Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will now begin the 03/09/2026 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. Thank you for joining us for the 03/09/2026 Piedmont Planning Commission meeting. This meeting is being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers. As a courtesy and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the city cannot guarantee the public's access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted and technical difficulties may occur from time to time.

Public comment is invited for non agenda items during the public forum section of the meeting and separately on each agenda item. If you wish to comment and you are in the council chambers, please submit a speaker card to 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 the your speaking time, I will ask you to conclude your comments quickly and mute your audio once you're done. The agenda for this meeting is available on the planning commission's page of the city's website at piedmont.ca.gov. As is the standard practice, community members are allowed to comment one time on each agenda item. We ask your patience in understanding when there are technical difficulties. This concludes my introductory remarks.

Is there anyone who would like to speak? This is public comment. Right? She indicated that there's no one who wishes to speak or no We haven't gone to public comment. Oh, okay. Oh, I see. Excuse me.

We're going go to real quick. Okay.

So to start, I'll take role. Commissioner Yee? Here. Commissioner Ortiz?

Present.

Commissioner Zeruchian?

Present.

Commissioner Busalink? Present. Commissioner Cooper? Here. I'm Wayne Roland, Chair of the Planning Commission. Now, I would like to mention that the minutes taker of tonight's hearing will use the video of the meeting to prepare the minutes. Thus, with that in mind, we ask that all speakers please identify themselves and speak clearly into the microphone or their device when they address the commission. The public forum is the opportunity for anyone who wishes to address the Planning Commission regarding an issue that is not on tonight's agenda to do so. In order for all speakers to be heard, we may limit your comments to three minutes. Nicole and Lamise, 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.

Okay. Returning to commission procedures, I would like to mention that as commissioners, we are required to comply with requirements of the Brown Act so that our deliberations are conducted openly and that our actions are also 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 our fellow commissioners for the first time tonight. Commissioners who have a financial interest in a property within 500 feet of an application property are recused from acting on the application and commissioners who have a financial interest in a property between 501,000 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 the 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 may be required if application approved 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 02/27/2026. 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 item on the agenda seeks the approval of meeting minutes for the January 1226 and February 9 regular meetings of the Planning Commission. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak concerning the meeting minutes for January 12 and January 9 meetings?

I have no speaker cards.

Are there any commissioner comments?

I have two comments.

Okay.

All

right. On Page six, under the variance permit application for 105 Oakmont, I think the person who spoke, the general contractor said that stairs could not be built in the driveway. I think what he meant to say was in the middle of the driveway. And then on Page nine, just a little typo under the my last name is misspelled.

Okay. Well, let's correct the last name for Commissioner Yee.

And that's on the February 9

Yes.

So do I hear a motion for the approval of the January 12 and February 9 regular meeting minutes?

As amended, as requested by Commissioner Yee.

As amended or requested amendments by Commissioner Yee.

I would like to second. There's a motion. We need a motion. I would like to move for approval of the January the or the January meeting minutes with the amendments proposed by Commissioner Yee.

In February.

February. Oh, February. Excuse me.

Well, you're motion would be for both.

Approving them both, but amending February

Amending February February 9, sorry. According to the request by commissioner Yee. Alright.

I'll second. Alright.

Sorry. Alright. So I've got a motion and a second to approve the January 9 sorry, the January 12 and February 9 meeting minutes. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Busalink? Aye. Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Yi? Aye. Commissioner Zeruchian?

Aye.

And Commissioner Roland? Aye. Alright. Motion passes. Minutes are adopted as amended. Thank you. Thank you.

I would like to propose that the following oh, that the following applications Do we have items for the consent calendar? We do. Okay. I would like to propose that the following applications be removed from the regular session calendar and placed on the consent calendar and approved under one motion of the commission unless an applicant or member of the public wishes a hearing to be held on one or more of the applications. After the list has been read, any member of the public may request that an application be removed from the consent calendar.

A list of draft conditions of approval is available in the staff reports for anyone who would like to see them, and additional conditions may be added prior to approval on the consent calendar. Kevin, are there any applications that have been placed on the consent calendar?

Yes. So separately, each commissioner informed staff that they could make findings to approve the applications without a public hearing for the permit applications at 421 Wildwood Avenue subject to the one condition of approval recommended in the staff report and also 84 Portsmouth Road with the one condition of approval recommended in that staff report. So those two applications are on the consent calendar.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to remove an application from the consent calendar? If an audience member would like to request an application be removed from the consent calendar, please raise your hand or click the raised hand feature on Zoom. Lamise, are there any requests in council chambers?

I have no speaker cards.

And Nicole, are there any requests on Zoom?

I have no hands raised at this time.

Okay. I'm seeing no request to remove an application from the consent calendar. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda items on consent?

I would like to make a motion to approve the agenda items on consent calendar.

Is there a second? Second. Okay. Kathy?

Alright. So we have a motion from Commissioner Ortiz to approve 421 Wildwood Avenue and 84 Portsmouth Road on consent with the conditions recommended in staff reports. The second for commissioner Yee. So roll call vote. Commissioner Buzalink? Aye. Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Yee? Aye. Commissioner Zeruchian?

Aye.

And Commissioner Rowland? Aye. All right. Motion passes. Congratulations. Applications have been approved.

Before we proceed with the remainder of the agenda, I 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 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 and the Commission may ask the speaker some questions. Once all members of the public have had the opportunity to address the Commission on a particular agenda item, we will then close the public comment period for that item. Please be aware that your opportunity to address the commission is only during the public comment period for that agenda item. Commissioners may invite members of the public to answer questions, but otherwise the public comment period will remain closed. After the public comment period for an agenda item is closed, the commission will hold a discussion of the agenda item.

There is a ten day appeal period during which any interested party can file an appeal of any action of the Planning Commission. For any action acted on tonight by the commission, the appeal must be filed with the city clerk by 5PM on 03/19/2026. The next item on the agenda is item number two, an informational report on permit applications received and approved by staff.

Thank you, chair Roland. So in February 2026, we had planning commissions approved and submitted. The number of submitted applications was 18, still a little down from the general 30 or so average, but a bit better than January. Approved, we approved 23 applications in the month of February. So of the submitted applications, 11 of those were expedited design review permit applications.

There were two director applications submitted, two planning commission applications submitted, two variance requests, and one signed application was submitted. Of the applications approved by the planning staff, 12 were expedited permits, five were director level, two were planning commission, two accessory dwelling unit permit applications, one junior accessory dwelling unit application, and one variance request was approved. On the building permit side, there were 87 applications that were submitted. Of those, there were a lot of solar, also about an equal amount of sewer applications, residential remodels, and electrical permit applications, and then, you know, various other applications for building permit were submitted. And then under the approved column,

there

were 81 building permit applications that were approved. Again, most of those were solar, good amount of sewer, residential remodel, and some mechanical. And that 87 number is generally on the lower side of the average from August going forward, which is around about a 90 to a 100. So we're holding steady. Thank you. Any questions for me on those?

I have one. The solar permits, even though they're sizable amount, have they tapered off any since the beginning of I

the think they will. I think we got a big surge once the tax credits were done away with by Washington DC. And so they were trying to get their permits in before those disappeared. I think we will see them taper off.

Any members of the public want to speak on that item?

I have no speaker cards.

You have no hands raised at this time.

Okay. As a correction, that was agenda item number three. You now move to Agenda Item number four, a study session on implementation of housing element program five b.

Before we move on to that agenda item, do we want to clarify for those that were on the consent calendar that their project is approved and they're welcome to say, but also are good to go if they would like to?

Yes, that would be a collage.

In place, it was unclear. You're welcome to say.

Would love to have

Policy items on if you want to stay. We understand. Good call. Yes. So tonight joining us from our consulting team of diet from Diet and Body are Andrew Hill and Jesse Hernandez. And they're going to give

us a

presentation regarding home matching, which is one of the housing element programs that we are looking to implement. And with that, I'll hand it off to Jessie Hernandez.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Can you hear me? Yeah. Great. Thank you. My name is Jessie Hernandez. Today, I'll be presenting home match considerations and asking for your feedback. Next slide. This study session is part of the Expanding Housing Options Project, or EHOP, which implements programs in the 2023 housing element.

These programs aim to expand housing options for people of different incomes and abilities consistent with state law. EHAP has five focus areas, and tonight we'll focus on home sharing, which are structured programs connecting homeowners who have extra space in their homes with home seekers. Home matching is also called home sharing.

Slide.

This effort implements program five b of the housing element, which calls for the city to study options for establishing a home matching program. Today's presentation will provide a brief overview of home matching, review key policy considerations, including service provider selection, program rollout, program targeting, and investment in outreach. We'll also ask for your feedback through several discussion questions. First, I'll provide some background on what home matching is and how these programs typically work. Again, home matching programs are structured programs that connect homeowners with people looking for housing.

Many participants are seniors, empty nesters, students, young professionals, and folks on fixed incomes. Each match is tailored to the people involved, but the goal is to create a living arrangement that works for both the homeowner and the home seeker. These programs can help seniors age in place and stay in their homes longer, expand affordable housing options, and make better use of the housing that we already have. Home matching programs are typically run by service providers that partner with cities or counties. These organizations specialize in shared housing, and many offer turnkey services that can be tailored to local communities' needs.

Most programs, if

you could

please go back, thank you, most programs follow a similar process, including application intake, screening and vetting such as background checks, reference checks, and home visits, compatibility matching, creating a living agreement that outlines expectations like rent, shared spaces, and house rules, and providing ongoing mediation and support if issues arise. Together, these steps help address common concerns around safety, tenant reliability, and protecting the home. Piedmont has about 11,000 residents and is largely built out. Housing costs are high and about 97% of housing units are single family homes. Seniors make up about a fifth of the population and 12% of households are seniors living alone.

These conditions create an opportunity for home matching to expand affordable housing options, support Piedmont seniors, and better utilize existing housing and support housing element goals. There are four key considerations that we'd like your input on tonight, including service provider selection, program rollout, program targeting, and investment in outreach. The first consideration is selecting a service provider. In the East Bay, organizations like Front Porch and the Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity or ECHO housing already operate home matching programs with established models. As part of the EHOP, we developed case studies of programs in Atherton and Mill Valley and also spoke with city staff and service providers.

Cities typically identify a partner either by issuing a request for proposals, as Mill Valley did, or by working directly with a provider already active in the region, as Atherton chose to do. Partnering with a provider that operates nearby can offer cost and efficiency advantages, while others may bring experience serving specific populations. We'd like to ask you, should the city issue an RFP to solicit bids from interested service providers or identify a provider or partner based on research and informal discussions with providers. The second consideration is how to launch the program. Communities have used different approaches to launching home share programs.

Atherton joined an existing network operated by HIP Housing and later expanded services to include additional outreach and engagement. Mill Valley launched a limited term pilot program with Front Porch, which allowed the city to test operations and evaluate community feedback before approving a renewable annual contract. We'll be asking you, does an incremental rollout starting with a limited term pilot program make sense in Piedmont? The third consideration is program targeting. One thing we heard consistently is that demand from renters is strong, but the bigger challenge is recruiting homeowners to participate.

Service providers and city staff noted that targeting messaging can help improve public perception, encourage participation, and expand the reach of the program. For example, in Atherton, early participation from homeowners was low, and so the city rebranded its program as an ADU match program and focused outreach on homeowners with ADUs and workers who live or work nearby. Mill Valley took a slightly different approach, initially focusing on senior homeowners and later expanding messaging to emphasize local workers being served as tenants. We'll be asking you, should the city seek to target or tailor a home matching program at the outset through surveys and other means? Or should a more incremental approach be taken with targeting adjusted based on results from an initial period?

The fourth consideration is the level of investment in outreach. Service providers typically include a baseline level of outreach. Cities can choose to rely on the provider or take a more active role in outreach and engagement. Local government involvement can strengthen participation since cities often have trusted relationships with residents. For example, Atherton supports its program with direct mailings, community updates, and informational events.

Programs can also improve over time through participant feedback, such as satisfaction surveys used by Front Porch and the city of Mill Valley. Your input on outreach strategies can help inform a future RFP or discussions with potential providers. We'd like to ask you, should the city host informational meetings with a service provider to raise awareness and boost participation among Piedmont homeowners? Should the city conduct annual surveys of program participants to gauge effectiveness and identify opportunities for improvement? And lastly, what level of outreach, minimal, moderate, or active, is most appropriate for Piedmont to dedicate to this program?

Based on your feedback tonight, city staff will develop a recommended approach for the design and rollout of a potential home match program. The staff will bring those recommendations to the city council in June 2026. Thank you. Are

there any commissioner questions?

Yes. Just a couple of questions. Are there minimum like requirements for the

house or kind

of facility that in terms of like eligibility for home matching, like spatial requirements or I don't know, like

Not across the board. Okay. Every situation is customized based on each participant's needs. And so there are some situations where the tenant will be more than one person, it is rare, but in those cases they do rent more space compared to an individual renting through this type of program.

Got it. And is there some kind of like baseline fee for these services that are for the matching?

So the services are free to participants. Typically, it so it the arrangements between jurisdictions and service providers vary widely. Each seems to be created based on that specific jurisdiction's needs and goals and negotiated with the service provider.

Got it. So like the contract agreements and the mediation that would from like a participant perspective would not be like an additional cost or any kind of cost or is that

So to clarify, serve I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question.

Yeah,

yeah. The services for participants are typically standardized across service providers. So, example, the case studies we looked at, Front Porch, which operates in four counties in the Bay Area, and Hip Housing, which operates in San Mateo County, had very similar standardized processes. So they shared standardized best practices. And the participants receive the services that they need.

And so and for example, a senior who has caregivers, the service provider would look to be working with those caregivers, right? So the services can be tailored to the participant. And then, the contract, for example, how much the jurisdiction pays in fees to the service provider, the target audiences, etcetera, those are negotiated on a case by seem to be negotiated on a case by case basis between the jurisdictions and service providers.

A follow-up So for the participants, are there any fees? Because, you know, you had one of your slides, had like five different items. You know, what was going through my mind is that it's similar to somebody who's kind of renting their house, and then they're hiring a company who kind of provides these services. And then one of the fifth point was mediation services, And what is you know, are there fees for the participants? And then to what extent those mediations like,

who

provides those mediations, and what are the recourses? Is it just communication or does it go a little bit further so that it provides some kind of a safety in the mind of the participants? There

are no fees for participants. The costs of the program are funded by the service provider and their clients, which could be cities and counties, for example. And then can you please repeat your second question?

Like the mediation services Yes. Which is one of the services. First, it was matching and all of the finding folks that are, you know, that matched together. Mhmm. Then one the last bullet point was the mediation Yes. In case there are some misunderstanding. Like, you know Yes. To what extent that kind of that goes.

So in our case studies and our interviews, both hip housing and front porch have in house staff who mediate certain levels of issues, and then they also have third party professional mediators who they can bring in. However, they really emphasized the initial agreement that functions as a lease. So, that agreement, that living agreement is extremely detailed and robust, and I can give you an example. So, taking the kitchen, the service providers walked me through some of the issues the living agreement goes over. So, for example, does the tenant have access to the kitchen at all times?

If so, where do they store their groceries and cookware? Is food shared? Are condiments shared? It really goes through so many aspects of daily life that that creates it sets up the according to the service providers, it sets up the participants for success. So that's a key factor.

Secondly, a big part of their conflict resolution is bringing the conflict back to the living agreement, which typically does address the issues that are happening. And then again, they have third party professional mediators to bring in if needed.

And that is that the extent where those services stop? Like, enforcement becomes outside of this, or or would enforcement through the city is part of that overall service. Meaning Mhmm. You find out that, okay, per the agreement, this is what was happening what what needs to happen. But then one of the parties is not cooperating. Right? Enforcement per the contract, as it goes, you know, where does that fall?

Mhmm. I think in any so the service providers were clear that just like a normal lease, it does lay out boundaries, right? And so, there are boundaries that can be crossed that would lead to further actions. Right? But I mean But my

so really enforcement isn't the term to

use.

The two parties, the homeowner and the housemate, let's call them, have come to an agreement. And so I'm the agreements generally provide have provisions for should those provisions be violated. So what if clauses, you know, somebody's not fulfilling their obligations under the agreement, then this happens.

So it will be part of

It's like predefined.

It doesn't really need a third party enforcement.

And and if I can also add the the service providers are are very well versed in state and and federal law, and they make sure that the homeowner is protected through the that agreement. And I the consulting team can discuss that further as well.

Yeah, was going to be my follow-up question. As a real estate attorney, you know, I'm very curious about the contracts because I can see a wide variety of types of basically landlord tenant agreements, whether roommate or same living area or whatnot. And some can be very like, let's just say, landlord friendly versus that be very elaborate. I mean is there a way to characterize generally how these are treated across programs or are they generally heavily landlord friendly or neutral or

The service providers emphasize the need to protect all parties. They've repeatedly emphasized personal choice and they are aware of the specific issues and concerns of homeowners in Alameda County. They serve the county, as a whole, and so they are very familiar with, for example, the issues that arose from COVID, etcetera. And so the, service providers are familiar with federal, state, and local housing laws, and they do embed legal requirements, for example, into their program policies and the living agreements. And we do have a template, a blank living agreement that we'd be happy to from a service provider, we'd be happy to share with staff.

If I could maybe just offer two things. Think first in answer to this point, because the city is contracting with whichever service provider is ultimately selected, you can have input on what that contract, that living agreement looks like. Obviously, they will offer their experience, best practices, what has worked, why things are in there. But there is an opportunity because the city is taking the contract to negotiate what that might look like. And then Commissioner Ortiz, I wanted to step in as well just to talk a little Jesse has great context because she's spoken with all the service providers but to sort of link it to one of our questions.

One of the things that can drive the contract price is how experienced that service provider is in the local area. Like in our case studies for example, Atherton went with hip housing because they were the only service provider active in the area. And the reason that's beneficial is because they already have a network of you know of home seekers that they can tap into. And so that's less resources spent for them to try and drum up potential home seekers and therefore the cost that they can offer the jurisdiction is lower. So that would be a consideration for you know for thinking about which service providers are already active in the area and maybe it's beneficial.

So that's I think that's the reason why Atherton went directly with hip housing without doing an RFP. That's not to say you couldn't issue an RFP to find out who's going to offer the best contract. But anyway, just a little bit of perspective to link those.

No, that's helpful. I mean, maybe a follow-up to that is like, I don't know if like as a city, this is a staff question, if we've defined a, like what are the services that like we wanna prioritize? Like, I know you had a list of five things, but that was just an example, I assume. Right? And then also just, like, if if there are any priorities just from, like, a program structure perspective that we're trying to achieve outside of what the housing element has already outlined.

I think the housing element program really our marching orders. We can take it further than there. We can expand on it with the commission's feedback. But we don't have any sort of plan beyond bringing this through a public process and getting feedback.

So just to be clear, City Council has already approved the housing element, which has this aspect baked into it, right? So the question is just are we going to move forward with how do we move forward with the That's future. So my I guess my question is, if I look at the two case studies, the Atherton and Mill Valley, I think Atherton had one was it one placement per year? Am I off here or I'm trying to scroll down.

No, that's correct.

And then the Mill Valley was targeting six per year as a goal. So do you know if Mill Valley is achieving their six per year?

I do have the statistics by year. I believe they're roughly achieving that, yes.

So do these housing arrangements, do they take a bite into the Reiner requirement

or are they separate? Unfortunately, don't.

They can, but only if certain very narrow circumstances are met. Theoretically, it's possible, but it actually one of the criterion would be that the city is making a financial commitment to ensure that that housing opportunity maintain is available at a certain rent over the long term, right? And then you meet the requirements for a lower income unit. So it is theoretically possible, but it's they don't all count right away out of the gates. And what do

you mean by long term? Like what

So typically fifty five years is the term that HCD looks for to you know if it's guaranteed for a fifty five year term then it can be counted towards lower income Rina. But it does require that the city would you know vouch for that legally.

So if I just do the math in my head, Piedmont has about 10,500 to 11,000 people, probably 3,000 to 3,500 households?

Yes, about 3,800.

3,800. 12 are seniors living by themselves. So that's about 400 at best, right? So if the participation levels are there Is there any data about the participation levels?

So, the This not quantitative data, but we have qualitative data from our interviews, and it does vary based on community, of course. Certain communities have more challenges than others. For example, in Atherton, they had extremely low participation among homeowners, and they found public acceptance to be a key challenge, and so they that's why they rebranded it for ADUs to target specific group of homeowners, and they significantly increased their outreach and engagement. And so they're reporting verbally that they have are seeing more community acceptance. However, they don't have quantitative data yet.

Because it seems to me that if we were to seek an

If I could. So we're in question period. So if you have questions, let's ask the consultants and staff, and then we can seek public comment.

And then we can approach deliberations.

So I have some questions. So first of all, the jurisdiction pays a provider to provide a service,

right? So

is there some kind of an average of how much that costs?

It varies so widely based on goals and needs. For example, if we compare Atherton and Mill Valley, who we selected because they are do have similar qualities to Piedmont. So, example, in Atherton, the budget is $15,000 a year with a goal of one match per year. And, I concluded in my analysis that that's because of their specific housing element goals and their specific challenges. Again, perception and then their housing element strategy is to provide affordable housing using ADUs, right?

And so that's I

got it.

I was just Thank finding you.

And then the service providers are typically nonprofit organizations?

Oftentimes, there are startups. However, the startups that were operating in this area are no longer operating or have merged with Front Porch.

Okay. And then the services are provided between the parties and something that you're referring to as a living agreement?

The agreement is documented in this living agreement? I'm not sure I understood your question, I apologize. Could you repeat it?

The services that the consumer of this service receives and the consumer I'm thinking of as the renter, everything is defined by the living agreement.

Oh, okay. I see. The Mill Valley City Council resolution includes the contract and scope of work, and the Mill Valley and Front Porch scope of work outlines the services that are provided to participants.

But the interaction between the renter and the person who they are renting from is conducted through the living agreement?

Yes.

Okay.

Mhmm.

And then we had some questions about what happens if the living agreement is not lived up to, And the question was something about enforcement and mediation. Mhmm. Is there any anything that you can tell us about enforcing these terms?

The service providers don't enforce the terms. They're not they facilitate the So

the property owner is on their own?

They provide resources, however let me think how to phrase this.

I think what Kevin explained previously is to this point where the living agreement will spell out, you know, what happens if there's in the case of a disagreement, this is the next step. And then mediation comes in. And if through mediation, which the service provider would facilitate, if an agreement is still not possible, well then the living agreement would establish that the renter would need to move out. So there would be conditions built into the living agreement that would envision all circumstances and if ultimately they would try to resolve the conflicts between them, but if that's not possible, then the provisions of the living agreement would say that the contract is null and void and renter has to move out. Do you see what I'm saying?

I do. Yes. I do. Okay. Thank you.

And okay, that's those are my questions. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners?

I have a question, and maybe this is for staff.

I'm not

sure. So in the Program 5B of the housing element, one of the things that said is that the city will amend its zoning ordinance to relax the limits on the number of home sharing leases allowed for single family residents to further promote affordable housing. Is that something that was already done? Is that something we'll have to address? And is there a oh, okay. All right. So limits on home sharing agreements are not a concern at

this point.

Given the sorting done.

Okay.

Hearing no further questions from commissioners, there anyone, a member of the public, who wishes to

I have no speaker cards.

I do have two hands raised. I'm going to start with Luke Barnes Moore from Front Porch. You have three minutes. Go ahead when you're ready.

Good evening. I hope you're all well. My name is Luke Barnes Moore. I'm the director strategy and business development for Front Porch's HomeMatch program. Front Porch is a fifty plus year nonprofit, private housing and services for older people, retirement communities, affordable communities, and a range of programs, including the home sharing program, HomeMatch.

Fabulous presentation from the consultants tonight. I think the FrontPorch team might answer some of those questions a little bit differently in the context of our specific program. And so if this committee or council does decide to move forward with an approach that involves informal conversations, I'm more than happy to make myself available to anyone that would like to jump on a call and discuss any of the finer points that you've raised with the consultants. Thank you all for your consideration.

Okay.

The next is Jill Lindenbaum. Go ahead when you're ready. Jill, if you're still wanting to make a comment, you're able to. Okay. I think maybe she changed her mind.

Okay. Well, then we will now close the public comment period for this item and begin commissioner discussions.

Excuse me, commissioner, Roland. We did receive a letter, late mail, and was it was distributed to you at your seats at the dais, and they are from miss Lindenbaum. So just wanted to note that for the record.

Thank you very much.

Also, she was she raised her hand again, so I'm gonna allow her to talk again if that's okay.

That is okay. Okay.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Oh, great. Okay. Sorry. I was having trouble unmuting. Yes. I did submit a letter. It was submitted very late, so apologies if most of the commissioners or all of the commissioners weren't able to read it before the meeting. Just for background, I did operate a startup for home sharing. I was trying to just expand more home sharing in our region. It was called Roomoly, and it is now defunct.

But I have immediate experience with the program and am also available. And I just wanted to comment, I guess, briefly on a couple things I didn't hear a lot of discussion about, but I think they're worthy to bring up. One, about awareness. I do believe that there should be a lot of consideration, if the city is putting resources behind this as part of the housing element, which I'm really thrilled about. In order for it to succeed, there really has to be a concerted effort to promote the program through as many channels as possible.

And I did wanna actually highlight that the housing element states that, like, as an example, a fact sheet would be made available. And I really just want to emphasize that that should be one small element but not, like, considered publicity in any way, really. It's an informational sheet. But to really have an effort to find out if people are interested and to share as much relevant information with potential, participants ex ex with an emphasis on home provider, information. And, to that end, I do you know, so so the the program, I think, to be successful, needs to consider how to place ads or, you know, have q and a forums in appropriate community settings, do tabling at events, and really get the word out, and then incrementally adjust the program.

And one of the biggest elements that I found was a participant barrier to participation was just the fear that many potential home providers have with the legalities of strong tenants' rights. And I did just wanna point out to the commissioners that that as the consultants relayed, the the service providers that operate know the state and federal laws, you know, very well. And one of them, just for your information, that's a big difference is that the tenant it's it's it's it's like it might smell and look like a tenant, but it's actually legally the person that's the renter is called a lodger. And there are some nuances so that their their rights they do have rights, but they're not the same rights as tenants' rights. And there's more to explore there, but I want that needs to be communicated clearly with potential home providers so that they know that they're in the driver's seat And that actually, if it came to it, and I would hope it doesn't, local law enforcement can disband the arrangement.

It doesn't have to go through a formal eviction process. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Again, we now close the public comment, for this particular agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion. Commissioner Zeroukian, would you like to open the discussion?

Well, if it helps, there were some certain feedback that we were hoping to get some comments on.

Questions, right? So we want to

We want to put the questions. Maybe so.

Why don't we go through those again, Jesse?

The last slide.

Were these covered before?

Yes. Okay.

The very last slide.

There were quite a few on the staff report. Oh, there. Yeah.

Yeah. So on the service provider selection, again, I was it it really depends on what's available in the area. Right? You know, at the first thought, I was thinking why not having an RFP to kind of get you know, understand what are the services that the city will receive. Right?

So that, you know, we can compare different services that are available. So I think it's good for the commission and the city to understand what's available to the city in the area. You know, the two examples are great, but I think, you know, having that understanding would really help in making a decision on whether to go with one service provider, right, especially if it turns out that right now we don't have that much much choice. There's one that has a very strong capability that outshines everything else. Or maybe there are several providers, right, who offer the same or similar services, right?

So understanding that an RFP probably would facilitate that understanding.

Are there downsides to an RFP process, costs, time?

Sometimes RFPs can be limiting because if we go out with a set of questions that they have to respond in an RFP, they stick to those set of questions. Or sometimes informal conversations broaden, and you may learn things that you didn't ask for in the RFP. Now there are hybrid approaches, right? You can start with an RFP, and that's just your foot in the door and then follow-up with more formal research and questions.

The RFP is kind of an invitation for proposals. And once we receive those proposals, that's when we invite each Yeah. Like, you know, each holder of the proposal and then go through the questions and the interviews ask to understand the answer. And the questions so that this shouldn't preclude that opportunity. I

think if we're going to do an RFP, we should identify the service providers in the area or qualified and have informal conversations with them first. In my practice before, that's how we try to secure services from engineers, other consultants. Have a conversation with them first to find out what is the best approach, what is their expertise, what have they found when they when you start the ball rolling for a city who hasn't done this before because we're compared to Atherton and other cities or others, we're probably more in the neophyte category. So I think it'd be better to interview a couple of informally, a couple of service providers to find out the services they provide, how do they address a city who hasn't done this before And then how do we better match the service providers' services with what the goals of the city are the city's goals for this 5B part of the housing element. And then after we clarify that, then we can put a more intelligent RFP together that would seek out what we need as a city instead of going to the service provider and say, give us an RFP based on 10 questions.

No, we really don't want this. We need to figure out just like anything else, let's figure out what we want first and then go get it. I think that might be a better way to do it. It sounds like these service providers would be willing to at least entertain informal sessions because they're incentivized to help us get started.

Yes. I

also think like I agree with what Commissioner Yu said. I think that that's also like my general experience. So you want to vet out, like, these are these folks do this for a living. Like, they know kind of how to formulate these things. And I also think that, like, in order to put together a good RFP, you have to understand, like, what your goals and priorities are. And I think some of these informal conversations might lead to, like, staff figuring what those goals will be, what are our priorities here so that we can get like a better result in the RFP.

I think that we have to be good stewards of the city's resources. And when you look at something that costs money, we might want to pay some attention to what results it gets, what results it's expected to get. And then also, as cities do and should do, determine whether or not the cost involved in this entire like for example, we've been we've put a lot of resources into the discussion, a lot of resources have gone into people describing this, a lot of planning. And then we're looking at Atherton and they have one connected resident. Is that something that is of sufficient benefit to the city that fundamentally it's something that we should be doing.

And that's not a question that I want to just have that as part of our conversation, which is in talking about this, was also thinking about the question, which I'm sure it's not the consultant's purview, but when the city is getting involved in something like this in an area that is fraught with landlord tenant issues, are there any liabilities to the city that could well outweigh our getting involved or spending money to have these kind of results. That's just a question that I have, which I think is a little bit more fundamental and should somehow be included in the discussion.

Well, I agree. I mean, I think when I see these results from these cities, one or two per year, how much of a dent does it really put into the providing affordable housing for within the city for what appears to be a fairly significant effort to create outreach and education of the community that this is a worthy program. And I think I was a little struck by which city was Atherton had the program from 2015 to 2022. So they had basically eight matches over eight years. And if we go through the list of the housing element goals or tasks that the city has approved or council has approved, is this the best way to achieve a bigger outcome, a better outcome?

I have my concerns here because she'll be putting our efforts more into some of these other elements that might yield more positive results.

And to the extent you have any kind of unfortunate outcomes and the city happens to somehow be involved in that, this is not a liability less endeavor. It's not riskless, and we're spending money to we're spending city resources to do it. And with the prospective outcome of being such a low probable outcome, fundamentally, we really should be asking, is this an appropriate resource or expenditure of city resources? And it sounds very it sounds good, but

I think we're getting a little off track. Council will be the ultimate decider on the use of city funds toward that. Several cities, we don't have impact fees but a lot of cities do. Generally those impact fees go into an affordable housing fund that some cities use to pay for a service like this. So there are ways to do it.

I'm not saying that's a solution and it's still city resources. But really, you know, there were five areas of feedback that we were hoping to get back from you. Ultimately, the ultimate decision and certainly, you know, I think the council is going to have the same kind of questions about it as you are. So I think

Okay. Thank you, Kevin. I do believe that it is valid for us to venture a little bit beyond that if you're going to get the full benefit of the point of view of the commissioners as we sit here, listen to the presentation and ask questions. We won't necessarily limit it to these, but I appreciate that. Is there anyone else who wants to make comment?

I mean, just to like piggyback and maybe direct it more towards like one of these questions is, I think what you guys are referencing is like the success of this program, right? How do we promote success of the program and thinking about investment in the outreach? Like the thing that I was thinking through as you were presenting was really just like how do we ultimately like incentivize people to use this kind of home matching program versus, I don't know, some other form, Facebook, Craigslist, whatever is out there today at the end of the day. And then also, like, how do we learn from other cities that have implemented this, what has worked or not worked in terms of adopting the program and getting better success rates. And so I guess going back to the question around investment and outreach, I do think thinking as homeowners in the city of Piedmont, what my personal questions and things would be, I think there probably is a benefit in educating the general public around some of these legality issues.

I think probably, again, as homeowners, that's probably one of the top things, again, that I probably would think of. And really education around why we're doing this and also the why would I use this versus something else. So general comment that, yeah, I think there should be some level of investment in outreach and education about the program. Most common lay people would not understand the differences. I don't know what that would be considered minimal, moderate, active, I'm not sure.

But starting with some level of education and facts around, like I said, like what are the top questions that homeowners would have? Because it sounds like I mean, the need is out there. I think we all are very much aware of that. There's a lot of desire for housing generally. And so it's more of the adoption of the program is really about the homeowners' willingness or comfort level in entering a program like this.

Commissioner Ortiz, I really appreciate you saying that. I did wanna point out that every year, we get approached by a handful of Piedmont community members who have a friend or know of a of a family in the school district that really need help. And we and the city doesn't really have a service for those types of people in those types of calls. So thank you for pointing that out.

Yeah. And I would also echo, I mean, it seems like we should be focused on how we make this program successful. We could look at other cities and see examples of how they've had successes or not you know, in a from a certain perspective and learn something from that. But, you know, we need to be able to tailor it to our own city and the residents it serves. I mean, even the cost for the services that are being provided, I can tell you that, like, you know, if each individual homeowner, even of those eight over the past eight years, you know, each went to an attorney, each had a mediation problem, some kind of dispute or something, had to get a contract drawn up.

I mean, the the cost would far exceed whatever Atherton is paying just to go through that. So and and even kind of educating and making people understand, you know, what what the scope of, you know, their responsibilities are, the scope of their legal arrangement, their rights and responsibilities. So I think it's important, you know, that we follow through with the housing element, you know, because that's that ship has sailed in a certain way, and we can question whether it's beneficial, whether it has a great impact or not. I think that's a worthwhile discussion and pay attention to the costs, of course. But going to another aspect of a question, there's a question about whether or not there's a trial program for kind of a pilot program for maybe a year or two.

We can also kind of have a discussion about like, well, maybe we don't have to commit to like a ten year program that we feel would be successful, but then we're locked into potentially unsuccessful program that we can't change. It might make sense to kind of learn more as we go So for for making me a significant investment, you know.

For those reasons, I think I agree that the outreach is really very, very important. The outreach in terms of educating, understanding from, you know, those who really may have an interest, but what are their expectations, their fears, their concerns. They, you know, we can learn a lot from communicating, making it available, make know, you know, whether it's through workshops, whether through through outreach, you know, advertising through the city. I think once we kind of hear back from the community as to what is their understanding, you know, what is their expectations, and then responding to those, then we can kind of, in parallel, think about a rollout program as to how to respond to those needs. The need is there, but what is out there, you know, within the community.

Right? Us understanding those, especially if there are some of the community members are approaching us. Right? There might be others who may not be as open, right, you know, to come themselves. So if there is an outreach program, I think it will make it easier for them to come out and to share their concerns.

Yes, I agree. It's unknown how large this need is, right? So just to go through these six questions real quick. Should the city issue an RFP? Yes, but I think what we said earlier, Commissioner Ortiz and I and I think others agree, I think an informal meeting with a couple of service providers to figure out what we don't know would be helpful to make that process more effective for both the service provider and the city.

As to whether incremental rollout or long limited long term pilot program, I think, again, we should find out from the service providers what other cities have done. But I would imagine it'd be good if we started with a limited pilot program to see how it works and get some feedback on that. That would be your third question, I think, is sort of similar. Should incremental approach be taken targeting so I think because we have done this before, I think maybe a pilot program would be in order should the city hold, post informational meetings. I think Commissioner Zeroukian and others have indicated that that's important to have because we need more awareness among the community and among us.

And should the city conduct annual surveys from participants? Yes, I think the catchment will be pretty small though, right? Surveys are helpful when you have a broader audience. And I think this audience is it's good to find out what's working, what's not working. Obviously, that's a good thing to do.

How that's done more efficiently, I'll leave it to the experts. In the outreach, is it medium, moderate, minimal or active? I think it's going to be very active at the beginning and then it probably will taper off a little bit. So take more effort, more costs upfront to get this rock moving forward. And once it gains speed, maybe it will take a little bit less effort going forward.

And I think, again, I just I share comments the Chairman's comment about is this the best place to focus our energy. I know that's counsel's purview, but I think commissioners have to believe in this also in order to effectively advise the counsel. So I have to say I'm not quite there yet, but I'll keep an open mind, all right.

Thank you.

Just to, I think, go through the questions Justice Commissioner, he has. Think I've already addressed the service provider and the investment outreach. Program rollout, I agree that we we should probably do some level of pilot program. I I think it'd be interesting to understand in these, like, initial interviews, like, what level of time frame is like a good pilot, like at what point would you start to see some level of success and define what those success goals would look like. But generally, yeah, like before committing to a larger investment that generally makes sense.

Program targeting, I think that I think this makes sense. Think, you know, again, when we talk about like how do we get broader adoption for the program, you got to think about like, again some of the hesitations of homeowners, right, like who's going to be applying for these things, who's going to be living in my home and there's some concern around that. And I think like thinking about what the community would generally want to support, think about educators, I think about seniors and maybe we start there, right, like things that we know like everyone generally cares about and would want to prioritize. So those are kind of two of the areas that I think might make sense.

Thank you. Any further commissioner comments?

Yes. I mean, would definitely I definitely understand the concerns about costs, the difficulty for success and what the need is and what it serves. I don't want to get too off topic here, but I have personal experience with this. My grandmother had home sharing when she was older. And interesting, it doesn't necessarily have to take the form that might assume it is. Right? So I have no idea how they found the home share person. I mean that's one difficulty. The other is kind of is this a good fit? They're effectively living in the same space.

Can they you know, arrange each other? And and frankly, you know, in in her situation, she had, you know, an executive at a company who did not live locally. He just needed a place to have a bed at night, come have dinner, have a bed. It was good rental income for the grandparent. And and she always had somebody to touch base with her every day so that, you know, if something were to happen to her or she had a need around the house, you know, it was just it was a good, like, synergistic situation for all of them.

I mean, obviously, you know, personalities have to have to align and such. But, you know, I I think the difficulty in in effectuating a program is to understand what people need and what they want. And sometimes they might not even understand that need or or potential desire until they're educated about it. You know, here are the benefits to you. You might have wanted to live alone for, you know, the last decade or two of your life, but, you know, here are some benefits to you. This is this is a normal thing. Seeing progress in

business.

Business. We're specifically hone in on what these the of programs can look like, what's available so we can specifically define it, right, for the RFP process.

You. Commissioner Cooper, would you like to add anything?

Yes. I think I largely agree with Commissioner Yee. He summarized my comments very well, so thank you for that, especially around the RFP. But with slow uptake, as we're seeing in the other communities, we're, by definition, in a pilot, right? So we're pretty much only going to get one or two the first couple of years, and that will be

our pilot program.

The only difference is we put an end on it or a review period on it so that it doesn't just last forever and we're stuck in something. So that's okay. And as far as program targeting, I think we should work with the consultants and the service providers to come up with the best start, right? Because surveys, the people in Piedmont, I have a feeling don't know about this. The survey is not going to tell us how to structure the program at first.

So I think we put our best foot forward based on working with the service providers. And then through outreach and feedback from the community, what's working, what's not and how do we adjust it as time goes by. Again, with a slow uptake, we can't spend too much time in the beginning studying it a lot versus getting something out there that we can get feedback

for the purposes that we're trying to achieve?

It is. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. You. Okay.

Now then we move to agenda item number six, a variance and design review permit for 48 Ronada Avenue.

Yes, I have a speaker card from Yurong Li. Yes.

Good evening. You hear me? Can anyone hear me? Yes. Okay. Yes. Good evening. My name is Yulong Li. Me and my husband are the owner of 48 Lunada Avenue. We moved to the city in October 2021, so about four point five years ago.

And we enjoying our life here. And from day one when we moved in, we want to remodel the house. And luckily, we find our architect, Avi Forman, will help us to fulfill our dream to live happily in Piedmont. Now I will leave my time to our architect, Avi. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you. My name is Avi Foreman. I'm the architect working with Yu Rong and Kevin on 48 Renata. This is our second time in front of the Planning Commission and we'd like to present our modifications that were made to address the objections raised at the first meeting. If you'll remember, the elevation towards the street in the previous design included five repeated gables and a sixth over the garage.

The garage was raised up slightly, which made its roof look almost like a continuation of the massing of the main house. All of these elements combined to create a massive presentation to the street almost like multiple townhouses rather than a single craftsman style home. As commissioner Yi pointed out, craftsman style traditionally had a combination of gables and straight roof lines and not only repeated gables. To address this concern, we eliminated every other gable. If you

go to the first page of

the rendering, that might speak to this the best. We eliminated every other gable and replaced them with a shed roof results in a straight line for the center two gables. This reduced the bulky massing significantly on its own and returned it to be much more in keeping with the original Craftsman design. The second modification we did was to lower the garage, so it did not read as part of the volume of the main house. The second significant modification we made was to the west elevation.

In the previous design, we had variety of clerestory windows, which the commissioners noted were not in keeping with the rest of the home and window styles. To address this, we drastically changed that facade using window types that were much more in keeping this elevation. To address this, drastically changed the facade using window types that were much more in keeping with the others in the building and made them regular and symmetrical, which resulted in an elevation much more in keeping with the rest of the design. In addition, we adjusted the windows on the street elevation to be centered. The only window that remained significantly off center was a window to the kitchen, window 56 due to the layout of the interior.

In the event that the commissioners would like to have this window centered as well, I've come with a proposed alternative layout, which I'd like to pass around. There's two I can

send one to go in the other direction.

I've come with a proposed alternative layout, which reduces the size of that window to make it perfectly centered and symmetrical. We've also noted a minor discrepancy in window 57 on the same facade, which we have adjusted in the proposed alternative elevation as well. Lastly, we clarified some of the confusion regarding the front yard fence. We considered removing the fence entirely, but this presents a clear hazard to pedestrians as the front yard includes a relatively steep drop off which would be dangerous. So while we did not eliminate the fence entirely, we did include it in the renderings and drawings more clearly.

I'd like to highlight that this project has gotten seven letters of support including every single direct neighbor including across the street and Kitty Corner in addition to others on the street. We thank you for your consideration and hope we can together improve this house, which is in desperate need for Yurong and Kevin's family and the neighborhood as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner

question?

Question. In the height of you just mentioned the guardrail. Yes. Is it just the 42 inches, the three foot

six standard 42 inches. Okay.

Is it would what was the material?

If we go to the rendering

It was black painted metal

to match the rest of the ones.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

I have a question. I went back we went back to the house on Friday and walked around in front a little bit. Are you or the owner planning to remove a lot of the existing landscaping in the front

yard? So the landscaping that's overhanging the sidewalk

Excuse me, I guess, there

are trees or large bushes. So it is our sincere effort to keep all the trees that we can. In fact, the reason why we're going with this massing is to maintain some of the old growth trees in the backyard. There are some affected trees that are highlighted on the landscape plan, but we are trying to keep all the landscaping that we possibly can with the exception of the landscaping that's encroaching on the sidewalk, which we intend on cleaning up.

Well, I mean, if you walk by the house now, front yard is fairly full of landscaping and your rendering basically shows virtually no landscaping or it's very low. So what's the plan for that?

The For the front yard per se. The we have not engaged a landscape architect, which we will do in a separate stroke. I am not a landscape architect. So this is a design intent to generally indicate the locations of new landscaped areas. There will be more detail when we hire a landscape architect.

So is there any intention to remove any of the trees that look like overgrowth in the front or trim them or any and somehow in some way make them

compatible with the changes that you're making to the house? Absolutely. We are intending on leaving the public right of way to be the full sidewalk with currently it's shrunken down by the overgrowth. So that will be cleaned up to enable us to have an unobstructed sidewalk. So that will certainly require trimming. But in terms of the trees, we're trying to keep as many trees as possible. So

just following up on what Commissioner Yee was saying, currently you have a lot of foliage in front of the house and you can't see the house until you get to the sidewalk and you look at it. You're planning on leaving it that way?

It will certainly be thinned out. Again, don't have an exact planting plan here and we will be presenting that separately. But it will be thinned out, but generally fully landscaped.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other speakers on this item?

I have a speaker card from Dan Riordan from 9 Parkside Drive.

Hello. My name is Dan Riordan. I'm, as she said, 9 Parkside Drive, which is sorry, I don't know the directions. It's not immediately adjacent, but it's off this side of the home. And it's down below, as I think some of the commissioners previously

saw. It's kind

of like a amphitheater kind of set up on Parkside Drive. I have no new comments to add from the previous comments last week. I just merely came here today just to make sure that per the last meeting, everyone was really on board with making sure that the mature landscaping in the back remained to help to help screen this the new expansion from the Parkside Drive. So I just came here to make sure that that was still the plan, that was still everyone was that was still the goal, everyone's on the same page. So nothing new to add. Just wanted to again maintain just make sure

that that's important for the residents at Parkside Drive. Thank you. Any other speakers?

We have received a late comment from 6 Parkside Drive. There's a copy of it on your desk. I have no speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

Okay. Thank you very much. We will now close the public comment period for this item and begin commissioner deliberations. Commissioner Busselink, would you like to start?

Yes. I mean, I appreciate that you made the changes as requested by the commission. You addressed all the issues. I particularly appreciate you addressed the comments about windows that I talked about before. So yes, I think it seems like to me you've committed to a style and went all in on that.

The roofline is much improved. There was a lot of discussion at the prior meeting about the kind of undulations and concern about that. But I think the craftsman look is maintained. But modernizing. I think at the prior meeting, discussed some of the pillars and exposed beams and such, but I can see some of those in the rendering underneath the arch to the entryway. And yes, I think and even the garage too. So I think you've kept some of the craftsman aspects and updated it. So

thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Ortiz?

Yes. Sorry. Before I dive into comments or I think just to address the last speaker's concerns around the landscaping, I I see that there's a condition around the final landscape plan on condition 17, but, because it's not super clear what I understand it's design intent at this point. Will the submittal of the landscape plan just go through like a director approval? And like how do we make sure that things like you know where the intent is to keep the majority of mature trees, how is that?

It would be through staff level review of their landscaping plan as provided in that recommended condition of approval. However, the Planning Commission so I'm trying to pull up the condition. The Planning Commission can modify that to be specific about what it would like to achieve through that. I guess it's really

Because I don't think it

sixteen and seventeen are is attributed Barbara's report and treat with patient plan, then also the final landscape plan, No. 17, where, you know, if you want have specific goals, you can.

It seems like the last sentence there is quite important, significant differences, and so all the time showing the approval landscape well.

You Doctor.

Well, right. So I would that's really a sentence that comes out through practice in that we'll approve a landscape plan that calls out a number in size of plant species. A lot of times by the time that it gets in the ground, that's changed a bit. And in the past, was they had to go through a whole new design and new permit application to make that modification. And so that sentence really allows for minor fluctuations in that to be done over the counter.

But again, so if the commission has specific goals of the front or the mature trees in the back, you can modify those conditions to include those.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Yes, I mean, generally, I think I do appreciate the simplification of the design to be more in line with the Craftsman style and lowering the massing of the garage giving it a little bit better hierarchy in the overall development here, think is good. And then, I think the window comment generally was addressed to make it more uniform.

I do It's hard to tell, like, what the implications are of this alternate option centering the window, but I think if it doesn't completely ruin your design, I think probably, generally, a good thing to keep that rhythm. I think my yes, that the landscaping was really my only question in being mindful of the previous comments that were submitted by neighbors in ensuring, you know, there's there's some level of intention to protect their privacy as much as possible and not tear down all the mature trees for screening purposes is generally a good goal. So I think probably something that would be good to work into the conditions to be more specific. But overall, I appreciate the taking the feedback from the last meeting and addressing it, think can overall support this otherwise.

Thank you. Commissioner Cooper? I will try. Yes, Commissioner Cooper.

Thanks for the offer though.

Okay. You're

welcome. We can talk after.

Commissioner Zeroukian.

Sure. Again, I echo my fellow commissioner's comments. I would like to comment the changes, the improvements on the massing, the proportions. I I think that it's overall, really, it's kind of it has gotten to a really good place. You know?

I I will not repeat all the same comments, but in general, I do agree with the comments. Same for the landscaping. There's provision here in on the condition number 16 that mature trees are to be replaced, you know, if they are removed by the same size. So I think there's already kind of provisions. And with the landscaping the architectural landscape architecture plan, I think they will be a good resolution for the planting in front of the house.

And lastly, so on the comment for the window at of the kitchen, which you mentioned, The second option you showed shows a a square window. Right? It is preferable to center it, but I think as you see here in the elevation, all your windows are rectangular. Mhmm. So if there is a way you can kind of combine the two, again, it's just a suggestion, but it will go a long way into really harmonizing the whole to get there. But otherwise, I would be inclined to support the project.

Commissioner Yi.

I agree with almost everything these my fellow commissioners have stated. And I just encourage you to look at the front landscaping. I think these improvements have made the house a better house. Hopefully, the owner will appreciate living in it. I think they will. I think it's much more handsome. So I think cleaning up the front yard, some of those trees maybe older, maybe they need to be taken out. Again, the arborist report will help you clarify that. But just done a good job show it, and we make it part of the neighborhood because right now it's so occludes, you can't see the building. Thank you.

I concur with what my fellow commissioners have said, in particular, Commissioner Zeroukian making the observation that while it's preferable to have the window centered since the shape of the windows is rectangular throughout, it it can can perhaps create a slight disharmony to have a square window in that spot so that your original design as you brought it to us today looks better. So I just want to make clear that I support that particular design. Other than that, I support the project too. So is there a commissioner who would like to make a motion?

I can make a motion.

Commissioner Zeroukian.

So I move approval of the project at 48 Ronada Avenue making the following findings. As outlined in the staff report, project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Act Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section fifteen three zero one class one e and section fifteen three zero three class three e is consistent with general programs, plan programs, and policies. Policies. Variance and criteria and findings. The variance from the street side setback is approved because it complies with the variance criteria under section seventeen seventy point zero four zero a as follows.

The property and existing improvements present unusual physical circumstances of the property, including existing residence is currently in the 20 foot North Street yard setback. Existing garage is currently in the 20 foot North Street yard setback, and the lot is in unusual shape. So that strictly applying the terms of this chapter would keep the properties from being used in the same manner as other conforming properties in the zone. The project is compatible with the immediately surrounding neighborhood and the public welfare welfare because the requested variance for construction in the street yard will allow for a garage addition and will not change the existing setback distance. The requested variance for construction in the street yard setback will allow for an addition and remodel of the existing residence and will not change the existing setback distance.

Accomplishing the improvement without a variance would cause unreasonable hardship in planning, design, or construction because the existing residence is constructed within the street yard setback, and the existing existing garage is constructed within the street yard setback. Design review criteria and findings. As condition, a project is approved because it complies with the design review criteria under section 17.66 o six zero as follows. The proposed design is consistent with the city's general plan and Piedmont design standards and guidelines. In that, the following building features are consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development.

Location of the heat pump in the rear yard, the selection of stucco is to map the prevailing contextual condition as most of the structure in the neighborhood are stucco. The city cannot verify this statement. The residence roof form, the residence roof material, the garage roof form, the garage roof material. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties, existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate. The topographical differences are appropriate to preserve privacy, views, and light.

The new garage is proposed at the level of the existing garage, thereby minimizing impacts to neighboring properties' access to direct and indirect light. The proposed driveway complies with the maximum slope requirements for driveways from 14 foot one inch to 24 inch in length from the property line. City code section seventeen point three zero point zero six zero. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the project proposes a paved driveway to the relocated detached garage at the front. And as conditioned, the application complies with the following guidelines and general plan policies and programs.

Design review guidelines and standards, chapter three, site design, 3.03, 3.05, 3.09, 3.11, and 3.12. Chapter four, building building design general, 4.01, 4.02, zero three, and zero four. And chapter five, building design single family residential, four five point zero one and five point zero two. 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, 28.3, point four, 0.5, point six, point seven, point eight, 29.1, 29.2, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight.

The project is approved with 23 conditions of approval listed in the staff report.

Second. Okay. That's the motion. Is there a second?

I'll second. Okay.

I didn't know if you guys wanted more conditions.

I reread through it and I think in general, like, probably covers it and it'll go through staff review.

All right. So we have a motion to approve with the 23 conditions of approval in the staff report from Commissioner Zerupian and a second from Commissioner Ortiz. Do a roll call vote. Commissioner Buselink?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Yee? Aye. Commissioner Zeruchian?

Aye.

And Commissioner Rowland? Aye. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Congratulations.

Congratulations. Good job.

We now move to the next item on the agenda, Agenda Item eight, a public hearing consideration of recommendation to the city council to adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance, Piedmont City Code chapter 17 and Piedmont design guidelines.

Yes. Thank you. So assistant planner, Lameesh Jemani, and senior planner, Gopalka Nair, took the lead on this. So I'm going to Thank you very much. Give you a little short presentation.

Yes.

I'm going to hand it over to Lemise. She has prepared a presentation for Commission's review tonight.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners and members of the public. In tonight's presentations, I'll go over the two court changes and one design guideline change we are proposing for your recommendation to the city council. Okay. The first code change is under Subsection seventeen point six zero point zero seven zero point eight, is a decision made on applications. Under this subsection, the current code states that decisions on applications are made based on the regulations in effect at the time an application is approved or denied.

This is inconsistent with the current state law. Therefore, are proposing to update this code so that decisions are made based on the regulations in effect when an application is deemed complete. For example, if an application is deemed incomplete and new regulations go into effect during that period, the new regulation would still apply for the incomplete application and the application is now subject to these regulations. The second code change under Section 17.78.020, Application Appeals. So currently, the code says that the existing language for the appeal deadline does not currently specify an exact deadline.

So we're proposing to change that to establish a firm deadline of 5PM for all appeals. The third change is a design guideline change regarding story polls. So for starters, the purpose of story poles are to help neighbors, staff and the Planning Commission to visualize the scope of proposed constructions and its extent. After staff receives verification of story pole installations, staff deems an application complete and send notices to notify adjacent neighbors the same day via USPS. Currently, deadline to receive story pole verification is fourteen days.

However, due to changes in USPS collection schedules near City Hall, the time now has changed from 5PM to 9AM, staff no longer has enough time to verify story polls and mail notices all at the same day. To address this issue, the change we are proposing is to change the deadline from fourteen days to seventeen days before the hearing. This will allow enough time for staff to verify story polls and mail notices all in a timely manner. So tonight, the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of the proposed revisions to Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use, and Chapter two of the Piedmont Design Guideline by adopting the due resolution attached to this report, Attachment A and Attachment B. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner questions?

I have one question on that determination of complete submittal application. There is I thought there was something about a project in the initial I read this in the in the initial review, there were two conditions. One was when the application is deemed complete, then the codes and regulations that apply the day that happens is sustained for that application, correct?

Correct.

All right. I thought there was a second one about

SB330, about SB330 and preliminary application?

Right. Yeah. Is that also part of this action?

It is, it is. So basically when a developer can submit an SB three thirty application, which has like 17 basic questions about your project. And if they submit it today and we deem it complete in thirty days, the regulations in effect when we deem the application complete applies to that SP three thirty project. But the project itself can be submitted up to one hundred eighty days later on.

So And the regulations would still apply?

Yes. The fees would be what they logged in during the SB three thirty. They know they are not subject to higher fees or fees increased or new regulations or anything. So sometimes developers want to do this just to vest in the regulations that are in effect at that time. So, yes.

Okay. And that's you think that's pretty reasonable to

It's state law. It's state law. We have to do it.

Yes. All right.

Reasonable doesn't come into the question. We

don't want to be reasonable. Yes. Any other commissioner questions? Thank you.

Public comment? Any questions from members of the public?

I have no speaker cards.

I have

no hands raised at this time.

Okay. We will now close the public comment section of this agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion. I think it's important to be aligned with the government code. It provides more clarity for the city and staff. I'm talking about the, the first section about blocking in the standards of the application guidelines.

So it's just it's more clear for everyone. Setting the time to file the application is important. Hopefully, the office doesn't close at 04:30 and somebody's pounding on the door saying, hey, it's 5PM. But I assume the city would be somewhat lenient on that if that

A lot of things get submitted electronically these days.

That too, yeah. And that leads me to the second point. I think I commented to Director Jackson that shifting things around based on the reliability of USPS might not be the best policy. But the good thing about this change is it provides for better service, not only for the applicant. They can get their application in and their verification in earlier, gives more time for the staff to verify and then also make sure that, you know, the neighbors are getting adequate notice.

So until such a day comes where everything can be electronic, hopefully, someday, maybe ten years out, who knows? You know, mail is what we have. So I think it's better for everybody.

Thank you. Other commissioner? Discussion on this?

Register of four.

Yep. I

have, I mean, it looks self evident as well presented and a good step to take. So we need a motion on that.

You do so, but it needs to move.

I can do that. Alright. I'd like make the motion.

And you can just Yeah. Do that using the first Right.

Yes. The the second part. I'd like to make a motion to adopt the resolution attachment a, which is attachment a to the agenda report, the staff report, recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance amending divisions 17 dot 60 general provisions and 17 dot 78 appeals call for review to bring the city code into compliance with updates to clarify the appeals deadline and clarify what regulations are in effect for a project, and also to adopt the attached resolution of staff staff report attachment b recommending the city council adopt amendments to chapter two of the Piedmont design guidelines to update the deadline for story pole certification.

Is there a second?

Second.

Alright. So I have a motion recommending approval by the City Council from Commissioner Buzlink and a second from Commissioner Yee. Commissioner Buzlink? Aye. And Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Yee? Aye. Commissioner Zeruchian? Aye. And Commissioner Rowland? Aye. Alright, motion passes. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. So

now do we at this time return back to the consent calendar?

Yes, so at this point we need to go back and somebody needs to make a motion making the findings and approving those applications that were on consent beginning with item number 5421 Wildwood Avenue.

I can do that one. Okay. I move to approve, I move approval of the project at 41 Wildwood Avenue making the following findings. The project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQUA guidelines section fifteen three zero three class three e and is consistent with the general plan programs and policies with no exceptions as provided in the staff report. As condition, the project is approved because it complies with the design review criteria under section 17.66 dot o six o as follows.

The proposed design is consistent with the city's general plan and Piedmont design standards and guidelines in that the following building features are consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development. The metal picket fence material and height, the location of the metal picket fence, the deer fencing material and height, the location of the deer fencing. Design has little or no effect on neighboring properties, existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate. There are no significant views blocked by the proposed fencing. The topographical differences are appropriate to preserve privacy views and light.

The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the project does not modify on-site safety conditions. The project maintains adequate visibility for pedestrians and motorists along Cambrian Avenue. As conditioned, the application complies with the following design standards and guidelines and general plan policies and programs. Chapter three, Site Design, Fence and Malls, 3.09 to be specific. And the project is consistent with general plan, policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element.

Design and preservation policies 29.3, twenty nine point five and thirty one point three. And the project is approved with the one condition of approval outlined in the staff report.

There's a motion. Is there a second?

I second.

All right. We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Ortiz and a second from Commissioner Zeruchian, subject to the one condition of approval. Commissioner Buzalin?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Yee?

Aye.

Commissioner Zeruchian? Aye. And Commissioner Roland? Aye. All right, motion passes. Thank you.

That was filed with. Now

we need to move on to seven, yeah.

Before a motion comes up, can I ask a question about

this one?

And this was raised at the site visit. Interestingly, neither in the applicant's proposed findings and the staff report or anything was there an addressing of, like, the lot size? My understanding I mean, just from looking at it, it seems like it would be a nonconforming lot size. Am I correct about that? No. No. For for the next one.

Stanford for

for Portsmouth. For Portsmouth.

So it does say that the existing deck is nonconforming, and it is in the 20 foot setback.

Okay. Yeah. I was just I was wondering about, like, the lot size itself. It's not conforming. Is it zoning? I know that has something

to do with like, hold on. The staff report, the log contains 4,160 square feet. That's a substandard. The requirement is 8,000 square feet.

SPEAKER So, yeah,

I just you know, as far as, like, the hardship and construction and design, you know, there are unusual physical circumstances, you know, because they're extending the garage. I was wondering if we wanted to include in the findings something about the lot size itself being nonconforming in their ability to extend. They didn't even propose that.

Whoever makes the motion has the opportunity to conclude that. Okay. Commissioner Beasley.

I nominate Commissioner Beasley. I agree.

Well, I'm

into that one. I

just wanted to help the homeowner and all of us, you know, establish that we were making this finding based on an actual unusual physical characteristic of a lot. That's Sure.

Clarification is a good thing.

Consistency across variance applications. Sure. Okay. All right. I move for approval. Are are we there? Are we on this? Okay. Are there. We're good? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I move for approval of the project at 84 Portsmouth Avenue, making the following findings. Determine that the project is scaggle artfully exempt under the California environmental quality act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section fifteen three zero one class one e existing facilities because it is a minor change to an existing private residence, which is less than 50% floor area of the structures before the addition, and the project is consistent with the general plan, policies, and programs as noted in the staff report.

The variance is approved because it does comply with the variance criteria under section 17 dot 17 dot zero four zero dot a as follows. The property and existing improvements present unusual physical circumstances of the property, including the existing deck is nonconforming and is located within the required 20 foot street yard setback, and the lot is currently in nonconforming size, existing nonconforming size. The project is compatible with the immediately surrounding neighborhood and the public welfare because the applicant has provided evidence of the front footprints of the two adjacent homes align with the proposed addition at 84 Portsmouth. Accomplishing the improvement without variance, would cause unreasonable hardship in planning, design, or construction because the deck is currently failing as unusable. Keeping it as is would be unsafe and because the lot is a nonconforming size and accomplishing the design and construction would be difficult without the variance.

As conditioned, the application complies with the following guidelines of general plan policies and programs, design review guidelines, chapter three, site design, 3.03.

Wait, wait, wait, No.

There is no design.

Oh, interesting. Okay.

Sorry. Think that got left in there.

Strike that. I'm sorry.

It's just a variance, so general plan policies.

Got it. Okay. Moving on to the next section. The project is approved with the following or with one condition of approval.

And is it in conformance with general plan policies and programs, like, say, twenty eight point one and twenty eight point four?

Yes. And the project is consistent with general plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing preservation element, in particular, design preservation policy twenty eight point one and twenty eight point four.

Thank you. That's a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second.

All right. So motion to approve from Commissioner Busalink with one condition of approval and a second by Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Busalink? Aye. Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Yee? Aye. Commissioner Zeruchin? Aye. And Commissioner Rulan? Aye. All right. Thank you very much.

Okay. Well, then that concludes.

Well, before you ring the gavel, I would just want to formally make it known that I'll be retiring effective May 8 with my last day being May 7, So it's been a pleasure serving with you. We'll have another meeting yet and Design Awards Gala. So we'll be moving into the conference room shortly and starting a new special meeting to figure out the Design Awards. But anyway, just gonna let you know, my time here is coming to an end. There is a recruitment going on for a new director, so if you have people who you think would make a good candidate, let them know.

Well, you

know, we had asked the question really, was he old enough? Don't think he is. He's looking so good on the outside. Now Kevin, there was And there was a lot of back and forth on various items, and some of them had some controversy and a lot of opposition, and some of the opposition was extraneous, and there was someone there who was keeping everything on track, and every now and then, they had to cut a person off and keep the meeting moving, and the meetings moved well. And I noticed that, and so when I had an interest in becoming a commissioner, I thought that that person must have been the chair of the commission, but it just happens to be Kevin.

And so by the time I get here, I get to meet you in person and see how you work, and you've kept these meetings on track. You've helped the the the the different commissioners and and the chair keep on track. So I just wanna commend you for that and express my appreciation. Although you've got you've had many years before me, I know what good is when I see it, and you've been very good for the city.

Thank you very much.

Okay. More?

Can we No, no, no. We've been soliciting Well,

let me I got to Wait, wait, wait, wait.

I got to say one second. Yes. You've been invaluable to the city. So thank And

especially for those of us who are new commissioners and trying to navigate all the stuff in process. I mean, I think you've been very gracious and helpful as a human being to help us without saying, why don't you get that? And very patient and gracious. I think we all appreciate that very much.

Thank you.

Thomas, thank you. That's the motion. Is there a second?

So you can't leave. Motion does not allow us deny. The request and retire. Oh, yes.

Okay. So we've covered the items on today's tonight's agenda. At this time, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.