you, but if an applicant came in, says, I want to build a fence that's six feet, and they came back, you know, two months later and said, that fence is now six foot six, then, you know, are we going to be are we gonna try split hairs and say, look, it's six inches too tall? And so I don't feel like this, while this design is fine, I don't feel like it adheres to the spirit of what we're trying to achieve in rendering the condition. Because in rendering the condition, we tried, as commissioners tried to take into account your needs and your neighbors' needs. And that's where I think this six inches, right?

So to me, it misses the mark in that sense. At the end of the day, he's right. Six inches doesn't make any difference, right? Not that much difference. But in terms of the spirit of what we're trying to achieve between neighbors and what we thought we were giving you instruction for last time, I think this misses the mark. As far as the setback requirement is concerned, I would support the setback because I think you're trying to get the stair to the end to the head of their the neighbor's stair, right?

At the neighbor's gate.

The gate, right? So I think I could support that because I think there's a logical place right there to begin your fence. But as far as the height of the fence is concerned, yes, it's a tough one because I think you're putting us in an awkward position to because it's already built, right? So it's always awkward to look at something already built.

Can I follow-up because I missed the whole discussion about the fence and the setback area? I'm totally in agreement. I think it totally makes sense to have fencing there, and I would support that.

And since that one is not built, that one can achieve the six foot.

It's partially built. I think it's partially there.

Well, I

mean and maybe it bears clarification. Like, I you know, fundamentally speaking, you know, if if we have, you know, this design in front of us at the last meeting

Right.

You know, I feel like it would have made more sense for me to say, okay, well, this looks reasonable. Even though it exceeds six foot height, the design appears consistent. We would have to kind of weigh neighbor concerns and come up with this decision. We didn't have this drawing before. We didn't know what the heights were.

So we did my the basis of my decision last time was this is something that the property owner could build, I wouldn't say as of right, but like a six foot height from the neighbor like kind of resolves those and balances those concerns. When they come back and say, okay, we're going beyond that right now, I feel like you know, the the the the basis, you know, for our decision was not at least my, you know, my perception of our decision was not not followed.

So if I'm if, you know, kind of to put it in my own words, if this came before it was built with this with this situation, we would have said, let's make it an average of six feet. Right? We would have asked for it to be modified. Now we are we are put in front of a condition that's already built. Okay. Granted, we're saying it's hard, but we wanna kind of for the record saying because otherwise, everybody's gonna build something and say, oh, I didn't I may I missed it. And then we don't wanna create precedents like that either. Yeah.

Thank you. I I

and and and I I hear that this was not the intention. You know, the intention wasn't to ignore what we were saying. There was an attempt to comply. But initially, I'm just saying, when I initially saw the application and I saw the, you know, the fence design, the initial reaction I had is, well, they didn't like the condition we set, so now they're pushing further to try and go, I know, I know, I know. I'm just saying the feeling that it

No, I know.

And I'm just saying, and not just from the perspective of me, but when I'm thinking about all the neighbor objections, I can imagine what kind of, you know, confrontation that is creating, you know, and what what the people that live next to you think might be your intentions even though it may not have been your intention.

So I'm just Thank you, commissioner Busselink. So I agree with much of what's been said on by all parties. And I think about the example that Commissioner Yi used about starting out to build a or being given permission to build a six foot fence and somehow it turns into six foot six inches. And I don't think I would really appreciate that at all if the terrain were flat and it was very easy to measure and you came up with six extra inches. But in this case, I've been on this property both sides, navigating the difficulty of the slope on both sides, including on the one side during construction before you had the concrete, it was rocks.

And I put on a pair of shoes so that I can understand what the terrain is like. And so I knew that this was tricky even when we talked about it last time. And so when you come up with a design that still looks decent, it doesn't create the sawtooth look, it's not as easy as a flat terrain where you just easily come up with an exact height here. We're looking at averages. It's a very challenging situation.

The difference being, in my opinion, small enough that I I would favor to to approve this as as it's designed. Again, I share the the same concern of my fellow commissioners of having permission to do one thing and coming with something else as a result. But this is a little trickier than the flat terrain and the easily measured six feet. So I understand that. And I understand the limitations of trying to come up with an attractive design that still follows pretty much that guideline.

And I think that you've generally done that. So I support the project and also the fence, the portion in the setback as well. Okay. Any further?

I think I mean, I want to know before we make a motion, how are we take a temperature or what direction we need to go here or

We're talking from my point of view, we're talking about a small difference, but it's a small difference on a tricky terrain. Sure. And the visual appearance of it is important as well. I mean, this is design review. So there's no intention on the part of the or there doesn't appear to be any intention on the part of the applicant to flout the rules.

But were any of us in the applicant situation, we would be stuck with this terrain too, and it's challenging. So it's not like we would be setting any precedent of we give you permission to do this and you do that. This is an entirely different challenging topography and I think that they've done reasonably close to what we asked them

to do.

It's a best effort. I agree.

So would any commissioner like to make a motion? Commissioner Zeroukian?

Sure.

I move approval of the project at 21 Cambridge Way, mid to the following. The project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section fifteen three zero one class 1e and section fifteen three zero three class 3e and is consistent with general plan programs and policies. As condition, the project is approved because it complies with the design review criteria under section seventeen sixty six zero six zero 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 neighborhood development. The retaining wall and fencing material and design.

The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties, existing views, privacy, and direct access and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate. The views are not significant views. There is sufficient vegetative screening. The fence height is appropriate to preserve privacy views and light. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the project scope proposes no changes to the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the public right of way.

As conditioned, the application complies with the following guidelines and general plan policies and programs. Design review guidelines are standards, capital c, site design three point three zero three and three point zero nine. And the 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 policy 28.1, 28.2, twenty eight point six, twenty nine point one, and 29.5. The approved project the project is approved with the with four conditions of approval.

If I might, during your discussion for the first finding for design review that it's the design is it's design standards. There was discussion about how the step design was attractive and the horizontal boards and it followed up the terrain. Did you want to add anything in regards to that, or is it just the retaining wall and fence material?

Look, as we have as we have mentioned during the discussion that the terrain propose has a challenging contour. And in general, the stepping of the fence follows, in general, the topography. Otherwise, it would be difficult to achieve, you know, consistent heights. So and horizontal boarding seems adequate.

And then on the second finding, it was mentioned, and I forget by whom, that the top of the fence was below or at the sill height of windows and wouldn't have an impact on light. Is that something else that you wanna call attention to in in that finding?

It's it's kind of part of these. Right? You're talking about this here that it doesn't it does not

Yeah. Right.

So as part of that, the the height of the fences is is not is the the height of the fence is at or below cell heights of windows. Therefore, it will not prevent light and air into the build the adjacent buildings.

Okay. Sorry to interrupt.

So Well, but do we really know that to be the case? We don't. Right?

It it was we we don't have an exact height, but it is, like, in a general, when you look at it, it's not taller.

We have this.

And and you all made site visits, so Mhmm. Maybe through observation.

Right. So so more or less. Right? It's not above because, you know, even the the sun, right, you know, the orientation is such that the sun will never be that low. So no matter what, it will still provide Light. Light.

Alright. So there's a motion.

Is there a second?

Okay. Seconded.