Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will now begin the 04/13/2026 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, and I would like to call 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, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for joining us for the 04/13/2026 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 Pearce McDonald on the right hand side of the dais. If you are participating virtually, please raise your hand when the item you wish to comment on is called and leave it raised. Speakers will be called in the order hands are raised. Speakers generally have up to three minutes to make comments to the Planning Commission. At the end of your speaking time, I will ask you to conclude your comments quickly and mute your audio once you'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 and understanding when there are technical difficulties. This concludes my introductory remarks.

To start, I'll take roll. Commissioner Yi? Present. Commissioner Ortiz? Present. Commissioner Zeroukian? Not present. Commissioner Bussolink? Here. Commissioner Cooper? Here. I'm Wayne Rowland, chair of the Planning Commission. Kevin, are there any other participants in the meeting you would like to recognize for the record?

Yes. Staff, in addition to myself, includes senior planner Pierce MacDonald, associate planner Tiffany Edwards, administrative assistant Nicole Nisperos, and administrative assistant Alex Grotiesta.

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

I have no hands raised at this time.

And I have no speaker cards.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Returning to commission procedures, I would like to mention that as commissioners, we are required to comply with the requirements of the Brown Act so that our deliberations are conducted openly and that our actions are taken openly. All commissioners voting on an application have been to the project site. We will be hearing new testimony from applicants and neighbors, and we will be hearing comments from planning commissioners on these applications tonight for the first time. Unless an applicant or member of the public wishes a hearing to be held on one or more of the applications.

After the list is Excuse me. I think I

I I went to the wrong page. Would that be disclosure of ex parte? Commissioners have 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 500 and a thousand feet of an application property may be recused from acting on the application. If recused, the commissioner leave the meeting during the consideration of that application. Kevin, are there any conflicts of interest related to applications on tonight's agenda?

There are none.

Okay. Thank you. Applications are frequently approved subject to standard and project specific conditions of approval. A list of conditions for each application that may be required if the application is approved is included in the staff reports that were made available on 04/03/2026. 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.

April is the first month of the annual city commission cycle and accordingly

Yes? Yep. Go ahead. Sorry.

Accordingly, it is time for the Planning Commission to elect its chair and vice chair for the year. Would any commissioners like to start a discussion on this matter? Or, Kevin, would you like to add something?

No. I mean, April is the time we elect the chair and vice chair. Both, you and commissioner Yee have not been serving a full year. And so I if you wanna reelect that, I think that would be just fine.

I'll leave that to the commissioners. Commissioner Bieslingk?

I I am very happy with the current chairperson and

Microphone, please.

Microphone, please.

So that would be your motion? Microphone, please. Now would there be We

need well actually we need public comment because it's an agenda item and then we need a vote.

Right. So would there be any public comment on this agenda item?

Okay.

I have no speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

Thank you. So shall we call the vote?

So again, we have a motion to elect Commissioner Roland as the chair and Commissioner Yee as vice chair, and I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Bussolink? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Yee? Aye. And Commissioner Roland? Aye. All right. Congratulations.

The next agenda item seeks the approval of meeting minutes for both the 03/09/2026 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, and the 03/09/2026 special meeting of the Planning Commission. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak concerning the meeting minutes for the March 9 regular and special meetings?

I have no hands raised at this time.

And I have no speaker cards.

Are there any commissioner comments? Do I hear a motion for approval of the March 9 regular and special meeting minutes?

Motion. I motion.

Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Bueselink? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

And Commissioner Yee? Aye. And Commissioner Roland. Aye. Alright. Minutes are adopted for the special and regular meeting for March 9.

Now, regarding the consent calendar there are there any applications that have been placed on the consent calendar?

There are none. There is no consent calendar for tonight.

Okay. Thank you. 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. 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 the three minutes, you will be asked to conclude your statements and the commission may ask the speaker some questions. Once all members of the public have had the opportunity to address the commission on a particular agenda item, we will then close the public comment period for that item. Please be aware that your opportunity to address the commission is only during the public comment period for that agenda item.

Commissioners may invite members of the public to answer questions, but otherwise the public comment period will remain closed. After the public comment period for an agenda item is closed, the commission will hold a discussion on the agenda item. There is a ten day appeal period during which any interested party can file an appeal of any action of the Planning Commission for any item acted on tonight by the commission. For any item acted on tonight by the commission, the appeal must be filed with the city clerk by five p. M.

On 04/23/2026. The next agenda item is item four, an informational report on permit applications received and approved by staff. I'll be right back.

Thank you, chair Roland. So for the month of March, planning permit application activity included the submission of 25 permit applications. Those submitted were mostly expedited design review applications with the sprinkling of those for director level and planning commission with three accessory dwelling unit permit applications as well. And then also, we approved 25 applications in the month. Those included 13 expedited and a few director level planning commission and two variance applications.

On the building permit side, for the month of March, there were a total of 97 applications for building permits submitted In the 12 or 13 number range included permits for electrical permits, mechanical, residential remodels, sewer, and solar. And then on the approved end, we approved 105 applications in the month. And again, most of those were the solar, sewer, residential remodel, mechanical, and electrical with a sprinkling of other types as well. So if you have any questions on that, I'll be happy to try to give you an answer.

Are there any Commissioner questions or comments? Are there any comments from the public, members of the public?

I have no hands raised at this time.

And I have no speaker cards.

Thank you. We move then to agenda item number five, design review permit 1855 Trestle Lynn Road. Are there any speakers on this item?

I have no plans raised at this time.

This is item five.

Yes.

No, I have no speaker cards.

Okay. Is anyone in the audience here for eighteen thirty two? Right. So go ahead and go to the podium. And if you wouldn't mind, fill out a speaker card afterwards so that we can make sure your name appears correctly in the minutes. You can do that afterwards.

You can do that afterwards.

Go ahead.

Sorry. I'm having trouble finding the plans to share on screen.

Please go ahead. Please identify yourself and microphone please. Podium microphone please.

To push down and speak, sorry I didn't know that. Okay. Hi, I'm Mansha Subnani. I'm the resident of 1855 Trussell Glen Road, Piedmont and these are our plans to build the upgrade to our new electrical panel. And if it's okay, my architect is here. He will be able to explain the plan better if that's okay if he can speak.

That would be fine.

Yeah. And

we will need a speaker card from you afterwards. Okay.

I mean, I should when we came here, was approved, so I don't do you want me to just walk through the plans for you? Or

Nothing's been approved.

Okay. I thought so.

Well, please identify yourself and

My name's Robert Glass, and I'm a landscape architect who submitted these plans. We did the story poles today, and I know they were inspected this afternoon. So basically, have the four foot offset from the sidewalk to locate a electrical panel with a fence in front of it. So for that, we have to modify an existing retaining wall that's below 30 inches and maintain a three foot offset from the electrical panel.

So,

are there any questions concerning that? No? Okay.

Can I ask

a question?

Yes. You know, when we're out at the site, we noticed that the grade adjacent to the stair was sloping upwards and pretty significantly. So the drawing what we were trying to reconcile was the proposed drawing, which shows the grade in front or between the electrical panel, the fence and the new retaining wall, pretty much level with the sidewalk. So is it your intention to excavate that area behind the sidewalk that seems to slope up? And how does that reconcile the how do you reconcile those grades around that area?

Yes. So there's a the existing slope doesn't exceed three:one, and so we're going to excavate and, you know, push back the wall.

Mhmm.

So we would still keep that max slope of three to one behind it. Mhmm. And, you know, it was covered in ivy when when you went there, so I asked the owner to kinda remove some of the ivy to kinda make it more clear with the with the existing grades. But that's the plan is not to exceed that slope.

All right. So what you're showing on this proposed drawing is, in fact, what you intend to the owner intends to construct? Yes. Thank you. Any

other Commissioner questions?

No, I think.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there other speaker? Did you are you going to

speak? No.

Okay. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this particular agenda item?

I have no other hands raised at this time.

And I have no other speaker cards.

Okay. Then we will close the public comment for this particular agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion. Commissioner Cooper, would you like to begin?

The I

design solved an issue very well. Panel, the electrical panel, is being brought from underground to above ground. I think the setback from the sidewalk will not impede pedestrian traffic, and I found that there's an ample safety area between the fence and the panel. So I found that I thought that the design was good and I would support the project.

Thank you. Commissioner Piesland.

I would echo the commissioner's comments. I you know, upon initially reviewing the staff report, I had questions about being within the public right of way. But, you know, upon reviewing the drawing and the distance from the street, you know, the width of the sidewalk. And then visiting the site with the story pulled up gave me a clear sense of, you know, where it was in relation to the street and the sidewalk. It's nonobtrusive.

It's relatively small, you know, given the scope of the project. So I don't think it had a significant visual impact in any way and consistent with the standards and guidelines for this. So I would support the project.

Thank you. Commissioner Ortiz?

Yes. Similar comments, I think initially looking at the plans was some concern around pedestrian safety or just kind of encroaching upon the pedestrian area. But after visiting the site, think it seems like there's ample space there. And the design seems contextual enough that, you know, does its job to hide the panels. So I think I would support this.

Rich, you need Similar, I mean, I think the design is acceptable. It's pretty benign as far as disrupting the public right of way. My main concern was just the, what we saw on-site and how the grading was gonna work, but I think the applicants, the architect, the landscape architect addressed that area.

No green is good.

Address that area pretty that aspect pretty well. So I'm generally in favor of supporting this project.

I agree with all that's been said. Simply enough,

Commissioner Cooper, would I move to

approve the project as presented. Subject to the conditions in the staff report.

All right. So you've got to make some findings.

These findings are on

Here you go. I think he's got

it. Okay.

Okay. This is not the findings report. Was it okay. I move to approve the project at 1855 Trussell Glen Road making the following findings. Thank you.

The project is category exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15,303 class 3e and is consistent with the general plan programs and policies with no exceptions as provided in the staff report. Design review criteria and findings. As condition, the project is approved because it complies with the design review criteria under section seventeen point six six point zero six zero as follows. The proposed design is consistent with the city's general plan and Piedmont design standards and guidelines and that the following building features are consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development, the fence height and the fence 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 neighbor homes is appropriate.

There are no significant views blocked by the proposed fencing, and the topographical differences are appropriate to pervert 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 Trussell Glen Road. As conditioned, the applicant application complies with that leadership leadership team.

On

the

pleased

and programs, including land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element. Design and preservation policies 28.6, 29.2, 29.5, and 29.9. The project is approved with the one condition of the approved Thank the approval noted in the staff report, defense and legal challenges as it

as described in the report. Commissioner Or is there a second?

Before we go to a second, first, under the design guidelines, where there's particular sections of the design guidelines you wanted to point out, perhaps three point zero nine and three point one one?

Three point zero nine and what?

Three point zero nine and three point one one.

Okay. 3.11 is not on this.

3.11 is not here. Let's see.

Yeah.

But

It's not on there.

So do we wanna add 3.11?

You could. It was in the staff report.

Okay. It's not here on the motion. Okay. So let's add it in as in as being in the staff report. There's four conditions. 3.11. Is there a second?

Additionally, there is a typo on the findings handout that you were given. There are four conditions of approval in the staff report.

There are four conditions?

Okay. I

have the one legal defense condition. What's the other three?

The four conditions of approval which are in the staff report, defensive legal challenges, condition two, conduit, and the exposed conduit shall be painted to match the adjacent fence color. Any modifications in order to meet the requirement shall be subject to staff review and approval. Condition of approval three, landscape plan. The applicant will provide a final landscape plan showing trees and shrubs proposed for retention and how existing landscape cover shall be restored post construction. Number four, revocable encroachment permit, from the Department of Public Works before the issuance of a building permit.

Okay. So I do those yeah. So I do those now. So the conditions of approval include the defense and legal challenges, the conduit, any exposed guidelines.

And the other, as mentioned The other, as mentioned assistant by

Tiffany. All right.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a second?

Seconded.

Alright. So we have a motion to approve with four conditions of approval from commissioner Cooper and a second from commissioner Bussling, and a roll call vote. Commissioner Bussling? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Yee? Aye. And commissioner Rowland? Aye. Alright. The motion passes unanimously. Congratulations. Approved. Be sure to fill out a comment card for us. Thanks.

We move now to agenda item number six, design review permit for 104 Monticello Avenue. Are there speakers on this item?

There are no hands raised at this time.

I have one speaker card, Chair Roland, Jonathan Ester.

Thank you. My name is Jonathan Essner. My wife and I reside at 104 Monticello Avenue. I would like to start with a comment of appreciation for input and guidance we received from Lamece Trebani and Kevin Jackson on this and other work we've performed at our home since we purchased it in 2019. We were sad to learn of Lamece's departure from the city and wish her the best in her new position.

In 2024, we built a fence to enclose our side yard, which was a continuation of a fence within our street yard setback that the city permitted in 2020. We aired in not realizing we needed to permit the continuation of the work, which is why we have asked for retroactive permit for the additional portion. We understand that the commission denied our request in October and are respectfully asking that the commission reconsider its decision. We believe that it's worth noting that the additional portion is in the exact same style as a significant portion the planning commission approved in 2020. In fact, in 2020, the planning commission unanimously approved our permit and placed it on the consent calendar.

Approval was immediate. No public discussion took place regarding our project. Two, our fence matches more than a 125 feet of new good neighbor fence we share in common with our neighbors on the Monticello and Ramona sides of our home. Modifying our fence would mean modifying the portion that the city approved and possibly the portion that we and our neighbors share. Three, we have invested a great deal in improving the appearance of the street side elements of our home, which complement our fence to include dozens of boxwood, dozens of lavender, and dozens of sunset gold plants.

Community members often complement us on our improvements, including our fence. After our initial application was denied, we sought community support for our fence and received it. In our application, we shared signatures in support of our fence design from 22 neighbors representing 19 household. We feel it's important to add that not one resident turned us down when we asked for their support, and the list includes persons that we had never met before. We find our fence is very consistent with the fences in several homes just in our neighborhood alone, never mind elsewhere in Piedmont.

We included pictures of some of these in our application, and there are many more elsewhere in Piedmont. We understand we are in an unusual corner lot that is more of a triangle than a corner. I can appreciate the challenge in evaluating it. I'll note that our fence is set back nearly 20 feet for a significant portion, elevated and not particularly prominent. In fact, we find the fence to be understated, pleasantly simple, and complementary to our home.

We don't believe the fence is out of code or is blightful in any way, so I think we are dealing with an issue of subjectivity. It is on these grounds that we respectfully request that the Planning Commission reconsider its decision. In the event the commission is unwilling to reconsider, we have included in our application images of fences with modifications we could undertake to address comments made in the October 2025 meeting. Thank you very much.

Are there any commissioner questions? I I have a question. So you sought design review permit for a section of fence that you built? Correct. And then after you get it, you got you received design review approval, you built some other part that you did not seek design review approval?

That that is correct. So the 2020 request was for a portion that was, I don't know exactly how many feet, but a significant portion of the overall enclosure. When we look at the the permit that we were given in 2020, it refers to enclosing the yard. So when we continued the work in 2024, we thought we were enclosing the yard. So when we as we are have been undertaking other landscaping work at our house, we learned that we actually need a permit for the enclosure that we did completed in 2024, which is why we've asked for the retroactive permit.

Okay. Thank you. Any other any commissioner questions? Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this?

I have no other speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

Okay. We will now close the public comment for this agenda item. Kevin, as a matter of protocol, when an application is denied, complete with findings, there is a ten day appeal period?

Yes. Well, that's yeah.

So and that's the rule that everyone follows. You must appeal a decision within ten days in order to

Well, it's it's provided in the city code that appeals of decisions made by staff or the planning commission or any other body is allowed within ten days of the decision.

So this portion which seeks to put before the planning commission again, the same item that was denied with findings is not appropriate for this body because the appropriate body for an appeal would have been the city council and within a period of ten days. We are not the appeal body for our own decisions.

Well, actually, the applicant did not submit an appeal. The application the applicant submitted another application for fence and design review, which is allowed because the commission, when it denied the previous fence design review permit application, it did not deny it with prejudice. Denying it with prejudice would mean that the applicant is not able to come back with a similar design within twelve months. And so he has the opportunity to submit an application for the fence once again.

You said a similar design. This is the same design?

Well, the application includes the fence that has been erected without a permit as well as modifications to it. So it is not the same application, in fact.

So it is it it's the same application with regard to the half that was already denied with findings.

Which half was denied?

The fence that was there's there are two options here. I believe one is a and one is b. Correct. So a was denied with findings.

It was denied, but it was not made, but it was not denied with prejudice.

It was denied without prejudice. But it's the same that this is the same application. There's a portion of it that's new. The other portion is the same.

That's correct. So the Planning Commission has the option of denying this application with both options. It has the option of approving the application, giving the owner the option to erect either the one option a or option b, or the Planning Commission can do a partial approval in which it approves the application, but with only one of the options and denying the other option.

And then the one option with all of the findings, the integrity of those findings would not be in question if we were to approve that which we did denied?

Correct.

Okay. Very good.

Can you repeat that question, please? The

the question was just the last one.

I I would let me put it this way. So the if the commission were to approve the fence as erected, the there isn't a conflict with the previous denial of that because the applicant has come forward with additional information that the Planning Commission is has under its consideration and could make a different decision at this point given that new information.

Okay. And the new information is a, an alternate fence?

That's part of it, but it's also evidence from, his neighbors in the, fences in the neighborhood, that he believes, is evidence that the fence, as erected, meets design review criteria.

Okay. Very good. So shall we begin? Thomas, Commissioner Yi.

Okay. I was just trying to find the October submittal and maybe this is a question for the applicant before I make my comments. And I couldn't find it here, but in the October application, would the applicant please Yeah, yeah. Please. Did you have the option B in the option A and B in the prior?

No, we didn't.

That's what I thought. Right.

So when we were asked to resubmit, I was advised to provide the additional approaches we could take in addition to if wanted to pursue the request for the reconsideration.

Right. Okay. Thank you. That's my question. So so my comments are I understand the applicant's position in that.

The applicant received approval in 2020 for the portion of the fence that was built. I get it. And it was the intention, I think, was to enclose that rear side yard area. And I think the way we responded to the application in October with the additional fence on the two streets, for me, had more to do with scale and design as much as the applicant receiving approval back in 2020. Because in the design guidelines on Chapter 3.09 0.02.1, it states a fence wall should be well designed and visually interesting, all right?

It has to do with the aesthetic compatibility of the fence within the neighborhood. And then under three point zero nine point zero two point three, fences or walls in front yards are to be avoided except in rare circumstances. So I think the way we responded back in October has to do with the fact that you're right, your property is a key lot. It's on two streets. And so you could interpret the fence as both a side fence and a front yard fence.

And so I go back to the prior design guideline, which says a fence in a front yard side front yard should be visually interesting. And I think, again, when you extended the fence, the applicant had previously built all the way across Monticello, and it's almost too much of a fence which is fairly visually simple. Utilitarian, I think, was the word we used back in October. Secondly, I think the fence is on Monticello is not 19 feet from the property line according to the drawings we have here. It's more like 16.5 feet and then it gets closer to the property line as you go to the corner of the site.

So and then the examples that the applicant points out in the immediate neighborhood and around the city, a lot of those examples do have maybe more details around the fence top or the sides. I'd say at least half the examples, the applicant sites, do have a little bit more detail than the fence that's already there. So with that, I think, know, the applicant I empathize, you're stuck, you made like you say an error in extending the original 2020 fence. But those are my concerns. Again, it's not so much what was approved in 2020 can then be extended for another X number of feet across two streets.

I feel like that fence by on its own was probably fine back in 2020, now it a year. So but I think the scale of it is what concerns me. And the simplicity of scale, just like oatmeal, you can only eat so much oatmeal until can't eat anymore, right.

Thank you. Commissioner Ortiz?

Yes, interesting. I wasn't here for the October meeting, so I don't necessarily have the context other than the notes that are in there. You know, I can see how the commission kind of landed where they did. A point of clarification for me would be helpful is that which part of this was approved in 2020?

So if Pierce brings up the plans, there's one site plan that has the area portion on

the right when she brings it up there.

So what's in red is the new construction

and To the right of the red. Yeah.

Okay. And I think, like, the context of that and kind of tagging on to what commissioner Yu was saying is it it is about kind of the the scale of the new fence that probably, at least for myself, what, you know, a small section is much different than, like, kind of the wraparound around, you know, these these two kind of major streets. And so while there is context to this type of fence, I think the extent of the fence that is, I guess, that we're retroactively looking at is much more significant and much more impactful along kind of those those two intersections. And and I I mean, I think, well, I can empathize with, you know, as as a homeowner trying to, you know, go with something that, you know, basically trying to continue something that was previously approved Because of the the amount of offense that that we're looking at here, I I think it does you know, the the reason why, this guideline exists is because we want to make sure that fences as they're much they're very visible along the street have that level of interest and really go along with the neighborhood design.

So I mean I think option B is just adding that cap and you can actually that shows up in some of the examples that were included here really would do the trick I think, you know, without having to redo a bunch of what you've already have there adds that level of interest across the span of these two streets. I think I can approve it with the option B. I don't know that I think I struggle with the Option A.

Can we put the pictures of what that looks because you're talking about putting a cap on I

think that's what's being proposed

Yes, let's by look at Let's see what it would look like.

Yes. So this this example here.

That's the example of an entirely different style, I think.

Well, my understanding is that proposing to basically create a cap to it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Can we place the

existing fence?

So we've I think, which is similar to a lot of the contextual examples that were actually sent in the staff report.

Okay. Are there other pictures of this, Vince? That's what we're talking about right there. Right.

Is that option you're on option a. It's option a,

which is existing condition.

And they're saying to put a cap on that similar

That is my yeah. That is what

it's just a funny question. What

is what is the option with the the band across

That was like option b with additional

b minus or b plus or

Well, yeah. So I have a question on this also.

Here.

This one. So the cap is there, and there's an additional horizontal board, but that's on the inside of the yard. Right? That's not street facing.

It could be both.

Could be both. Okay. So they would put it there's

no cap on there now? Right.

Okay. My Lance did my my

You would need to speak into the microphone. And and

Sorry. I don't know when I'm allowed to speak and when I'm not. Contractor said this would be a simple modification to do, whether it's the option a with just the cap on the top or this with adds more dimensionality as I had said.

Somehow these

Yes, I mean that would be my comment. I actually think this is a little too busy and doesn't necessarily I mean it could work either way, but that's more preferential. Think that's like either option could solve for it. Do think that the one above they're both labeled option B, maybe that's what's confusing. This first page is simple enough and would address the design requirements.

Thank you. Commissioner Bussenlak.

Not to beat around the bush, I want to get right to it. I'd probably support Option B. But within that, let's break that down. If anyone would I'm sorry. I'd support option b.

And to further break that down, you know, unless everyone wants to stay until the end and we talk about the Planning Commissioner Academy and the role of the Planning Commission, you know, we have the standards and guidelines that are adopted by the city council. And as Commissioner Yi pointed out, there are, you know, certain standards and guidelines that that we are tasked with having a quasi judicial role in making sure that design meets certain performance guidelines. So three point zero nine point zero one, you know, says that quality of design reflected by the fence or wall should be directly related to the visual performance and that greater attention should be devoted subject to public view. So while you may have a fence, you know, in a side yard or, you know, less visually prominent that was previously approved as a prior project, you know, because this fence in particular is, you know, public facing, you're on a corner lot. And you're definitely allowed and encouraged to create a private space, you know, under 3.0902.

That's acceptable, you know, as per the guidelines. You can tell that, you know, my fellow commissioners are concerned about, you know, a higher standard of design for those public facing fences. And 3.0902, you know, talks about that. The fencer wall should be well designed, visually interesting, should not call attention to itself, but instead should focus and direct attention of the residents. So I think, you know, regardless of, you know, other people's fences, regardless of, you know, even necessarily, you know, neighbor support, know, we're tasked with enforcing the guidelines set by the city council.

I think option B would would accomplish that. So I would support option b, not necessarily the modification. So there is a subjective element a little bit, so it might be too busy.

Thank you, Commissioner Cooper.

Also support option b. I had similar reactions to the other commissioners when I read the application material, and there were examples of other similar fences around the city. Half of them were supporting option b because half of them had other design elements. And similarly, when I visited the site, I was taken aback by the amount of additional linear footage of fence. You know, the previously approved was on the side yard and relatively small, and then the new fence wrapped around the entire front yard and was much more visible from the streets. So I would support making that more visually attractive if it's as in the design guidelines, and I think option B moves in that direction.

Can we put the photos back up? Of the existing fence. Can we show the other?

My apologies, Chair. Roland, there's a little bit of a lag.

Oh, I see.

Okay.

So this is the the I can see the objective is to enclose the yard and have some private space. But when we looked at this before, the fence as it's designed looks like a it's in the front of the house because of the the configuration of the lot. All of it is visible as if it were a front fence, but it's designed in a utilitarian way as a looks like a back fence, the kind that you often find when you walk behind suburb suburban houses that are all built in a row. And it does not have an aesthetic design that seems that it would be appropriate for a front yard considering Piedmont's design guidelines. And there are several examples in the guidelines that show what an acceptable fence in a front yard would be.

This one most closely fits the example that's given that's utilitarian that is not acceptable. And I actually am concerned that given the volume and the curves that you can't save this particular fence by putting a doorman on the top. And it has a likelihood of of looking it looks awkward as it is, but it has a likelihood of looking more awkward and not necessarily in keeping with the design standards of front fences. So I don't support either option A or B. And that's my point of view on that.

I I I don't in looking at the the potential the the examples that are given as the the way that it might look with a cap on the top, it almost appears to me that I'm looking at a different type of wood and a different construction style. Again, it doesn't look like it can be saved by just placing a cap or a band across in terms of coming up with a pleasing aesthetic for a front fence.

I have a couple of just follow-up. I want to talk about the plantar since we haven't talked about the plantar boxes at all. I think they look good.

Microphone please.

They flank the door. I support approval of those regardless. But I just want to point out to your comments about the front versus backyard fence. There is one picture in the design standards and guidelines. I don't know if we can even show that. I have them. It's on Page three-forty four.

The one with the foliage at the bottom?

There's actually two pictures and maybe three. I mean, the first three pictures on three-forty four, there's one with an entry to a residence. And you can see the wall behind it's effectively a wall you know, in in front of this residence. I'm not sure if you can see that.

Yeah. Yeah. We've got it.

And and then there's another one where where there's a fence. There's some kind of detail on it, but it has a foliage, And it's all along, you know, the you know, the property line with with some plants in front. And then the last one is, you know, item number four, which which has kind of like a raised wall. It's it's tiered. But but I would call attention to the, you know, number three with the foliage.

You know, it says fences and walls and front yards are to be avoided except in rare circumstances. However, in a residence if a residence is located on a corner or through lot, a fence or wall greater than four feet in height should be permitted to enclose the property's private outdoor living area in the side or rear yard. So it kind of talks about and provides for higher fences, obviously, higher than four feet, even higher than and it doesn't say kind of a maximum height. But the example given there just has kind of like a lattice work on top for a design detail, but then it's just completely blocking the view to that that yard space as as the corner lot example. So I just I wanted to point that out just in case that has any influence on your

Do you think it has a bearing on the fence that that is being presented?

I do because I you know, I don't have the dimensions of the height of this fence in particular, but it it is I mean, from what I can see, it's clearly blocking, any kind of view Taking into that

aside the height and we're talking about the design. And on the one that you're referring to, there's an attractive foliage cover and bit of a lattice on the top? Correct.

Yes. Number three under or above number three.

Right.

Yes.

I just wanted to offer that as

a as

kind of a

I think your suggestion is that the cap is not enough in terms of interest and the level of design that for our

front yard.

Not only that. Not only is it not adequate, it may not look right. You're adding something on that wasn't intended to be added on in the beginning like this. The ones that we're talking about are fences that appear to have been designed in a particular way. And so the design itself is complete.

And in the one instance of the foliage and the lattice on the top, those are compatible. I'm I'm not sure about a fence that's designed the way this one was and just put a cap on the top and a band. With the cap on the top would eliminate the sawtooth, but it wouldn't necessarily make it more aesthetically attractive as a front fence.

Well, we're sort of stuck between a hard two hard spots here because it's built, right? So the owner is asking for retroactive approval of what was built, which doesn't justify anything against what you're saying, Commissioner Rowland. It's just that I think the cap does add a level of detail that finishes the fence. Like you say, there's this sort of sawtooth look at the top of the fence. And I think the cap and maybe the band that applicant proposes helps finish that off so that the fence is making the best out of a maybe a less than ideal situation without having the owner tear the whole thing down and start over.

Secondly, I think the thing that we could require of the owner is that the landscaping idea, I mean, to the fence to the credit of this fence is it's short, it's 4.5 feet or so on a lot of it and much of it is sitting on top of the stone stone wall. So it's not a six or eight foot fence, which given the grades, it's a bit shorter. So I think adding the cap, a band would help. But I think the landscaping ideas around the fence, like the examples in the design guidelines would I think this fence would benefit from having some mature landscaping and maybe softer landscaping to give it a little bit more finished front door look. Again, we're trying to make it be more front door ish without tearing it down.

I think the struggle is there's not really specificity around. I mean there's a couple of options thrown in these example photos and I don't know if I would almost be inclined to continue this and give some guidance on I and the because it's there's not really an elevation of, like, what is actually being there's quite a long length of the more stair. There's, like, of a fence. Right? And and to your point, it's like, how how do we how's that I mean, our job here is not to design from the dice.

Like, well, we could do that. Not not really what we're here for. But I think the intent is to kind of give feedback as to what could be approved in the context of the design guidelines, and maybe that's the suggestion here. Just throwing it

out. I

have a question before. Just the foliage that's in front of the fence as currently planted, what are those?

Those are boxwoods.

I'm sorry.

Boxwoods. And So they were planted a year, year and a half ago. Granted, they're slow growers, but you see a lot of them around Piedmont. They grow into hedges that maybe are at that high, and you can choose to trim them so that they

are like boxes. So it's not going to reach fence height?

That's not our intention to let it go that high. So probably three feet high. So these are four foot to 4.5 foot fences for the most part. So we do want those to serve eventually as more or less the hedge that covers the fence. Just a quick comment to your point, Ms. Ortiz, is a lot of the elevation design in the drawings were in the original application. So sorry if that if I should have included that in this one, but I think you'll find all of that in the original package.

Thank you. I'm sorry.

Yes. In response to Commissioner Ortiz's comments, so the Commission could do what it does oftentimes and add a condition of approval in that if one of the photographs of other fences with the cap that's been submitted meets your standards, you could approve that option and require that the applicant provide staff a final plan for that fence so that staff could review those plans and determine whether or not it complied with the commission's intent.

Now on these being on the front, it's different the what you would be doing with any, aesthetic adornment. These are all straight, but this one has some curves and some turns. And it'll be a little bit harder to to find something that has that look because it's not here.

If I could add, there are there are no curves, but there are there are certainly turns, but all of the fence lines, none of it was formed in a curve at all. So they're they're they're straight. Okay. So they're turns.

Let's can we see that again?

So that, for example, on the lower right is a straight line.

Can we see the other one?

Sorry, chair Roland, what would you like to see?

The other rendering or the other photos of that fence. That. Thank you. So there's some height change and there's some direction change? Correct.

A height change, we attempted to approximate the staggering of the wall, of the rock wall. So roughly meets the slope of the rock wall. And the fence itself is more like if you look in that lower left corner, you can see where the there's a there's a turn on the fence on the left side that matches the turn in the rock wall. But we did not have we didn't make any effort to provide any curvatures, which I agree if we were to do some sort of do the top panel piece would be very difficult if it were curved.

Commissioner, please.

Of the applicant, are there vertical pickets on the backside of this fence that like two buys or something to

It's the exact same. So it's a good neighbor fence. So we just we did both sides in the exact same style.

Well, the reverse does have the post exposed.

There's a There's an element post that supports the fence.

Oh, absolutely. Horizontal. Yes. It just happens to be covered up much like you see the front.

Yeah. The more I look at this, the the the thing that concerns me the most about this fence are a couple of things. It's just a relentless surface with no articulation, right? That's number one. And number two, no offense, but the quality of the wood doesn't look great. I mean a lot of the pictures show the wood material is knotted and this is cedar wood, right?

It is cedar. Yes. And and there's actually a couple places where you see shifts in color.

Right.

We had some pieces Right. Break, and so we had we did have to do some replacing. But over time, it should silver.

All right. But what I'm saying, though, is that as a front door fence or front yard fence, it would help a lot if there weren't so many knots in the wood. It's just like a knotty pine look from the '60s. So I think the quality of the wood, the lack of any kind of repetitive scale scalar element concerned me because if this is a front door fence, can see from the examples in the design guidelines, the quality of the wood and the construction is and sort of attention to detail is a little higher. And I think extending the fence from the 2020 rendition is just just exasperates the point, given the scale.

So my instead of maybe instead of continuing this, what I'd like to suggest is that I think the Option B cap idea is a reasonable idea to help at least finish off the top of the fence and give it a little bit more of a tailored look. Secondly, I'd suggest replacing some of these more knotty looking pieces so that, again, it looks like a front door issue and not a backyard issue. And then third, if you do have vertical pickets behind the fence on your side, you know, the private side of the fence that do that do, you know, support the fence at a regular interval, then maybe those could be expressed on the front of the fence as a as a batten or some other detail to to coincide with the the I'm trying really hard to figure out how to do this without tearing the darn thing You know?

I was thinking the same thing. As you look at some of the examples of the other fences, the the posts are exposed to the street,

and it adds an element. It's Yeah. There's a little scalar element, you know. It's just tearing down the

fence and putting the the post in front, a batten or a full post in

the front bed,

an element with

Right. That could come up to the trip top trim and then and I think, again, the knotty pieces, I'm somewhat troubled by those.

That's an easy fix, I think.

And then the landscaping, the boxwoods are, like you said, they are pretty slow growing.

And

maybe there could be an alternative landscaping solution to help ameliorate the just to soften the fence a little bit visually so that transition from the sidewalk to your stonewall to the landscaping to the fence, it all feels like it's more contiguous and not I got a backyard fence, okay, I threw that up here and I got boxwoods that are going to take another three years to grow in. And I got the front wall and then I got the sidewalk installed.

Well, adjacent to the between the sidewalk and the front wall on the Ramona side is all lavender. About thirty six thirty six plants of lavender.

Mhmm.

And on the Monticello side of the house, it's about 34 plantings of sunset gold plants.

What I'm saying though is that I appreciate you're you're pointing that out. That's great. I think what this fence over its scale could use is some soft touches in the landscaping, not such a harsh a boxwood we had boxwoods at my other house and they're pretty rigid plants. And I think this could stand with some softness, maybe a little bit of color would help mitigate some of those issues. So those are my suggestions. Instead of continuing this, you probably want to get on with it since it's been October since you came out.

Chris, can you put it back up so we can just keep an eye on this? We're trying

As I said, I think that the knotty boards is, I think, an easy fix because we have similar sized boards on the opposite side. Right. No problem swapping the good ones with the bad ones, so to speak.

And then the some kind of detail of the bad ones. They can think front door how this really helps reinforce your residence.

We've been working with an architect on this. She's well known to Piedmont, and we could ask her for some thoughts on this as well.

So so, Commissioner Yee, I think that you kind of got to somewhat the points that I was making, which is that this is a lot of fence. Mhmm. It just has the the look of a rear fence, and perhaps part of that is not just because of the way it's cut at the top without adornment, but because comparing it to these options that we see here, it looks like an entirely different type of wood. And the wood that we're looking at on the fence as it is is knotty, and it adds to this. It's just one more element of you just have a lot of plain, what looks like back fence on the front yard, and there's a lot of it.

But, again, if you want to think of a way to help the homeowner to not replace a fence, you you can consider some kind the adornment that you've been talking about also to take out some of the naughtiest pieces of this so that it looks closer to the examples that you're giving. And then as commissioner Yee indicates, to soften it up with some foliage that will not hug so far so low as the boxwood, but to just give some interest, maybe color, some height, and so that you don't have just this big wall of back fence. And then when you do all of those things, it looks like something that was designed to really stand out be attractive.

There was intent there, right? Yes. Right. I mean, including these sort of vertical expressions would I think would help it.

So I think that you have the idea. Would you like to make a motion?

Okay. Commissioner Yee? All right. So I would like to move that we approve 104 Monticello Avenue with the conditions approvals as follows, okay? So I move the approval of Project at 104 Monticello Avenue making the following findings.

The project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15,303, Class 3E, and is consistent with the general plan programs and policies with some exceptions as provided in the staff report. As conditioned, the project is approved because it complies with design review criteria under Section 17.66.060 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: planter location, planter height, planter design, location of the fence, fence height. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties, existing views, privacy and access to direct or 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 Monticello Avenue and Ramona Avenue consistent with Piedmont City Code Subsection 17.32.030 corner obstructions. As conditioned, the application complies with the following design standards and guidelines and general plan policies and programs. Chapter three, Site Design 3.09, Fences and Walls.

Let's see.

Hey, Kevin, the I think the collective mindset of the committee doesn't feel like twenty nine point three and twenty 9.5 are consistent with the proposal? I mean, can we say that

So which one? Well, so you're making findings that the project as conditioned meets these standards. So if you're adding a condition that specifies a particular design, then you would find that that design that you have conditioned meets these standards.

Okay. So as conditioned, the application complies with the following design standards and guidelines and general plan policies and programs: Design and Preservation Policy twenty nine point three, twenty nine point five and thirty one point three. The project is approved with the conditions of approval identified in the staff report and additional conditions of approval as outlined. One, the

This would be condition number two.

Condition number two, that the applicant's Option B will be implemented to propose to provide a cap detail consistent with the city's design guidelines. Condition three, that the more knotty appearance boards on the existing fence will be replaced by more clear heart or clear boards. Condition four, that the applicant will propose a rhythm of vertical expressions on the fence that will give additional scale to the fence and number five, that the applicant proposes landscaping in front of the entire fence of Ramona and Monticello that provides more integration of the fence with its surrounding front landscaping zone behind the existing front wall. Is that pretty clear, Kevin? Yes.

Okay. And then

And are those changes sorry, Commissioner Yee, but are those changes subject to staff review and approval?

And then the conditions will be subject to staff review and approval. All right. And do I need to read this Defense of Legal Challenges?

No, that's somebody in this So type of there will be five conditions of approval.

That's the motion?

That's the motion. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you.

Alright. So we have a motion to approve with five conditions of approval. Roll call vote from Commissioner Yee and a second from Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Buselink? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Yee? Aye. And Commissioner Rowland?

Aye.

Alright. Motion passes. Congratulations. This has been approved.

Go forth and build.

That was a good one. Good question.

That was a mouthful. Okay. All right.

We move now to Agenda Item seven, variance and design review permit for 160 Moraga Avenue. Do we have speakers?

Yes. I have one speaker, hand raised.

Have several Can hear speakers? Yeah. Several speaker cards. Shall we begin with the applicant? Anton.

Good evening, everyone. I'll wait until we pass. These are updated.

Please identify yourself and speak.

My name is Anton Kornienko. Anton Kornienko. And I'm presenting the project of changing upgrading.

I think you're going to have to raise your voice a little.

Should not touch it. I'm here presenting the project of passive house retrofit of January. That part was already approved in February. But the part that's still outstanding is the deck on the roof. We've heard all your comments from the previous hearing as well as comments by neighbors.

And we have addressed majority of them as well as did substantial amount of additional research such as solar study, the contribution to basically improving the fire safety of the neighboring buildings as well as research into alternative locations. We are currently open to answer any questions you have.

Are there any questions? I have a question then. You did a shadow study.

Yes, correct.

And can you explain to us what the results of that were?

Our shadow study although so we used a LiDAR scans to do to model the entire kind of neighborhood every building. We didn't include it in our shadow study because it's from our shadow study, it's very obvious that there is virtually no impact because we changed the railing to glass. So a few major changes is changing railing to glass as well as lowering the deck, making it smaller, which reduced the size of the stairs on the site. And yes, so to your question, there's hardly any impact and that applies to whether in the winter or summer at any basically whether in the morning, afternoon or evening. And we included all of those into handout and into our submission.

Any other commissioner questions?

There were also concerned about overhang over the sink, which was removed. So that was as well addressed and the sink was kind of put behind the chimney stack, which reduces its visibility.

How do you deal with the storm water?

So we will be addressing that with the building department, but what we're thinking is because we're doing the hydro loop, we can direct it to hydro loop and actually reuse it for reuse that water any way we want either for watering, flushing. So we'll be basically figuring out that with the building the part.

Thank you. The

next speaker card is Brian Pimeta.

Hello. My name is Brian Pometa and I live at the house, the Downhill House 161 Renata Avenue. I guess I'd like to start by saying we listened to the last meeting. I thought I understood the comments. It seemed like the comments were that the the stair, the location of the stair was a problem.

The impact in terms of the impact on the neighboring houses. I thought I heard comments about the location of the deck and that the deck would be better if it was moved off of the edge. And the response when we we saw the story polls go up doesn't seem to respond to the first set of comments that we heard. Maybe maybe I didn't understand them, but I thought the deck was going to move to the north. I thought it would move off of the edge of the house.

Our preference would be to move it much closer to Moraga, frankly. So when the deck moved from the Southwest corner, the Southeast, it's far worse for our house. Now the deck looks into our entry and it has always sort of loomed over the house and now it's visible all the way up our stairs and it's visible from our entry. So we would prefer, I mean, our comments are we'd love that the stair to be within the setbacks. I think there are opportunities to have that stair within the setback.

I think architecturally, commissioner Yi made some very good points last time. These houses are mid century. They're very much like an Eichler house. There's not that many of them in Piedmont and these are these are good houses. These were this is the house of the architect who designed both houses at the same time, and that was that was where he lived.

And I think the breaking of the roofline is what I find most glaring as far as the mid century modern house. I think there were some comments last time about that the whole kind of design, the deck and the stair look a bit tacked on and I couldn't agree more. It does it just doesn't feel like like if you if this house was being designed today, right, or by by the architect originally, I think they could have done a better job of integrating the deck and the stair. I think that the stair would have been probably in the entry or the carport. It would not have interrupted the roof line.

It would have come through the roof. There would have been a cutout.

Your three minute time has expired.

Thank you very much. Okay.

Next speaker is Kimberly Moses.

Hi, good evening. Thank you for being here and taking my comments.

Please identify yourself.

I'm sorry, my name is Kimberly Moses and I live at 161 Renata Avenue which is to the south of the project proposed. My take is more landscape oriented. I use the backyard every day to garden. And for me, the proposed stairway that's in the setback sort of looms over where I work. And as I come up the stairs, the entry stairs to my house, I have I have trees that are starting to ameliorate the closeness of the buildings around me.

But the new proposed deck is pushed forward in such a way that it's very present. It looms over me. It feels for me it dominates the perspective. And I would hope that they could build a deck because I think it would be really great for them and it's needed in such a small site. But I would hope the city would help them just move it back. Let's see, where are we? I'm sorry, if we could get a

here we go.

If we could somehow just move back, maybe taking the taking the fire the chimney into account, maybe it could move back that direction. And again, it would be great if the stairway isn't cutting into the setbacks. Would oppose variants that is encroaching on that setback. But but the overall concept has been well thought out. But again, for from my perspective, light and air in my backyard, not not sun, but light and air have been impacted and would be impacted by this, even with a glass railing.

Because over time, as we know, people use a project, they decide that, oh, the glass gets dirty and I don't want to clean it, or a new owner comes in, and since there's already a railing there, then they could change that railing into wood, or and even if there is something written into the deed that says, you know, you have to go through planning again, it's hard to know whether that would be respected ten years from now if all new people are here. So thank you for your time.

I have a question.

Oh, sure.

So the the stairs as designed would encroach a little bit into this setback.

Quite a bit. We have very narrow.

And if you look straight down, you have a setback that's kind of similar to theirs between your house and the fence next door?

Yes.

And you have something built into that setback?

We tried to keep it below the fence, but yes, we do.

If we

need to remove it, we will. That's

yeah. Just I'm just and what is it that you have built into the setback?

In are you talking about along the west side of the property?

Between your house and on the same side where the staircase is

Well, staircase their staircase wraps around the building, so I would need it clarified

Okay. On the on the side of the house

that Faces the

Faces the larger apartment complex.

Got it. When we moved in, there were there were cabinets along there. And basically, what we did was put a metal roof over that edge because there have been fire. There has been fire in that area.

Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Next

speaker is Frank Nothaft.

Hello. Thank you very much for reconsidering our project and for the helpful comments two months back. I'm Frank Notaft. I am the homeowner at 160 Moraga. Our motivation in seeking seeking to do this project has been that we are on a very small lot. We have you know, we're a couple in our mid thirties. We have a 10 year old. Our backyard is less than seven feet, so there's very little space for us to go outside. And the house pretty much runs up to the setbacks as evidenced by the fact that we needed to get a variance to put more insulation on the house when we're replacing the siding. By putting this roof deck up here, we've really tried to mitigate a lot of the considerations.

You know, the city wants to make sure it's not not eminently visible from the street. So we've tried to situate it in that side by making the railing glass, which does significantly add to the project cost. It's a significant increase in the cost per linear fit. This, we believe, will mitigate the impact on any views of the sky, any obtrusiveness of the project. The fact are these houses are very close together.

The architect, when designing them, I think, was designing them as a not quite a family compound, but as two houses to be used and lived in together by a family in proximity, which kind of explains some of the siding. And I think a lot of the the, you know, the concerns raised by our neighbors are are very reasonable, but are somewhat of an eminent fact of how these houses are built. The entryway is already visible from our living room and vice versa. And one thing that we'll note, you know, while the owners at the house downhill from us at 161 Renata have we're very supportive of the solar panels that they've added. Those solar panels added after the fact do block the south facing view out of our living room window, which this deck will restore, giving us better access to lightened views that were otherwise impacted by a laudable project.

So we've, you know, again, tried to tried to many of the comments as possible from the previous previous session. Relocating the stairs does remain an issue given the layout of the lot where our only access to our backyard is, you know, the only other logical place to put the stairs. Putting them in the carport would be a challenge with the front setback rules that we have, and we've gotten feedback to that from the from the planning committee previously. And putting them inside the house would entail fairly significant structural work that we think would significantly increase the complexity of the project, and you would still add a large visual element to have the stairs exiting through the roofline. So thank you again for reconsidering our project.

We hope that we have addressed many of your comments from February.

Are there any commissioner questions or comments?

I have a question. You mentioned that the solar panels on the 161 were not a block, your views from your main level living space. Yes. So that's but they're so far below you though.

The grade separation is about five to seven feet. So it's meaningful, but not extensive. And the slope on their roof, while our roof pitches at the middle, their roof is a continuous upward slope all the way up.

Shed, it's a

shared Yes, exactly. So

is it the shed roof that blocks your view or the solar panels?

It's the solar panels on top They're of located more towards the northern end of the roof,

close to our property.

All right. Thank you. Yes.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

I have no more speaker cards.

Nicole?

Yes, I have R Diaz. Go ahead and speak when you're able.

Good afternoon. This is Roberto Diaz. I'm on behalf of one hundred fifty four Moraga Avenue, and we ask the commission not to grant the variance on the West or the South. I I believe that there could be a solution on the north and on the east side for them to put their deck and their staircase where it would not be opposed by the neighbors that are right next to them. The space is extremely tight.

We have had a fire in between these properties before and we just need to keep the space open for emergencies and to prevent the loss of privacy to the residents on the West of the proposed project. And that's all I have.

Thank you. Nicole, are there other speakers?

There are no other speakers at this time.

Okay, thank you. We will now close the public comment section of this agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion. Commissioner Cooper, would you like to open the discussion?

This is an interesting project. I was here during the last discussion, and there were a lot of ideas brought up for a way to move the project forward and reduce the impact on the neighbors. And I think the architects have come up with some very interesting proposals that help the solution. I did revisit the site and after reading the neighbor's comments, so I could take those into consideration. And I feel that or I find that the project is not as obtrusive as it may seem at first.

There's several story poles that won't be there in the future. The stairway will be cantilevered out, and there are cross beams that support those story poles that are very intrusive and make it look like the project is much closer to the neighbors than the finished project will be. I also looked at the shadow study and noted that throughout the year, there's very little to no impact on sunlight to the projects. So I appreciate gardening. I do a lot of gardening myself, but the amount of light I think I find reaching the gardens won't won't be impacted by the project.

As far as moving the project up the seal, up the roof, that would make the project higher because it would have to contend with the slope of the roof. So I think by minimizing or reducing the size of the deck, I find that it moves down the slope and it's not as high. So it is less obtrusive than the original design. So I think given the the challenges with the property, it's a small lot, it's already built within the setbacks. I find that this is the best solution for the goals in mind and the impact on the neighbors is less than originally anticipated because the story poles and the support beams will be gone.

Also as far as looking out of windows at the site, We did that when we were at the project and you have to look basically be standing at the window looking up to see a lot of the areas of of the project. That's at 154. It's not at 161. At 161, you can see the project from the backyard. There's no doubt about that.

Thank you. Commissioner Busalink? I almost feel like it's somewhat premature for me to comment. Because most of my evaluation of this is based on watching our prior meeting on the previous application and the site visits today that I did at both 160 Moraga and 161 Renata. I didn't have the opportunity of seeing both sites from the property and in the backyard for.

So that enlightening. But Commissioner Yi, I just want to identify that Commissioner Yi made some comments at the prior meeting about some of the aspects of a some kind of revised application or proposal. And I don't want to put words into your mouth. But he did note that the staircase location and having the prior proposal being on the I'm facing from Renata's side, the left side of the house would have

been

less visible to the lower neighbors because, you know, putting it on the right side or the center would require a longer staircase. And so this this updated proposal actually does have a longer staircase. So like I'm not and you're hearing from the neighbors that, you know, presents like a more prominent visual, you know, from their property. So I'm not sure how the other commissioners feel about that. But it seems like it has less impact on the Moraga neighbor side, more impact on the Renata property side.

And just reviewing the statements made at the prior meeting, Commissioner Yi said to consider shifting to the center of the building as opposed to on the backside of the building to reduce impact to the Renata side, shifting away from Renata so that there wasn't as much of an impact on the setback side. We didn't even get to talking about proposed alternate staircases. But I just want to put that out for discussion. This is a tough decision because I'm well aware of the need to have some kind of outdoor space in these properties is the lot coverage is very intense and there are very few options to provide for some kind of usable outdoor space. After visiting the property again and seeing what kind of space options there are in the backyards and side yards.

I mean, there's not much else to do except add a roof deck as far as I can tell. But, you know, it has to come with some kind of architectural consistency and, yeah, I I would hope lower impact to the neighbors. So this this is a tough call, and so I'd like to hear from my fellow commissioners to kind of finalize my thoughts on that.

Thank you. Commissioner Ortiz.

I I think well, I can appreciate all the solar studies that were were done to kind of understand the impact of light. I think that that was helpful. And I and I do appreciate kind of the the change in materiality, on the glass railing, to to really lower the impact of views to neighbors. I'm looking at these alternative stair locations that were proposed, and I I I do remember the comment about trying to put the deck closer kind of to the middle to try and it's tough, like, because this the site, like, you're going to impact someone regardless of kind of where you land, right? So I think the name of the game is how do you create the less impact, but the least impact possible while still functionally meeting the goal of creating the jack.

I don't think anybody is necessarily opposed to that while functionally placing the stair in a place that works while doing so. Don't see maybe this is a question for the architect is, know I we looked at you looked at different stair locations. Were there any studies that led to the deck landing somewhere closer to the middle less whether it's further north.

So for the deck when it comes to deck location, we did have a discussion of kind of having it more central, but then the solar panels that have a lot higher reflectivity would be right there. Plus we also put the sink right next to the chimney, which kind of ensures that there's going to be no traffic there in that corner. So that basically makes it a lot more private for the neighbors. Also I want to point out that the decks I mean the stair size has reduced because you pointed out during the previous hearing that it'd be nice to so you don't see the deck from the Moraga and because we reduced the size of the deck now you cannot see the deck. You can also only see glass because it got lower.

The amount of stairs we dropped I think like two or three stairs as a result. And we did so like spiral staircases, we simply don't have space to put them, they would basically encroach no matter where you put them. And if we put in some other locations with block completely access to the backyard. And if you put them up in the front, then public is welcome to kind of run up them and that's pretty dangerous. But plus it's going to be very it's going to be really bulky and really in everybody's face.

So but we did a lot of thinking and we went back and forth with the help of Lamise and Tiffany trying to kind of dial in the best location.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Yes. So I mean it's like you want to place a solar where you're going to get the most gains. So I know we're not looking at that, but it does impact kind of where everything else goes in this jigsaw puzzle. Yeah. I I think it's it's it's better than what it was before. I think there was, you know, certainly more thought put to it. The materiality change helps.

The the removal of the, whatever, canopy over the sink also helps kind of simplify the overall design. I I'm a little bit on the fence, though. I I'm trying to think if there is an alternate option, right, that we haven't thought of that would would lower the impact. I mean, do agree with Commissioner Cooper that, like, a lot of I mean, I was there today. A lot of the story polls that are there, you know, seem more intrusive than, I think, in these renderings, which which there will be in reality.

But really trying to see if there's, like, another configuration that allows for, you know, something that has less impact in an already small space for for both, really, the resident and and the neighbors, and I'm not quite coming up with it. So I I'm on the fence. I am also curious to see kind of where everyone else, you know, the rest of the commission lands. I I think, like I said, I think this is much better than it was previously, has taken, you know, a lot of the things into consideration. Does it take all the things?

Probably not, but it's a game of what actually can be done in a really tight space. So leaning towards supporting it, but also, yes, we'd love to hear what everyone else

says. Thank you.

Commissioner Yee? Well, I think as my comrades have stated, this is a tough one, because these properties are the size of a house, a big house, you know, it's 3,500 square feet. And I noticed that the neighbor on 161 Renata, their property is actually five feet shorter. They're 65 feet and yours is 70 x 50, theirs is 65 x 50, all right? So they have even less room to move.

So philosophically, I think the applicant tried to make a case that there are 80% of the properties in the surrounding neighborhood are bigger than these. Well, my guess is that 85% to 90% of the properties are bigger than the ones the one your neighbor at 161. So the philosophical question I struggled with is, you know, is it reasonable to expect as somebody with a little property should have the same rights or opportunities as somebody who has a property that's three or four times larger, right? It's just like can a one hundred and twenty five pound person fight a guy who's two hundred pounds, that kind of thing. And I think as commissioners, we have to abide, as Commissioner Buzling said earlier on another application, And we need to abide by the general plan and the design guidelines.

Those are our tools to evaluate projects. So and so I feel like, let's try, I think the client the applicant made gargantuan efforts to figure out the best way to make these things work. And I applaud you for your efforts, both last time and this time. And you certainly won the trophy as far as producing information. But I have to believe that when it comes right down to it, there are two or three things I have to evaluate.

One is compatibility of the deck and its locations there with variances and impact on neighbors. Number two is the deck proposed deck location design and so forth, is it compatible within the and the stair, is it compatible with the architecture of the building, right, and what its original intent was. And number three, I realize that anything that happens here is going to be a byproduct of a compromise, right? So the city may have to compromise because of the views through the deck. The neighbors may have to compromise because there might be more of this going on because the properties are so tight.

And so what we're I think what you're trying to do, what we're trying to do is find a solution that has that is a compromise, but maintains the integrity of neighborhood relationships and integrity of the existing building. And what I find with this application is that it as Commissioner Ortiz said, it makes some pretty significant strides to address those issues. But at the end of the day, it's I just find it difficult to support this because the deck looming over 161 is while you've made wonderful efforts to go to glass and try to minimize the impact and lower the height and so forth, it's still there. And because the property, your neighbor's property is five feet shorter than yours, you know, it looms even more because it's, yes, you have to crane your neck to see it. But the issue here is not necessarily access to light and air because you're North of them, right?

And so the South Sun is not going to be an impact on them whether you build a second story addition deck. What find problematic here is privacy. And with these little dinky lots, then you have to have some consideration of how do you preserve privacy to the maximum level given these circumstances that you're both and other neighbors are in. And I find pushing the deck to the north end doesn't work for me. I feel like it addresses the city's concerns about seeing it from the street and from Moraga.

That part, I think you've done great, but it doesn't preserve the privacy of the neighbor to your south. And so I think in that case, I would say, as a deck on a flat roof building,

from

my position as commissioner, I could live with seeing it from Moraga. That doesn't necessarily bother me. But for me, that it has some we've mitigated as much as we can, given the circumstances and the tightness that we mitigated the neighbor to at 161 and the neighbor the apartment neighbor to the other side, which I think is probably a little bit less of an issue here. And then the other thing I have an issue with is the stair. I just feel like it's just no story poles.

I agree with you. Story poles are going be gone. We're out there looking at them. It's just incompatible to me to the design of the original building. There's no good way to slap a stair and have it wrap around the building and feel like you haven't really impacted the integrity of the original mid century modern house.

So for me, I think a solution would be to move the deck more centered in the roof, maybe up toward the ridgeline. At the risk of designing from the pulpit here, consider a circular stair in the notch on the west side because that's the bigger notch. It's on the opposite side of your entry. And I did a little again, I couldn't help myself, right? So I did this little diagram.

Can you

see it?

Yes. And what to me, what that does because there's room to get a spiral stair in that notch. The spiral stairs you can do in about five to six feet diameter. It's going to be a hassle to get furniture up and down the stair, I know. But again, we're talking about how to do this here, right?

And I find that if we do something like that, everybody kind of supports the project. The city says, okay, you can live with a little bit of view of the deck. The neighbor is maybe supports the idea of having a deck, which I fully support. I get it. You've got a small house, you've a growing family, you need outdoor space.

So I fully support that notion, all right? But the neighbors thought been considered and their privacy to the extent that can be protected in this short lot is protected. And if a circular stair is acceptable, a spiral stair, you can do it in a way that you can still maintain the access through that notch, because you have a door in the kitchen out to the side yard and kind of duck under the stair a little bit and have it and it'd be a shorter distance to the deck. And you can get a little bit longer deck. And you could run your solar panels along just down slope of that.

And then you don't need a variance. And then the integrity of the building, I mean, I could live with an idea like that because I feel like that would preserve the integrity of the building design and acknowledge the fact that this owner needs space for his their growing family. I could support that, right? This, I can't support because I just feel like on many levels, it doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the guidelines.

Thank you, Commissioner Yee. I most often agree with my colleague, Commissioner Yee, but I find a point of departure this time. First, on stairs. I think about stairs going to a part of the home which is for rest, relaxation, or some element of recreation. And I think of going up there with a something that's got a little vodka in it, maybe.

And I think about a staircase that's spiral like that, and I'm thinking ankles, elbows, knees. I think that when you design something like this, you design it for the ease of the homeowner to use it and benefit from it. And here, they're trying to create some outdoor space where there's very little. These houses built perhaps around the same time, and as indicated perhaps by the same builder, it was already contemplated that things were tight, were going to be tight, and they built these to maximize the amount of house that you could get on this lot. And that's what they did.

And so over the years, everyone, probably every neighbor here, has made some changes that somehow, in some ways, impact the other neighbors. They can't help it. They're close. I I made a point of asking about what obstructs the right of way or the setback on one side of the building below because that's the homeowner just naturally finds some storage space and uses that storage space. But it obstructs that setback in more than much more because it completely occupies that space.

It obstructs it much more than a see through staircase. Now I do gardening. I do a lot of gardening. And I I that was the first thing that I looked at in this instance was how much light was impacted and it was not impacted. Since the houses are built very close, I wanted to see what the neighbors see when they come up the staircase where the neighbor does turn around and go into the garden space.

The garden space is very small. It's just no one can help that. No one is going to be able to invent more space for the homeowners. But I can easily remove from my I think in pictures. So when I look up and I saw the the wood and crossbars of the, story poles, knowing that there there would be glass, I took the story poles away, and I see an edge of a glass rail and it's see through and it doesn't block any light.

I have neighbors that are very close to me. I see and I've seen this throughout Piedmont where we don't stand at the space and glare at each other. These are transit points that we're most of the time passing. And so we need to understand that our neighbors are going to, in order to use their house fully, occupy some of those transit points, but they're not going to be places where they just sit and look at their neighbors. And so, but Commissioner Yee gave me mentioned several things last time, which I took to heart, but primarily because I had not thought about it.

So I wanted to test this notion of looming, As I I understand if you have something that's super high and you're you're behind it, then maybe that thing looms over you. Or if it protrudes forward a lot, it looms over you. I didn't see that other than the fact that the transit space of the stairs pulls back into that area a little bit, and then you're upstairs. So I did not see I did not share the the point of view that it actually looms over the the neighbor. And I I've seen a lot of in in in volunteering for the Planning Commission, I've seen a lot of these scenarios where there is a looming over effect.

I didn't see that here. But when you go back to creating an outdoor space and it's upstairs and you have a house that's built a certain style, I've seen these houses altered in many ways over the years. And since the visual of the house is not very high, the homeowner is doing what they can to create transportation to a particular area of the house, but they're not necessarily changing that much of the house other than to create an outdoor space where it's difficult to do so. In the last discussion, I also was a little concerned about the shallowness of my own evaluation last time because it was said in the discussion that the addition was so prominent in from the front of the house that you could see it from Grand Avenue and far and beyond it. And I I got in my car and I went up.

You know, sometimes you you can feel a little embarrassed with the superficiality of your evaluation. So I got in my car and I drove by in one direction. I could scarcely see the story poles. I went back in the other direction. I didn't see them at all.

And so I thought, well, perhaps the in that discussion, something else was being mentioned. But whatever was being mentioned was the also the focal point as to why the homeowner needed to move it back further. And I believe that the homeowner was responding to the discussion that took place, and so as the, the neighbor says, hey, you moved it closer to me. It's even worse. Well, it's going to be tough one way or the other, but I do believe that they moved that in accordance with some of the instruction that we gave.

Now, I say we. We are a we are a collective body, but I thought that the manner in which they had approached it in the beginning was acceptable. And I think it's I still think it's acceptable, especially because of the glass features and the the fact that you don't see this thing looming over. It doesn't protrude out very far. Everyone in this environment is operating in small spaces.

The neighbor has a set of solar panels. Commissioner Yee, you asked about that, but I was going to be I saw it on the I saw it on the the satellite view, but I was I did not have any idea of what the impact might be on the homeowner who's seeking to go up. So you asked the question. Thank you. And so that was part of the homeowner's according to the homeowner, part of their discussion in trying to recover some view that they had before.

So it's tough for all of the property owners involved because they're working in tight spaces. I think that from my point of view, the changes that were made make it more acceptable, but I I think that they made those changes in response to what we requested that they do. I thought it was kind of acceptable, more more or less acceptable the way it was before. And and I think that I agree with the the downhill homeowner that it it might have had even less impact. But the impact that it does have now, since it's mostly glass rail and it's mostly the most visible part of it is the staircase, which is the transit space, which is using the same space that the neighbor below is using for storage.

The fact that it doesn't have a major impact on light in any way for the homeowners, notwithstanding the various homeowners, notwithstanding the tight space. It's not ideal, but I think I would still support it as I did previously. I don't know about the notion of requesting that the homeowner continuously move this addition or this improvement to different locations. And I also, again, I want to restate that I think the safer staircase is the better staircase. And so I once again find the project acceptable, and I would support it.

And I'm reinforced in that having done some driving back and forth then and now as to the streetscape impact of this. So I continue to support the project. Commissioner Giselink, you were

Yes. I don't know where we are as

well, we've all said and I think we all agree, this is a very challenging project. And I think we all also agree that improvements have been made. And even with the improvements, there will be impacts on the neighbors. And I think anything that gets done to your point of, you know, continuing to move the deck around on the on the roof, there's gonna be some impact on the neighbors. And I find that there's been improvements.

Our goal is not to eliminate all impacts because I basically not allow any project. It's to minimize or make the impacts acceptable. And I I find also, and you summarized very well, that the impacts have been reduced. And I think with the glass and the and the removal of the story poles, there will be there will be impacts. There's no doubt. I think the impacts are in an in an in an area that I could I could support them also.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Yeah. I think, you know, looking at these photos, a seven two point three as well as a seven two point two, I mean, I think the main concern from the Renata neighbor is, like, it it it it's the privacy, right, at the end of the day because the lots are so close. I think glass certainly helps some of the impacts that I like, looking at the vegetation, I mean, lot of this is mature, I don't maybe this is more of a question of, like, the the the plans show a larger canopy than the actuality. I don't know how much this has been studied. But I think, like, some of the privacy, if not already addressed with the existing vegetation, could be additionally addressed with further screening if required.

And I and and, again, it's a game of, like, what's the what's the least impact across the board while still meeting the the program? I I been spinning around and around about other options, and I I don't know that there is like, you know, a better solution given I mean, I think, like I said, this analysis is generally pretty thorough. I've thought about it, read it a few times to see if there was another option, but there really isn't. And I, you know, I think, like I said, generally, sounds like everyone's supportive of the deck, including the neighbors, and there needs to be a path forward.

It sounds like you just said it. I mean, the compromise would be like having foliage to block that.

Yes, just ensuring But proper

yes, the issue becomes not only like direct view, but then the concerns about light and making 161 Renata feel like smaller enclosed space, like that's the complaint, right? So even if set a condition saying, okay, well, there has to be foliage, providing some kind of screening, some type of screening that kind of preserves privacy for the downstairs neighbor, like, you know,

that you

know, it's a compromise, and it's not exactly what the neighbor wants. But, you know so I'm not sure if that's the best solution, but

I think it's a good solution. If my concern was to see people up there and then I no longer saw people because of foliage, Assuming that that was my consideration and I no longer saw them.

My recommendation would not be dependent upon vegetation for most projects, this one in particular, because whatever vegetation you're proposing, I assume, would need to be within a distance from the structure of the house where insurance these days doesn't allow for that. So I just don't see that it actually could happen. And plus vegetation comes and goes, it does die.

Well, it wouldn't be any closer than vegetation that's necessarily already there.

Correct. But the existing

But the existing vegetation may actually have to go at some point if they have run-in with their insurance company. There's a five foot distance between a house and vegetation of that type. That's generally the standard. And in fact, that's part of what the fire department is

Well, none of our houses qualify for that.

You're right. But that's I'm just saying, let's try not to introduce that. I would recommend, you know, evaluating this project on its merits as proposed. It seems like the Commission is struggling quite hard to find a compromise. If it's not there, it's not there.

Now we frequently make this projects conditioned on foliage and landscaping details, But they're not as You

can you condition them to have a plan for it. Mhmm. You don't necessarily condition that what they are.

Mhmm.

And it's history on that was that one time, you know, fifteen, twenty years ago, there was some precedent for requiring people to grow shrubs up to a certain height. Enforcement is impossible, plants come and go, they die, new owners change, they pull them out. So we found that that was actually in the long run not effective And thus we have moved away from evaluating a project subject to vegetation of a certain size and proportion or height. And really, we need to evaluate it on the built environment.

Okay. But we just did that last month on the project with the down downhill neighbor, and the idea was to keep the foliage of a certain height that was already there.

It was not a condition of approval. It was just that was what was the approved plans. Okay.

Very

good. Thank you.

Well, I guess my feeling is is that if this was a new house that was built on this design on this property and the owner came and said, I'm going to put a deck on my south side facing the neighbor down slope, I don't think we I I wouldn't support it if it was new. Here is a condition where the it's an existing building. And as I said at the last meeting, my feeling is that the deck would be better served if it was more centralized in the building. Think I've been pretty consistent about that because I think it would address the concerns of neighbors, the neighbor or at least two neighbors. Visibility of the deck is a potential issue, but I feel like the difference between what they proposed the first go around and centralizing the deck on the roof, I don't think that's it's that much different.

So you'll see it, so what? And I think in the long term, it's a structural kind of construct that addresses issues around a couple of neighbors. If the neighbor to the south had a 200 foot lot, this wouldn't be an issue, right? But they don't. They have a 65 foot lot.

So when I go back to the design guidelines and the intent of those, I say, you know, I think about how in the context of the neighborhood does this addition comply with that. And I feel like it doesn't. Whereas if it was moved more central to the building, which I'm not trying to again, to the applicant, I'm not trying to jerk you around to say, hey, let's play continually wings with the deck. That's not the intent. The intent area is to find the best location that addresses as many issues as possible to be consistent with the guidelines.

And then the second thing is the compatibility of the design with the existing residents. This is a very kind of modest but humble mid century modern home. And I don't mean humble in a derogatory sense at all. It's a very and that's why I feel like the moves that need to be made that are made here need to be respectful of that. And the deck is a huge move, right?

And so wherever you put it, Central, North, South, it's going to impact the roofline of the building. There's no avoiding it. I think you've done a great job trying to mitigate those by with the glass balustrades and guardrails and so forth. It's the stair that I have the biggest issue within the compatibility of the building because my sense of it is, is that the stair as no notwithstanding Commissioner Rollins' good comments, I feel like it's just not compatible with the existing building. I never felt that way, even the first quarter.

That's why I suggested moving the stair to the other side where you have a little more space, which I know is in conflict with the entry sequence of the house, that's a problem or an issue. And then the circular stair or the spiral stair, which, you know, if you're running up and down with some vodkas, you might have an issue with. Know, again, it's finding the best solution to respect the neighborhood concept and respect the building. And I find this has made some improvements, but for me, it doesn't address the issue comprehensively.

So what are you saying though? What are you saying moving it forward?

Like I said before, I think the deck is better served, it was more centralized in the building footprint. And whether the stair is on the other side or this side, I mean and then again, my suggestion of a spiral stair is just that, that's it. And then you have to decide if that's appropriate for your family, if it addresses safety issues and so forth. But again, I feel like the stair is just the way it's currently designed is because the spirit of the house to me is simple and direct. The stair wraps around and does a little bit of gymnastics to get there.

If the stairway is just as simple as it could be to get from one level to the next, That's what this house deserves. The integrity of that to me is important because once the stair is built, it ain't going away, it's going to be there. And it's like putting a mustache on a great painting. I feel like that's what's happening here a little bit. And I'm saying that as a bad analogy, but I think the straightforwardness and simplicity of this house is its strength.

And that's why I feel like a simpler solution on the stair and the relocation of the deck to me would benefit it as well as have residual impacts, positive impacts on the neighbors.

So can we have the architect come back up? So can you comment on what he just said?

Yes. So we did move it down per comments by Commissioner Ortiz and which I think were kind of correct because the higher we put it on the top of the ridge, the more out of place it's going to look. And your suggestion to put it right at the top of the ridge, then it's going to be visible from Grand Avenue, it's going to be visible from everywhere and actually nobody is going to be happy with Plus it's going to provide the real hazard going up and down and not necessary with a glass of vodka simply aging will likely simply aging will probably kill you on those stairs. So those are the consideration that we took into account when we were thinking about it and like putting so if we're talking putting something flat on the top, I think then that's going to kill the design of it.

Well, if I may. When I said more central, didn't mean to put it right on the ridge. I meant to slide it further to the toward the Moraga side away from the eve of your Southern eve.

Even the move

of four inches makes it kind of already very much visible. But in any case, what you're suggesting is a lot more than four inches because just the location you showed you sketched, it would be a lot higher. So it would be a lot

more looming. Well, again, that's If I could, so this

is not a design shirade.

No, it's not.

We've spent more than an hour on this. I think at some point it would behoove the commissioners to kind of fill out a consensus on whether you support the project as proposed or not, see where it's at, see if there's enough people to carry a motion and go with that. I hear you struggling. I don't know that there's a solution that's in I've heard anybody that would carry a motion. That's what I suggest.

Well, do you

think I think you could try for another two hours to come up with the solution, but I don't know that we will.

No, we shouldn't. But should we take a straw vote then?

You could. Thank you. Well, do Thank you. Thank you. I do believe that we benefited from the discussion, but I agree with you that we've given it enough time and I think that our thoughts on it have crystallized. Before we do that, I'm just trying to get to Commissioner Yi this just the location part of it. The what you're what you're referring to when you say move the location a little.

I'm saying it's a combination of addressing is there a way to address the stair being in the setback, number one. And number two, sliding the deck, which I think I mentioned before, maybe toward the north, toward Moraga from where it is now to get it away from the edge so that addresses the 161 folks, but not on not necessarily on the ridge, though. Is that a possibility? So that's Okay.

All I'm

There's a visual on A7.2.2 where it shows the kind of vertical sight line of the person you know, downstairs. So what he's saying is like, if it's pushed further into the center of the building, there would be no visual impact at all from, you know, the

How much further would that have to be? And

I would recommend recommend Yeah, investigation. But I think That's what he's saying.

It's Again, if we that's why I think taking a straw vote would be important now just because these folks need some clear direction and they may have a majority anyway.

Okay. So we can just take a straw vote about supporting the project as it is. See or no? I support. Okay. I agree with Commissioner Yee. Okay.