Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Microphone, please. Microphone, please.

Nicole?

Yes.

Excuse me.

Could you please explain the procedure for participation?

Yes, thank you, Chair Roland. Thank you for joining us for the 05/11/2026 Piedmont Plan 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 Tiffany Edwards on the right hand side of the diets. 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. Agenda for this meeting is available on the Planning Commission's page of the city website at piedmont.ca.gov. As is the standard practice, community members are allowed to comment one time on each agenda item. We ask your patience and understanding when there are technical difficulties. This concludes my introductory remarks.

Thank you. To start, I'd like to take role. Commissioner Zeruchian?

Here.

Commissioner Bussolink? Here. Commissioner Cooper? Here. Commissioner Putting?

Here.

I'm Wayne Roland, chair of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Yee is absent this meeting. Jeff, are there any other participants in the meeting you would like to recognize for the record?

Yes. Thanks. Thank you very much, chair Roland. First of all, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm new here. My name is Jeff Bond. I am the interim planning and building director for the city of Piedmont. As many people may know, Kevin Jackson, who held that role for a number of years retired. So I'll be here for the next couple of months while recruitment is underway. Joining me today at Pierce MacDonald, Tiffany Edwards, and Nicole Nispera, who you just heard from. Thank you very much, Thank you and welcome. It's my honor to be here.

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

I have no speaker cards.

We have no hands raised at this time.

Okay. Returning to commission procedures, I would like to mention that as commissioners, we are required to comply with 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 commissioners tonight for the first time. Commissioners who have a financial interest in a property within 500 feet of an application property are recused from acting on the application.

And commissioners who have a financial interest in a property between 501,000 feet of an application property may be recused from acting on an application. If recused, the commissioner will leave the meeting during the consideration of that application. Jeff, are there any conflicts of interest related to applications on tonight's agenda?

Chair Roland, yes, we do have two recusals. Commissioner Zarkuchian is recused from Agenda Item five, which is 66 Manor Drive and Commissioner Pudding is recused from Agenda Item six, which is 1 Estates Drive.

Thank you.

Wait a sec.

Tyson Excuse

me. So you're recused from the Tyson Track property, not the estates?

Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So there's a correction there. Could you state what that correction was?

So commissioner putting is recused from agenda item seven, which is the Tyson Track property, the retaining wall.

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 05/01/2026. It is important to note that other conditions in addition to those already listed may be required resulting from testimony or discussions at tonight's hearing on each application. The next agenda item seeks the approval of meeting minutes for the 04/13/2026 regular meeting of the Planning Commission.

Is there any member of the commissioners speak on that first, or or do we go to the public first? On the meeting? The minutes.

I think the minutes are just a commission.

Just a

commissioner item. So let's are there any commissioner comments on the minutes? I have a question. Was Gopika Nayar here for the last meeting?

No, she was not. She has been on leave.

Okay. So she's listed on the minutes, isn't she not?

She should not be listed on the minutes for the last meeting.

Okay. I thought I thought I found her. Can we just double check that? I'm I have it open.

She She's listed as staff, but not present Okay. Or absent for that matter.

Okay. So we can just make sure clarify that she was not present. Any other comments on the meeting minutes?

Would you like me to make a motion?

Yes, please.

I would like to make a motion for approval of the April 13 meeting, the 2026 meeting minutes subject to the GOPICA modification. Did you have something to add?

We should take public comment before a motion is taken.

Okay. Is there any public comment on the minutes? Thank you.

I'd like to reinstate the motion.

Thank you. I'll second.

I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Pattin? Here. This is a motion to approve the minutes.

So she was not here.

I was not here.

So you can abstain.

Yeah. So in that case

You would abstain.

We would well, we still have a quorum. That's correct. Okay. So abstain. Commissioner Roland? Aye. And Commissioner Bieselink?

Yes. Aye.

And Commissioner Cooper?

Aye. Thank you.

Okay. The next item is to approval of the consent calendar.

So we have one item that is suitable for the consent calendar. This is item number 61 Estates Drive.

Okay. I guess I should read a recital on that. I would like to propose the following applications be removed from the regular session calendar and placed on the consent calendar and approved under one motion of the commission. Unless an applicant or member of the public wish to a hearing to be held on one or more of the applications. After the list has been read, any member of the public may request that any application be removed from the consent calendar. A list of draft conditions of approval is available in staff reports for anyone who wish who would like to

see

them, and additional conditions may be added prior to approval of the consent calendar. Okay. So we do just mention that one item that is being proposed for the consent calendar, and that was 1 Estates Drive?

That's correct. Item number six on the agenda, 1 Estates Drive.

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

I have several speaker cards in for this item.

Okay. So what would the procedure be then? Because we've placed on a consent calendar, but is there any objection to the consent calendar? Would that be the next step on that one?

You should hear the public comment. If there are people that wish to address the commission on this item, they should be provided an opportunity.

Okay. Well, then this will be removed from the consent calendar. Before we proceed with the remainder of the agenda, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the procedures for the regular calendar of the agenda. All agenda items will be heard in the order in which they appear on the agenda. The commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions of staff when an agenda item is opened.

At the close of commissioner questions, we will open the public portion of the hearing to allow for speakers. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the commission. At the end of the three minutes, you will be asked to conclude your statements, the commission may ask the speaker some questions. Once all members of the public have had the opportunity to address the commission on a particular 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 be closed or remain closed. After the public comment period for an agenda item is closed, the commission will hold a discussion of the item. There's a ten day appeal period during which any interested party can file an appeal of any action of the Planning Commission. For any item acted on tonight by the commission, the appeal must be filed with the city clerk by 5PM on 05/21/2026. The next item on the agenda is agenda item number three, an informational report on permit applications received and approved by staff.

Thank you, Chair Roland. For the month of April, the city received 28 planning applications. 14 of those were expedited design review, four were director design review for ADU applications and no junior ADU applications, among others. Of those, the expedited design review of 10 of the 14 were approved, three of the four director design review were approved, and none of the four ADUs have yet been approved. We also approved two fence and wall design reviews that were submitted previous to the month of April.

In terms of building permits, 92 applications were received, 63 were approved, the rest in process. Those were all conventional electrical, plumbing, mechanical types of sewer type of building permits. I'd be happy to attempt to answer any questions if you have some. Are there any questions? Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome.

And an opportunity for the public to weigh in on that.

As on every agenda item, yes.

Do we have any members of the public who would wish to speak on this item?

I have no hands raised at this time.

I have no speaker cards.

Thank you. Agenda item number four, study session on housing element programs, including but not limited to lot mergers, on and off-site improvements, subdivision standards, and inclusionary ordinance.

Thank you, chair Roland. I'd like to begin by introducing Andrew Hill with the consulting firm of Diabatia. He will make a presentation and then turn it over to staff.

Thank you, Jeff, and good evening, commissioners.

Bear with us for a moment. Thank you.

Thank you for your patience, commissioners. We are experiencing some technical difficulties with our Zoom account. Nicole is working on it and we are trying to get access right now. Thank you.

Aren't things supposed to just run smoothly all the time?

Especially with the technology.

Oh, of course. No technical difficulties.

It's my first planning commission meeting in Piedmont. So no, it's not supposed to run smoothly.

Oh, you're responsible. Yes, sir.

Great.

Are we ready to go?

I think so. Yeah. Yes. So if you go to the next slide, please.

Will you please introduce yourself?

Yes, absolutely. My name is Andrew Hill and I'm Daitan Batya. We're the planning and design firm that's assisting the city with the expanding housing options initiative. Can you go to the next slide please? There we are.

So the main focus of the study session tonight is on incentives for lot mergers and consolidation. This is the final module of content in the expanding housing options initiative, which involves studying potential zoning and subdivision amendments to help expand options and address affordability for people of all incomes in Piedmont. Secondarily, we also have a look at the inclusionary zoning program of a review of what had previously been presented at a prior study session. So next slide please. So the housing element identifies several commercial properties including on Grand Avenue and Highland Avenue as potential opportunities for mixed use and multifamily development.

The size of these parcels is generally quite small, less than half an acre in size. And additionally ownership is split between multiple entities which poses challenges for coordinated redevelopment and also for financial feasibility. And so the housing element includes program 1L, which commits the city to identifying zoning incentives which could encourage the consolidation of small adjacent commercial lots. Next slide please. The objectives of the study session tonight are to present some potential lot consolidation incentives for small adjacent commercial lots based on some site specific analysis of sites in Piedmont and the experience of other peer communities.

And then secondarily, to receive feedback from the commission that can inform future zoning amendments. Next slide, please. And the next slide. So we started by conducting some architectural test fits. Next slide please.

I think there's simply a lag.

Okay.

It's showing up on my screen.

Oh,

here we are. Here we are. So we started by conducting some architectural test fits on two sites to evaluate the feasibility of multi family and mixed use development. We used the city's recently adopted Piedmont objective standards and we looked at two clusters of three small adjacent commercial properties. One cluster on Highland and another cluster on Grand.

The results of the architectural test fit show some clear advantages for consolidation. For example, developing each cluster as a single site, so consolidating the adjacent lots, makes it easier to fit the required number of parking spaces on the site while still allowing for ground floor uses. And secondly, it increases the total net developable area by eliminating internal setbacks between the merged parcels and also by reducing the need for redundant staircases and lobbies. And the result of that is that it yields larger floor plates which can better accommodate family sized units which is required as part of the Piedmont code. Next slide.

So numerous communities in California offer incentives for lot consolidation. And we looked at several of these which offer lessons potentially for Piedmont. The first is in Concord and the city of Concord offers three types of incentive. They offered expedited permitting. So for smaller projects, they commit to processing the permits within ninety days and for larger projects within one hundred and eighty days.

They also offer a local density bonus. So this is 3% density bonus on top of any state density bonus that the project may qualify for. And then thirdly, they offer reductions reduced parking standards and they offer two types of that. First is a 10% reduction in the total number of on-site spaces to be provided. And this is only for projects that don't qualify for state density bonus.

And then the second type of parking reduction that they offer is an increase in the share of the required spaces that are built to compact dimensions, smaller dimensions. Now in Piedmont, the maximum permitted density in zones C and D is already 81 dwelling units per acre. And then there's a state density bonus on top of that for qualifying projects. And so a local density bonus may not offer much more of an incentive. However, the parking reductions could make sense in Piedmont because of the proximity of the sites for example on Grand and on Highland to transit, to shops, and to services.

And so, one option for the city to consider is to increase the share of on-site parking spaces that can be built to compact standards. Currently in the code, it's 25%, but that could be increased to 35 if two lots are merged or maybe up to 50% if three or more lots are merged. And just for reference, the standard size of parking space is nine feet by 20 feet. And according to the Piedmont code, the compact spaces are 7.5 feet by 16 feet. And so, when we're on the test sites that we looked at for example, there's about 60 required parking spaces.

So that would be about 12, allowing 50% of them to be built to compact standards would be essentially providing a 12.5% reduction in parking. And again, this would be in locations that are well served by transit and close to shops and services. So, it could be an option for Piedmont to consider. Next slide please. Great.

So, we also looked at the city of Saratoga They offer similar incentives for lot consolidation, a combination of local density bonus and reduced parking standards. What's interesting about Saratoga is they offer them on a sliding scale based on the number of parcels consolidated. So if a project is proposing to consolidate two or three parcels then in Saratoga they have the choice of either a 10% local density bonus or a 20% reduction in the number of spaces provided on-site. Or for projects that consolidate four or more lots, have a choice of a 15% local density bonus or a 20% reduction in the number of parking spaces. I think what's interesting about the Saratoga approach is the sliding scale, which is meant to incentivize the consolidation of more lots.

That's I think what might be interesting for Piedmont to consider. And then finally, we also looked at the city of Oakland. And they take an interesting approach that Piedmont may want to consider. They allow for the development of a single project across multiple contiguous parcels that are owned by different entities. And a common knock on lot consolidation incentives is that they can pit one owner against another.

So for example, if the owner approached to sell sees that the development potential of the site is increased with the consolidation incentives, they might hold out for a higher sales price and that results in a deadlock and nothing happens. And so, the approach that Oakland has taken is tries to get around that pitfall. It requires that all participating owners enter into a legal agreement for consolidated control of the site. And if they have that sort of joint venture, then they can proceed. And so adopting this approach provides some additional flexibility and may enable the development of adjacent parcels that might not otherwise develop.

So it's another option for Piedmont to consider. Next slide please. What I want to say is that we're happy to take any I'm happy to take any questions you might have on this content. And then after we've taken your questions and heard from public comment, I have some specific questions that I'd like your input on with respect to these incentives. And they're on the next slide.

Here we are. And so the first question is should any of the following incentives be offered? Should the city offer a local density bonus? Again, this would be over and above any state density bonus that the project might be entitled to. Should the city offer a reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces?

Should the city increase the share of compact parking spaces that are permitted? And should the city allow for include provisions for development of a unified project across multiple adjacent sites under disparate ownership? And then the second question is, should any of these incentives that you would recommend moving forward with, should they be offered on a sliding scale with a greater incentive offered where more than two lots are consolidated? And my final question for you is, should the incentives be tied to affordability? Meaning, should the incentives only be available if the project makes a commitment to make at least a portion of the units available to households to lower income households or should the incentives be available even if the project is proposed on consolidated lots that would only offer market rate units.

So that's the tenor of the feedback that we're looking for. And again, I'm happy to answer any questions now before we get to the discussion.

Are there any commissioner questions?

Starting with the last point first about the Oakland example. I'm curious about that requirement to enter into some kind of joint venture entity agreement because I don't did they have some kind of specific experience where a project failed because the owners disagreed or what happened there?

So I should say it's not only the City of Oakland has done it. It's not an uncommon approach, but it's just a requirement. Basically the city would be asking for legal proof that the of a joint venture essentially, right? That all the parties involved have the ability the authority to develop to speak as a proponent. I think it just simplifies things. Think it could get complicated and messy otherwise.

So you might have one applicant as opposed to multiple applying together? Exactly. Okay.

That's probably what it would look like. They would probably come up with a corporate name or a joint venture name.

Now has experience shown that to be successful?

It has, yeah. Again, it's not offered everywhere. It's not a requirement. It's just it provides another flexible option to allow. And as I say, it gets past this common pitfall where owners end up haggling over a price and not arriving at an agreement and then the lots just sit undeveloped.

Since these are, you know, very specific lots, they're not that many, You know, offering the sliding scale, you know, how many the what's the maximum of adjacent lots that are there are? Meaning, if we give that sliding scale, are there are we seeing any advantages? Right? Does it make sense to offer that since really there are only a handful?

Right. That's a good question. I think it's most applicable on Grand Avenue where there's as many as four or five. Pierce, do you know off the top of my mind? Oh, nine. Is it? Okay. So that's that's more significant. Up on Highland, it's not, you know, it's only a two. So it's really applicable on grant.

Right. So it would be relevant in that case in particular?

Yeah.

Or grant? Okay.

That's a great question, commissioner Zukin. They it would also apply to the multifamily zone properties that are on Oakland Avenue and Linda, kind of near Grant as well. And there there are another dozen or so properties there.

Okay. So that might be relevant there. Okay. And and also, like, for the reduction of on-site parking, has there been any studies showing, like, you know, the advantages, like, the pros and cons for each? Whether if we provided the that incentive, right, that they they go only for the compact, What does that yield and is there any drop? So that, you know, we can make some decisions based on some studies rather than

Right. I think it's I think it's pretty locally dependent. I work in Southern California, for example, in the Inland Empire where everyone drives SUVs and trucks. And so compact spaces just don't make any sense there. But especially on Grand Avenue where it is, I think a lot of people, if they are going to have a car, it's probably going to be a more compact car. And so I think it does make more sense in this context.

I think it will be good to kind of include that kind of information information when the decision comes, right, when we are offered the choice so that it kind of there's something to back up.

I think we can maybe work with staff and figure out if people have made applications for an increased number of compact spaces in the past, for example, on projects in Piedmont.

Just on that same point, I mean, the example lots you provided in the slide show, I mean, we're talking right across the street. I mean, it's know, the Mulberry's kind of corner. And I you know, just, you know, public comment, I could just imagine, you know, people not being enthusiastic about having reduced parking and more people living right here in downtown because even on Friday when we went to go tour housing, I had to park up on Craig because there's just no parking in the middle of the day. So I'm just as far as these, like, particular lots are concerned and down on Grand, I mean, they're also similarly limited parking. So I'm wondering if we have any kind of understanding of the impacts of reducing parking for proposed projects or having reduced parking for proposed projects.

Yeah. I think to the extent that any project is already proposing affordable units, they through state law are getting a reduced parking requirement, right? And so that's why in the presentation I was trying to distinguish reduction in the number of spaces provided and reduction in the size of spaces provided because providing an increased share of smaller compact spaces is a more efficient use of space. And so that is and when you think of it, if on the upper end of this hypothetical scale of 50% allowing up to 50% of the spaces provided to be compact, It is about a 1212.5% reduction in the total number of spaces, which is a significant cost savings and it also provides a lot of design flexibility. So I think the size is a particularly impactful, meaningful incentive in Piedmont.

So another question about the incentive that would be tied to affordability. You know, I think also it will be useful to kind of understand how, like, you know, again, we are talking about very select numbers of lots. How would what's the impact? Like if we

I'm sorry, Commissioner Zurchin, this is not about affordability. It's about incentives for property owners to merge their properties together.

So what do we mean by then this question?

Yeah, I think the idea would be to what I was suggesting with this last question is any of these incentives provided, would you want to make them only available to projects that offer affordable units? So theoretically they could be available to any project, right? Even if it doesn't include affordable units. But I go back to the original goals of the housing element, which were to try and increase a share of affordable units. And so it's a trade off, right?

Maybe it's difficult to develop any of these lots unless consolidation is provided. And so maybe you think that some housing is better than no housing and you want to offer it for any type of project. Or maybe you think that these incentives are really best used to incentivize affordable housing, in which case we would make any or all of the incentives that you recommend tied to a commitment to affordability?

This might be a staff question, but when we're making a decision to favor essentially favor affordable housing construction, I mean, how does that meet with the policies of the housing element? I mean, do we you know, are are these tools we need to employ as opposed to, you know, we just we would prefer it because it's a a policy goal?

The the housing element program, it's actually one I, It does not specify what type of incentives, like, whether the incentives for lot mergers should be combined with incentives for affordable housing. It really speaks most mainly to the problem of how small the lots are in Piedmont.

It could also offer a suggestion. We would go back to our idea of a sliding scale, maybe a project that offers affordability, it gets more incentive on a sliding scale. That would be another option for you all to consider. I think that the challenge is, as you know, you look at the numbers in particular Piedmont's allocation of extremely low or very low income units is very high. And the low income units are also a challenge to get. And so the more incentives for the affordability, I think the more the better it supports your overall RINA objectives. So that's where the idea is coming from.

Any more commissioner questions?

Can you talk one more time just about the additional density bonus above and do we have examples of that and actual developers taking advantage of that?

Yes. And so that is a it's an option that a number of communities throughout the state have offered. Typically, there's there's as I say, in Piedmont, the maximum density permitted in zones C and D is already 81 dwelling units per acre. And then if a project comes in and makes use of state density bonus depending on the level of affordability, it gets up quite high. And so in other communities where maybe the base zoning is only 30 dwelling units per acre or 24 dwelling units per acre, then you know a local density bonus stacked on top of state density bonus is actually an incentive.

But here in Piedmont because the maximum permitted in the base zoning is already quite high. And then you know, the density bonuses in percentages on top of that, you get up pretty fast into quite a high number. And so offering an additional 3% or 5% or 10% might not be that much of an incentive. So what I'm saying is other communities have used a local density bonus for a targeted, for example, I worked in the city of Monterrey, I helped them with their housing element. They needed particular incentives to incentivize moderate income units.

And so they use the local density bonus specifically to incentivize that part of their arena that was challenging for them. And so communities can use that local density bonus strategically. It's just that in the Piedmont context because the base, you know, the maximum It's already high, right. I'm not sure how much of an incentive it would be.

Did you have more to add? Okay. Thank you. Do we have any members of the public who would like to speak on this item?

I have

no hands raised at this time.

We do have a second part to the presentation.

We do? Yes. Oh, you have a second part to your presentation?

I'll I'll take the baton here. Oh. So the second part of your staff report talked about inclusionary zoning. And what you have in your staff report is some rough draft first draft language for potential requirements and exclusions for inclusionary zoning. The way this works is basically as a development project comes to you, a certain percentage of those units would be required to be affordable at various different levels depending on ordinance that would be adopted by the city.

So we wanted to provide you an opportunity in your staff report to look at this first draft. We do intend to have a study session with City Council next week. That's our expectation. So any initial reactions that you have as commissioners would help inform that City Council discussion. Of course, we'd be coming back to you later on as we better more in-depth develop the program.

But basically, standard that was established in the housing element as a program objective is 15% of the new housing units would be made affordable for a period of fifty five years. And that's pretty standard, I would say, within communities in this in the East Bay to my knowledge. Some cities have a different mix of the levels of affordability within that 15%. And different communities have different periods of time of which the units must be remain affordable, everything from fifty five years to perpetuity. So again, there's some information in your staff report.

If you have any reactions to that or you have any questions, be happy to help facilitate the provide answers or help facilitate bringing answers back to you at a future meeting.

So I had one concern. One of the objectives early on in the report was to basically have affordable housing intermixed with market rate housing throughout the city. One of the incentives is, I forget what it's called, it's not in front of me, but basically lot swaps where you build just market affordable housing, but you provide a lot someplace else. And it seems like that would risk having concentrations of everything in this area is a market rate and everything over there is affordable housing. So I think it goes against some

of our objectives. I would echo Commissioner Huber. That was the same thing that stood out to me. And I think that it's actually two separate alternatives, like the off-site construction alternative and also land dedication. There doesn't appear to be anything in either of those alternatives that says there has to be a mixture of housing types like within affordable, low income, that dedication or within that off-site construction. So that would allow some kind of circumvention of the policy, if you will.

Right. That's thank you. I'd be happy to incorporate that into the further consideration. I understand the question. Yes. Any any other?

I'm going share the same concern.

Okay. Otherwise, looks promising. Yes. Everything else looks promising.

Okay. Great. Well, it would be then, I think, returning to public comment would be appropriate at this time. And Thank any other further discussion would be great.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this subject?

I have no speaker cards.

You have no hand raised at this time.

I think he does.

We have a late submission.

I apologize.

We now have one speaker card.

Thank you.

In the Auckland Hills, because the streets are very narrow subject to fires very large vehicles will not be able to pass through. They go out of their way in the city of Auckland to incentivize more and more on-site parking, okay? To this extent, they say, if you have four cars in parallel, you can also have two cars blocking those two cars the other way. One, two, three, four this way and two this way. Okay? So two questions.

Well, is this this is for you to speak, believe, not ask questions, right?

That's that if if there's at the end of the public comment, if there's a something we could respond to, I'd be happy to, but it's not a interactive. Right.

Okay. So I bring it up.

Thank you. It. Any other speakers?

I have no more speaker cards.

Okay. We will close the public.

Nicole, do we have any hands raised online?

No. I have no speakers at this time.

Okay. We'll close the public comment portion of this agenda item. Are there and proceed to any commissioner discussion. Is there any?

I don't know if it's worthwhile to address the question. The

inclusionary housing standards in themselves don't have any implication on parking. There certainly can be parking discussions, but this would the parking standards would be determined by the basic zoning parameters irrespective of what the commission and council ultimately decide on with respect to the percentage of affordable housing or the levels of affordable housing or whether how they're consolidated.

So back to the lot mergers. As was mentioned, Piedmont has a substantial challenge with affordable housing. So one of the questions was should the incentives be tied to affordable housing? And if you take both issues together, they should be tied to affordable housing because that's part of the goal.

Thank you.

Any other commissioner comments? You're back at the podium. You have something additional? No, I'm

just hearing it if I was if it would be helpful, but

Okay. Then we conclude this agenda item. Thank you. We now move to Agenda Item five, a variance and design review permit for 66 Manor Drive. We have a recusal.

I will see you guys later. Thank you.

Do we have speakers for this item?

I have no speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

I apologize. I didn't realize I was supposed to fill out a speaker card. Am may it please the commission. I am James High. With me for moral support because my job does not entail public speaking is my wife, Elizabeth MacDonald. Welcome. Thank you. We are the owners, residents and applicants for Agenda Item five. In brief, the house was built in 1915. The garage was built around 1922.

I would like to think that the standards for safety have changed a little bit in the over one hundred years since it has been there. One of the first things our children did when we bought this house was run up on the garage roof and hang out there, and we do we have spent a lot of time there over the years, eating pizza, growing vegetables, putting up holiday decorations. So we are just trying to make the garage roof conform to the safety standards for the way that it's been used ever since we've been there. I did not see any response to the request for public comments. On the staff report, all the conditions of approval seemed straightforward and standard.

A lot of them, I don't expect would come into play. Downward facing lights are already there. A landscape plan, if we change any landscaping incidental to any construction, we would probably just put it back the way it was. We're not planning on rebuilding the garage, so we certainly can pothole for the sewer if we do, but that is that's not really within our planned budget for that. So I don't really have anything else that I feel like I need to tell you, but I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner questions? Thank you very much.

Thank Chair Roland, just a couple of points of information. We did receive letters of support for this application and there is a proposed new condition of approval that the plans be corrected before they're issued for building permit so that the parapet is shown symmetrical on both sides. I just wanted to make that point for the record.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this application?

I have no further speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

Okay. We will then close the public comment portion of this agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion. Commissioner Busenlik, would

you Well, like to open the I think it's a small and by the way, we visited the property on Friday. We met with Mr. High. I should fully disclose that I didn't recognize Mr. High when I was there, but their daughter is a scout in my scout troop for which I'm a scout master.

So, you know, full disclosure about relationships here, but I don't think that would affect my ability to decide fairly on this and comment about the design proposed and how it meets the standards and guidelines, which I think it does. I think it harmonizes the outdoor living space along with the existing features of the house. It doesn't propose like a very drastic change to the parapet. It actually improves safety for the property. They're going to be having some guardrails.

There is access to the roof of the garage already, which is, I would say, kind of a questionable I think the words attractive nuisance came to mind were spoken when we were at the property. But it's there's limited outdoor space. And as if we're talking about the variance itself, I'd say that there's limited ability to improve the outdoor space without going to the top of the garage. So I would be in favor of approving the variance, and I like the design. So it's consistent with the standards and guidelines as far as I can tell. Thank you.

I think it's a good project. It solves a lot of problems. It's something you happens with older homes. You get stuck with little problems. And I think they did a good job solving the safety problem. The house looks good. The new design isn't inconsistent with the existing style. So I think it's a good project and it's I'd approve it.

Thank you. And Commissioner Cooper?

Yes. I feel that it's a good use of the limited space on the property. And you mentioned you have two kids. They're probably running around all the time, and there's not a lot of space to run around. So I think this helps solve that problem. Also, I think it's I found that it's the project is consistent with the neighborhood. There are other roof outdoor spaces in the neighborhood, so it's consistent and consistent with our design standards.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I kind of agree with what has been said, and I agree with the applicant's findings. Although, I'm wondering how we ended up with with a font that is so small on here. Have you seen this? I agree with what they said, but it was hard to to to read it. Yes. And

Yeah. Read online and blow it up.

Yeah. Put the plus plus button. So there's

so on this one, the I I particularly agree with the idea of safety. Commissioner Bussolink took the words that came to my mind. Maybe independently, we all thought about attractive nuisance, but I was thinking about attractive nuisance even for an adult, you know, because it's such an attractive thing to just step out there. So you step up, but it's tricky and there's a there's a ledge. And so the the the whole project allows applicants to be able to use that space in a more organized way, an attractive way, a safe way that they're already using but in a makeshift way.

And they are doing something that others, including direct neighbors, are doing, which is to have some outdoor living in the form of an outdoor deck. So I also would favor approval of the project. Would anyone like to make the motion?

You can

do the next one. I'll do this one. I would like to make a motion. Okay. Okay.

I move for approval of the project at 66 Manor Drive, making the following findings. Project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15,301, Class 1E, existing facilities, because it is a minor change to an existing private residence, which is less than 50% of the floor area of the structure before the construction, and the project is consistent with general plan policies and programs with no exceptions as provided in the staff report. The variance from the street yard setback is approved because the project does comply with the variance criteria under section seventeen point seven zero point zero four zero a. A as follows. The property and existing improvements present unusual physical circumstances of the property, including the residence and garage age and existing locations, and the applicant has provided evidence demonstrating that the proposed location is the only feasible location for the deck on the lot so that strictly applying the terms of this chapter would keep the property from being used in the same manner as other conforming properties in the zone.

The project is compatible with the immediately surrounding neighborhood and the public welfare because the proposed deck is compatible with surrounding neighborhood and public welfare because it will be constructed above an existing garage in proximity to an existing deck, and neighboring properties have similar garage rooftop decks. Accomplishing the improvement without variance would cause a reasonable hardship in playing design or construction because to accomplish a deck in another location, the residence and garage must be demolished and reconstructed outside of the setback. As condition, the project is approved because it complies with the design review criteria under Section 17.66.060 as follows: The proposed design is consistent with the C's general plan Piedmont design standards and guidelines in that the following features are consistent with the original setting and neighborhood development, particularly the decking material and design and the railings material design location. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties, existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the pedestrian and vehicular circulation do not change.

As condition, the application complies with the following design standards and guidelines and general plan policies and programs. Chapter three, Site Design, Should I do each one? Or I think I should do each one? Yeah, do each one. Okay. 3.03, Site Development. Oh, that's going be hard. Should I do all of these? No. Okay.

Chapter four, building design, general and chapter five, building design, single family. And the project is consistent with general plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including the following policies, design and preservation policy 28.1, 28.2, 28.5, 28.6, 28.8, 29.2, and 29.8. The project is approved with the nine conditions of approval in the staff report and one additional condition that the drawings be updated to have mirror image parapet size?

The proposed condition of 10 would say prior to issuance of a building permit, the plan should be corrected to show that the sides of the parapet extensions are equal and symmetrical widths on each side.

Okay, thank you. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you.

I will take roll call. Commissioner Cooper.

Aye.

Commissioner Busalik. Aye. Commissioner Fudding.

Aye.

And Chair Rowland. Aye. Thank you. The motion passes.

Congratulations.

We now proceed.

Fortunately, the prior applicant motions, she was like, should we get him back? I was like, no. Oops. Changed my mind after she walked out. Yeah, we Welcome

again. We now then proceed to agenda item number six, fence, wall, and site feature permit 1 Estates Drive. Are there speakers on this

item? I

have received several speaker cards. First I have Matt Branagh.

Chair Roland, before the this item came up, the audience members who submitted speaker cards left the chambers and I checked with them and they said that because the item had been initially nominated for consent calendar, they were not going to stay and speak.

Yeah. Okay. That makes sense.

They are. I do have a hand raised from him on the Zoom side if you'd like to hear his comments.

Matt Branagh is the project applicant.

Sure.

Okay. Matt, you're able to speak now. Your time is three minute.

Thanks, everyone. I apologize. I think there was some confusion when we initially came in. We had a couple of the applicants and a couple of the supporting members of the community write speaker cards. I think as a result, that moved us to a hearing first being on the consent calendar. I'm available to to comment if you guys have any questions, but, you know, don't don't feel the need to do anything else. I I had stepped out with the rest of the group initially, and I think you should have some other speaker cards from Jen and April and Melly, and they were all part of the supporting team.

The only other speaker cards for this project I've received are from the names mentioned by Mr. Branagh.

Thank you. And Nicole?

I have no other hands raised at this time.

Thank you. And we will close the public comment for this agenda item and proceed to commissioner deliberation. Anyone wanna open up the discussion?

Sure. I think having been to the site, seeing the result of the new fence and seeing having seen the pictures of the previous fence. The new fence actually is a little bit shorter than the existing one. It kind of

We can't hear you. Can you speak into the microphone,

please? Okay. Sorry about that. So I was saying that I have seen the project and without belaboring the details, the new fence looks good, looks much nicer than the existing fence. It is robust. I think it serves the purpose for which it was installed, so I'm in full support for the project.

Thank you.

I agree. I think it's a great fence. It looks good, and it matches the fence on the other side. So I'm in favor

of it.

Thank you. Commissioner Riese?

Yes. Similarly, I have the same feeling about it. I think it is a well designed fence that meets the standards and guidelines. There's some variation in the height at the gate. They have an interesting design with a triangular shape. It's not just flat all the way across. Yes, it's a well designed fence. I support approval. Commissioner Cooper?

Yes. I agree with the comments. Also, I think it adds a safety element because that is a facility with a lot of children. And when children see chain link fences, they wanna climb them whether they need to or not. And the new fence is not climbable, at least not easily. So I'm in full support.

Can you speak into your microphone?

Okay. Sorry about that. Yes.

My comments were that the new fence also has a safety element because with the number high number of children at that facility, when children see a chain link fence, they want to climb it whether they want need to or not, and the new fence is not easily climbable. So I am in favor of the project.

I agree with Commissioner Cooper's points about the security. It is a school. The fence looks very robust and which is good for the security of the school. It is an attractive design compared to chain link, so I would support the project. Also, Commissioner Zeruchian, would you like to make the motion?

Before you make a motion, and I mentioned this to the Director and our Interim Director in the car on the drive around that it is interesting that the proposal kind of cited the other public schools in their fences. And as kind of examples of what a school fence should be. Interestingly, like some of the other school fences are chain link fences. But the public may not know that we don't necessarily have authority to enforce our city standards and guidelines as to the public school fences. So this is actually a much nicer fence than some of the fences of even our public schools.

So I just wanted to add that.

Thank you. Clearly nice. Commissioners are looking.

Here it goes. I move approval of the project at 1 Estates Drive making the following findings. Project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section fifteen three zero three class three e and is consistent with the general plan programs and policies with no exceptions as provided in the staff report. As condition, the project is approved because it complies with the design review criteria under section 17 dot 66 dot zero six zero as follows. The proposed design is consistent with the city's general plan and Piedmont design standards and guidelines in that the following building features are consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development.

The location of the fence, the location of the gate, the fence height, the fence material, the entry gate material, the entry gate design, and the entry gate height. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties, existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light because of the distance between the project and neighboring property homes is appropriate. There is no significant views blocked by the proposed fencing. The top 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 the pedestrians and motorists along Estates Drive and Park Boulevard. As condition, the application complies with the following design standards and guidelines and general plan policies and programs. Design review standards and guidelines chapter three site design 3.09 fences and walls. And the project is consistent with general plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element. Design and preservation policy 29.3, design preservation policy 29.5, and design and preservation policy 31.3.

The project is approved with the one condition of approval noted in the staff report.

That's the motion. Is there a second?

I second it.

We have a motion and a second.

Commissioner Cooper.

Aye.

Commissioner Bussolink. Aye. Commissioner Pudding. Aye. Commissioner, and I'm going to try to pronounce this correctly. Zorokian, thank you for your patience. And Chair Roland. Motion passes unanimously.

We now proceed to Agenda Item seven, fence wall and site feature permit. Okay. I have to recuse myself. Oh, okay.

We promised to come get you.

Yeah. We promised to come and get you. Okay.

So Tellow Avenue, Tyson, tract property owners, HOA land. Fence, wall and site feature permit.

I have one speaker card.

Thank you.

For Mark Lubin.

I'm just Good evening. For the record, I just would like to point out this is agenda item seven.

Good evening, commissioners. First, I wanna welcome mister Bond in city of Piedmont, and I wanna thank Pierce for all of her help. It's been it's been a lot. Lived forty five years in this town, and it's my first time here. So thank you for having me.

I am the owner of fifty Sotelo, and I appreciate the opportunity to address you here tonight. Our application is for design review of a proposed retaining wall and landslide remediation. Following a significant landslide that impacted our property in the adjacent area of the HOA, we engaged a licensed geotechnical and civil engineers to do a design and comprehensive solution. Our engineer of record, ETIC, has developed plans to address slope stabilization, drainage, and long term structural integrity in a manner consistent with all applicable codes and ordinances. The proposed retaining wall has been carefully cited and designed with the following objectives in mind.

Obviously, the first is slope stabilization. The wall will permanently address the landslide condition and prevent further erosion and property damage. Without this wall, fifty and fifty four properties will seemingly slip away into the lake. The wall location has been deliberately positioned downslope of the City Of Piedmont's existing main sewer line. This location is not incidental.

It is the only configuration that creates a necessary backfill area to allow the currently exposed City Of Piedmont sewer pipe to be properly covered with engineer fill. This location is critical to achieving a complete and reasonable and responsible remediation of the slide. This is a solution that benefits all parties. The wall serves the interest of all affected parties, the owners of 50, the owners that's us. The owners of 54 Satello, the Johnsons who I believe are in the queue here, and the Tyson Tract HOA, and the city of Piedmont.

So it's it's a solution it's the only solution that will solve everybody's issue with this landslide. It does not affect privacy access or direct or indirect light for any neighboring property. The wall is necessary for the homeowners to protect their properties from further erosion and equally necessary and maybe the only solution for the city to cover its currently exposed sewer pipe, which is currently exposed to UV degradation and the potential for further damage to the city's sewer pipe. Design has been developed by a licensed professional engineer and has undergone substantial technical review. We are committed to complying with all city requirements.

We've been working cooperatively with the city staff, thank you, Pierce, throughout this process and are committed to satisfying all permitting conditions. Again, this wall has minimal impact. The wall has been designed to minimize visual impact to the extent possible given the site conditions. It will not obstruct any views of the homeowners. Please know we've investigated significant time and resources to bring this application forward in good faith and are proposed to proceed with construction very promptly upon approval, which is critical given the ongoing instability of the the landslide and the exposed sewer pipe.

Your three minutes have elapsed. Please conclude your comments.

We respectfully request the commission's approval of this application. We're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Are there any commissioner questions?

Yes. When we visited the property, the story poles seemed to end several feet short of your property's line on the downhill side.

Right side?

As you're looking at it from your backyard, the right side.

Yeah.

And was that intentional? It seems like that would cause potential future problems.

So the sewer kind of jogs down. The the wall's stopping where the sewer line makes a left turn, and so we cannot build over the sewer line. And so we're we're kinda landlocked. There is in the plans land stabilization efforts with great I don't know how to explain it, but netting and grading that will help prevent slide there. But, yes, we are very aware.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

Any other questions?

So the design of the wall itself, is it the the one that is there's like shown here by Ethic?

Yes. Yeah.

So and, you know, and the piers that are being shown are in addition of the piers that have been placed right now for the support of the city sewer?

So we are we are we are proposing the city sewer runs down in a proposed new easement that the city is coming to us with. The piers are part of their pipe, so we can't build on top of their piers. We need to stay away from their piers. Understood. So we will be having new piers three feet from that. They'll be right in the middle of their five foot wide sewer easement that will probably be

Yeah. Because when we visited the sites, we saw those existing piers. So the proposed wall is gonna be three feet further away from those piers.

Correct. It's where the where the where the story pole is. So

Are are we showing this here? It's a little kind of a little bit difficult to read. So yeah. That yeah. And and so the wall just like you know, you're just showing a a wall. Right? So what happens at the ends of the wall? Are they just open? Right? You know, it's just is there a return? Like, you know, how are you treating? Like, the blue line, I'm assuming, is the wall?

The blue line is it's a straight wall as proposed. It goes up to 54 Satellas, you can see. Mhmm. They need their their bottom third, I think, of their house is is compromised from the slide. And so everybody needs the wall to kind of buttress their property. And and the only way the city is gonna get their pipe covered is by this wall being where it is. And I We can't return because of the sewer pipe. Sure.

Thank you. I I believe the question is trying to get to how the new wall will meet up with the existing walls on each side.

Thank

you. It it can't because the sewer pipe goes the way the sewer pipe runs, this wall is gonna fall the sewer pipe so that it buttresses the the the properties, and you can backfill over the sewer pipe. Otherwise, this pipe stays exposed.

So you're you're building a wall that is just standing wall, but then at the edges, it's like it's open. Right?

It's open. On on the on the ends of

it? It'll hit

the grid.

Miss Edwards, would you show the slide showing the elevation of the wall? So

it will hit the grid on the adjacent side. So it's

It ends with on the on the with the topography of the of the slide, if that makes sense.

Okay.

So there's a big mound. It's yeah.

Okay. Line The being the grade?

Mhmm.

The top dotted dotted line?

That's the land this is the landslide. Right? And the top of the wall hits the ends of the of this.

So the top of the wall is just a little bit above grade. Right? Right.

This is the grade of the land now. Right?

No. The the final grade is gonna be the ones that are on the edges. And the top of the wall is I can't read it, but it's probably six inches taller. Right? Or whatever. Or 12 inches?

Correct. They need to retain the soil. Right?

Yeah. Okay.

What what about the soil level in front of the wall? What where where is that? Where where where does the the grade, you know, below the wall hit the wall on this on this drawing?

That's the dotted line. This here. Right? That would you like it?

Mark, you wanna explain it? This is a question. Is there a drop on the other side?

The

I'm glad to explain it.

Yeah. Go

ahead. If

it's appropriate.

Yeah.

Yeah. And and Yeah.

This curved line is usually

Could you? I'm sorry. Who are you? Oh, I'm sorry. Introduce yourself?

My name is Mark Lubin. I'm the I'm a neighbor at 32 Sotelo, and I'm the president of the homeowners association on whose property the retaining wall will actually be constructed by the homeowners just onto the HOA property. And what you see in this elevation is the U shaped dotted line is the current grade of the slope at the wall. That's the area that has it used to go all the way to the top of what's shown here, but that's what slid away. So it's a u shaped gully that has been created.

The wall will be partially at the two ends will be mostly underground as the dotted line shows. It will maybe only be about a foot above grade at the very end or less at the two ends. And but the contour the current contour of the swale that's been created here will curve down and then back up again. And so that dotted line is the soil level at the wall itself.

And that's the proposed grade in front Right. In front of the wall Yes. After

That's to be the finished product is everything above that dotted line will be visible. Everything below that dotted line will be

buried. So that dotted line is where the finished grade will be. From that point, the soil will will slope towards you from the screen out?

No. This will be the the dot the curved dotted line that is being indicated there is going to be the finished grade of the of the swell.

That's for the top of wall.

This this line is not finished grade?

Commissioner Zerukin, if you could speak into your microphone. The

current soil grade is approximately what is being shown now. There's going to be some movement of soil back up

the

hill to raise the level of the soil to this grade that you that is being shown here. There is some soil that needs to be moved up in order to accomplish this much coverage of the wall. Okay. But everything above and so that is the finished grade.

Okay. So is there a section that shows how, you know, I think a section would show that. Right? Can we see a section through there? Because my my concern is that the water that's coming from uphill going all the way down, it will hit this wall. Then it, like, you know, it will bring soil and other

So the

like, you know, stuff. And then they're gonna go on the sides. Because there anything that So

there's there yes.

Yeah. So there's drainage all in front of this wall. The whole hills drains in front of this wall, and there's dispersion outlets that are were planned in they're in the plans. That that there's a dispersion outlet that that is it's been engineered to disperse the water below the below the the

lower level.

Below the water.

What is the surface? Like, you know, when there's heavy rains, water is just coming down. Is there any water patterns that have been studied?

We've had we've had soils engineer. We've had that we've had all the geotechnical done. Though this wall is is engineered to drain and engineered to drain below the wall and into the hillside and eventually into the lake. Okay.

So so on the side that that of the wall that faces the house Yeah. Is that where the soil is like this? Or is it on the other side? No.

It's on the other side.

So on the side that faces the house, the soil is at this level, which is about a foot below the top? Yes. Correct. Okay. And so then when you are at that spot on the side of the house, on the other side, there's a drop. You're right, correct. How far is that drop?

It's I to my understanding, it's about eight feet, the drop is gonna be.

So is there any thought about any kind of hazard of a drop like that suddenly showing up on the other side of the wall where it might be appropriate to have some fencing?

We we we will absolutely, we want a railing on top of that on top of that. A 100%.

There will

be a railing?

There will 100%.

It's not showing anywhere here.

Correct. I don't believe it's showing.

So that would be something that we would like

to see before Commissioner? The As

stated in the staff report, a railing or lighting on this area, we would review at staff level design review.

So we need to make that as a condition because I had the same thought. Yeah. Condition of approval would be that railing be installed.

Yes. I mean we're not in comment period yet, so I'm going to try to frame this as a question, really. But have you given because there's an eight foot tall based on that line and that slope and and there's no proposal to kind of push push up more dirt to reduce the

There is no dirt. All the dirt has washed into the lake.

Right. But no new dirt. Let's put it like that.

There's no So there's no way to retain the dirt? Okay. That's the other problem. It's sub like, we're gonna grade we're gonna do the best we can to grade as much as we can

Yeah.

Behind the wall, downslope, but there's it's like building a mountain. You can't there's no the dirt's all in the lake now.

So Okay. But, again, it's we're not ready for comment yet. So I'm going to ask this. Have you considered any kind of tiered lower wall retaining wall in front of that so that there's not such a eight foot drop in front to get

that. So I mean, this was studied by soils engineer. This would like, this wall was designed by a bunch of engineers who tried to figure out the best way to stabilize all the properties. We're looking at a $400,000 wall here, and and trying to build a tiered up is is not economically feasible.

Okay. So that that leads to my second question, you know, because you because you made a statement about, you know, this is the only way to the only way to provide for the fill based on the design of this wall. Is adding a tier like just infeasible for any reason. It sounds sounds like you're alluding

to that. So I I've taken on the the cost to to to build this wall, which benefits the city, benefits, you know, all the neighbors involved, and what is attractive and and fix the know, tries to keep with the HOAs, you know, like Tyson, the statics of the Lake Tyson. And I I think for everybody's sake, this is the everybody's agreed to the solution, and I think it's the most reasonable solution. And, again, without rebuilding Lake Tyson, this is this is what's on the table.

Yeah. Another question. Another question. You know, when you look at the property next door or it's it's a beautiful area. Mhmm. It's very nice. What you're showing here is, like, an engineered wall. Right? Probably, the wall is you need to support it. Have you looked at it from a landscaping perspective, like a land from a landscape architect or somebody to make it look nice? Because the area is gorgeous. Right? There's nowhere else in pre in Piedmont

Yeah. That you

have such a beautiful setting. Are there any thoughts about making this beautiful?

Yeah. We we we're gonna try and hide it. We're gonna put vines on the wall and some trees in front of it. We we have all all intent to make it part of the Lake Tyson beauty. Mhmm. This is my backyard, We we want to look part and natural.

Is that part of the conditions of approval?

Yes. The condition of approval six is the requirement that the applicant provide a final landscape plan prior to issuance of a building permit.

And that would be approved by up on the staff level?

Reviewed by staff, yes. And that could include railings, guardrails, and lighting as well.

Okay.

Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Chair Roland, before you wrap up your questions, I did want to let you know that our public works director, Daniel Gonzalez, is available online if there are any questions.

Okay. Thank you.

I have a hand raised.

Please proceed.

Lisa, you are available to talk. You're, you have three minutes.

I'm just the I'm with ETIC. I was just available if there were any further engineering questions. Sorry. I was trying to figure out how to let you guys know I was available when you were asking questions earlier.

Thank you.

And, you know, since you are with TIC, the you prepared these documents. I see on the plans that a a a mark that says there's a section a a, but I couldn't find it on the drawings. Is there a section that shows a profile of the, like, the terrain?

Yeah. Is there not a figure six? It might be in the plants that that was submitted for the building application, but not the design review.

Okay. Yeah. And that's why probably most of my questions would have been answered if I was able to see that section. Yeah.

Because was the question about the grade at the front of the wall. Part of that with the, you know, the the significant drop off and needing to have the rail, it was to keep the slope below the wall at you know, within the the city's design limits. If we bring that up higher, we either would need to have a very steep slope or have to put in a whole second wall, which mister Rubenstein or the HOA would then, you know, have to pay for. So we felt cost wise, it made more sense to have the railing and use landscaping to sort of hide the wall.

Okay. Yeah. It it would be useful to cost effective. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any more members of

Some of it also, it is very limited access for construction because I I don't know when you guys visited, if you went through, you know, the side yard, but that's the only access for equipment. So we are a little limited on, you know, bringing dirt in, doing drilling, all of that.

No. That's all understandable. Thank you for your answers. But, you know, we were just trying to understand.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak on this subject?

I have no further speaker cards.

I have no more hands raised at this time.

Thank you. We will now close the public comment portion of this agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion. We'd like to open the discussion.

Sure. I can you know, I think it's quite complex. It's a definitely, it's a challenging situation, and I'll have to speak in the mic. Thank you. So now definitely, we we when we visited the site, we saw the challenges that this situation has created. And definitely, the engineered solution is something that, know, we will rely on the expertise of your engineers. I think maybe what you alluded was a wall is the only solution there. Right? You know? Maybe there are a couple of ways to make to create a wall.

You know? From what we see, you definitely need a wall there. So we will kind of trust your designers to kind of complete. Right? This is a very preliminary study probably. So we'd like you know, I guess at some point, the staff will have to look at the landscaping, the railing, the lighting. Again, it's for the benefit of everyone there that you have a pretty nice and safe area. Some of the stair will have to be fixed, and you have some drawings for that. So otherwise, I don't think we have any other comments.

Thank you. Commissioner Zeroukian? Commissioner Bussolik?

Yeah. I wanna say that I appreciate that you need to do you need to get this done. You see what happened when you don't have the retaining wall there or maybe there was an insufficient one before. And definitely can appreciate the cost and investment that has to be made in something like this. Before I don't want to be around bush, I'm in support of the project.

I was a little concerned about the height of it, lacking the specific proposal about landscaping or guardrails and things like that. But since we're tasked with design review, not necessarily engineering review, our standard is the design standards and guidelines that the city has adopted, which talk about how heights in excess of six feet should be avoided whenever possible. New retaining walls close to the rear property line should be stepped or terraced, none to be more than four feet, unless physical limitations on-site or structural engineering conditions do not make terracing feasible. I just considering where this is on your property and the fact that you're going to mitigate the kind of design impact, the visual impact, the rest of Tyson Lake through landscaping and kind of trying to beautify it that way. I think you've demonstrated that you're doing best efforts for that and satisfying the design guideline.

So I would be in support of the project. Thank you.

Commissioner Cooper?

Yes. I've dealt with retaining walls before. They can provide extreme challenges. And looking through the designs and your commentary, think you've met those challenges. I think it is as everyone has said, it is needed. I think the design looks good, not visually looking good, but it's adequately drained, sufficient hopefully sufficient to hold up the rest of the soil. I'm in favor of the project.

Thank you. I appreciate the discussion about the work would be would proceed very promptly upon approval. And we have seen more than one landslide behind the homes over there. And if you follow anything about the weather, we have some El Nino coming up. And when you study that, the thing that they're saying most predictably is that there's likely to be a lot more rain.

And so you want to get this done before then. My concern was the safety of the drop off in height, All of those other design features that you're talking about have to do with function, and the function is the most important thing here on this retaining wall. So I also would favor the project and I would favor it also for the benefit of allowing the homeowner and the association to get going on this right away before additional risks are incurred. I favor it wholeheartedly. So I'm going to make the motion.

I move the approval of the project making the following findings. The project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15.303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, because the structure consists of the construction of an accessory or a pertinent structure, retaining wall and existing general plan programs and policies are sufficient to address the retaining wall construction with no exceptions as provided by the staff report. And when I say no exceptions as provided by the staff report, that doesn't address any additional requirements that we would add on here.

It addresses exceptions to the exemption specifically. There are no exceptions to that exemption identified in the staff report.

Very good. Thank you. As condition, the project is approved because it complies with the design review criteria under Section 17.66.06 as follows. The proposed design is consistent with the city's general plan and Piedmont design standards and guidelines in that the following features are consistent with the original setting and neighborhood development: the retaining wall, material and design the retaining wall height, location and landscaping as conditioned. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties' existing views, privacy and access to direct and indirect light.

Because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate, the view is not a significant view. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the project stabilizes the hillside, therefore thereby improving on-site safety conditions, vehicular circulation does not change. As conditioned, the application complies with the following design standards and guidelines and general plan policies and programs. Chapter three, site design, site development 3.03.01-one all the way to 3.08.02-three. And the project is consistent with general plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element and design and preservation element.

Natural Resources and Sustainability Policy 13.2% erosion control design and preservation policy 8.1% design and preservation policy 28.2% design and preservation policy 28.6 twenty nine point two percent 29.6 The project is approved with six conditions of approval. Did we add anything additional as a condition of approval?

Staff has noted that the final landscape plan will include staff review of any railings, guardrails and exterior lighting.

Thank you.

Condition of approval six, the final landscape plan. Staff has made a note that that's how we'll amend condition of approval six.

Perfect. Thank you.

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

Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Zarkian?

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Bislick? Aye. And chair Roland? Aye. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Chair Rowland, we'd like to request a break. We've lost our staff person and we're very short staffed today. So we would suggest that this would be a good time to do the short recess for the commissioners.

Thank you. We will take a brief recess at this time.

All set? Yeah.

We now reconvene. And we proceed next to a variance and design review permit for 115 Saint James Drive. Are there speakers?

I have one speaker card for Suzy Stroebue and David Coe.

Hi. Thank you for allowing us to present this.

And for the record, please identify yourselves. My My name is David Cole.

And I'm Susie Struble.

Welcome. Thank you.

So this is part of a project to replace the entrance to our house. I guess you guys were out there on Friday, so you saw so the house was 1944 and the entrance is like brick on grade and I think the bricks were kind of cemented together at one time. And then we had a big tree, an oak tree that came down and kind of ripped up part of the walkway. It was never that great. But we've looked at different solutions and there's no simple solution.

It has to be a rather elaborate solution with peers and things like that. I know that's not really up for the review, but I just want to explain the context of this. So we're going to have the peers. I do metal work, I do architectural details for like Stanford and the City of San Francisco. So this is going to be a project.

Went to Cranbrook, working artist.

This is going to be so I'm going do the metal work, obviously the concrete and stuff will be engineered. But the idea is to create something that doesn't look like just a horrendous kind of blight on if we're going to do it out of wood, we're really worried about the safety because it would be slick. There's a lot of moisture, the condensation every morning. If we did it out of concrete, it would just be a tremendous amount of concrete that we would have to pour and there's just no way to kind of integrate it into the hillside. So the idea is that we're going to have concrete piers that will be at grade and then there'll be steel grate kind of stairs with a very like fine kind of pitch grade that will allow you'll see kind of light and I think it will blend into the landscape.

So we're excited about that. The variance I think is for the fact that our property really tapers at the top and we have less road frontage than I think we are required to by code. So I don't know how we'd get around that. You see that the way it is right now when you park the car, the stairs start right away. So the plan is to have a kind of landing so that someone can open the door and not get caught on the stairs. Thoughts?

That's it. Part of that is around safety. It's very dangerous right now to get out of the car, the stairs start right away. And just want to say from a design review perspective, these are going to be gorgeous. This is going to be float as if you're kind of floating boardwalk going down is the intent of it with the lighting landscaping around. So my hope is to have a little Buckeye micro forest there, so it will all be native plantings, my dream. That's it. Thank you for considering.

I know there is also a question about the fact that the Piedmont sewage pipe goes right under our house. I mean, we'll do whatever we need to to comply with, whatever the city engineer wants.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, before you go, are there any, questions, commission?

So did you you I like the design of the stairway. It's very attractive. Did you consider, though, starting off the driveway so you were not building a stairway in the 20 foot setback?

That's interesting. I know the driveway, it's not that deep, right? It's just about one car length. So if we park I know sometimes if we park there, you wouldn't be able to get by. Does that make sense? Because the So car is I think that was the intent. And it would be like a more like formal entrance because also the driveway, you'd be 20 foot back, so then you'd be even higher with less

Yes, you have to do more got it, sorry.

More stairs, yes. And we already have the jog and stuff to try to break it down, so it's not just like a continuous thing.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Other My

question was more regarding the great you mentioned great. Yes. So again, I'm sure if you work with metal, you probably are very familiar. My concern is like for you're gonna have guests. You're gonna have people with high yields maybe. Yeah. And so you're looking so you're probably what is your consideration for that?

We went to several manufacturers, got all the samples. And basically, what this is is it's like threesixteen bar on like a very tight spacing. So it's I mean even if someone had like very thin heels would be fine.

Okay. Thank you.

So how long have you lived here?

2010.

2010. So you haven't really had rails there?

There was a handrail. So this root ball, this tree went down, and it's I mean, it's kind of amazing. So there were like several handrails that came down and then it was not built with like modern safety standards. It was just kind of it was very mismatched. I have a feeling that actually there were no handrails and then the previous owner probably paid someone $50 to like put some like it was not good.

So how long have you been without these handrails?

Well, tree came down about two point five years ago. So but what we've done we've actually because we have another entrance on there's another set of stairs on the side. So we you saw it was kind of roped off.

So,

yes, so we basically we ask people not come down there. We have a sign and so they go down the other stairs and those are cast and concrete and they're more proper. But they take you to the side deck. Can

I ask a question? I'm a little confused. Are we talking about a variance just for the space or aren't we talking about the stairs?

There's a variance needed because the steps are higher than 12 inches above grade and they're located in the 20 Foot Street yard setback. They're so far into the street yard setback that they're two feet into the city's right

of way.

I got that point. But then I thought we were also talking about this. Do they need permission for the stair design?

The design review and variance. Those are both on your agenda.

Do

you have any questions? Yeah.

One of my concern is that what you've created is a beautiful structure and it's really not consistent with the house. The house is this very, let's say, modern traditional house. You know, the foundation goes all the way to the ground and so there's no consistency between it of your structure and the house in terms of design. It's like and it doesn't there's nothing in your neighborhood that looks at all like this. I mean, all your neighbors have bricks or small little entrances.

You have a question for them?

Yeah. So why did you go there with this huge structure? What did you consider?

Actually, I'd say I don't believe it's a huge structure. It actually should be pretty light and airy looking. And to me it actually kind of compliments the mullioned windows that we have across the entire house, which were original to the house. So it's trying to kind of mimic that a little bit and we're going to powder coat it to the same color as all that as well. So that's what we'll blend in. The other option was to do concrete, massive concrete stairs, which would really stick out or wood, which also would not one we're worried about fire safety and would also kind of stick out and not be confident with the house.

In your paperwork, you say it's going to be an anodized bronze?

The same color as the yes, it's kind of what our emollients are, the same.

Anodized bronze.

But not made out of bronze. Will be

No, anodized aluminum bronze.

It will be mild steel, powder coated, the bronze color, and it will be bronze color, yes. And I think it will be disappearing. I think it's kind of the house is like a modernist house. There's very little ornamentation on things. There's like industrial windows and stuff and this is kind of I think a thoughtful use of industrial type materials, but it's not going to look like it's not going look garish. I think it's going to really disappear into the landscape. That's our hope.

Any further questions from commissioner?

Plant associate plan afterwards, could you show sheet A3 with the railing design and the existing decks?

Right.

Oh, that's cool. That's the

This is the railing. So I made this and this is because we added this deck and then so this is a sample of that great material. So here you can see, I think it will be very kind of minimal.

Is that are those pictures of your back deck? Yes. Okay. That's existing. Yes. So as an example, that's the same fence or railing design.

Same railing.

Okay. And rail, same color, same details. Yes.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Are there any

other

speakers, members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

I have no more speaker cards.

I have no hands raised at this time.

Okay. We will then close the public comment portion of this agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion. Commissioner Cooper, would you wanna open? I was

was pleased with the design. I thought I thought it was creative. They did an effort to save some of the trees and routed the the stairway and landings around them, while accomplishing their goal of getting to your front door, which is important. And I do appreciate the floating style of the structure. And I think given I used to pass by there quite often. The neighborhood can be quite eclectic, so it may not match exactly the neighborhood, but I think it won't detract from the neighborhood. So I'm supportive of the project.

Thank you. Commissioner Abuseli? Yes. I think the design is good in so far and consistent with the design guidelines is that you made the railing design and the staircase consistent with what you have with the rest of the house, like the back deck railing. So it adds to the and improves the existing for the front.

Commissioner Cooper brought up the question about like whether or not you should or whether you wanted to connect it to the driveway or not as it relates to the variance or not. But I see in the drawings that there's only sixteen'nine-two five inches from the property line to the front of the garage, so you'd still be You getting a can't really I mean that would be an alternative, but you'd still be looking at variance. And I mean, I think the design and the layout is well done because then someone doesn't have to go on your driveway, assuming you're parking on the driveway to get to your front steps. So I think it's it was a wise design choice to put that directly connecting to the street.

Commissioner Busen, can you speak into your microphone,

Oh, yes.

I'm sorry.

I could be louder. But yes, I thought it was a well done design, consistent with the standards and guidelines, and I would support it. Thank you. Commissioner Zeroukian.

Thank you. Yes, I do agree with my colleagues here. And again, there's not that much to add. The I I see you mentioned about the, like, the safety. It's all about the safety. So as long as you're kind of aware of the safety and the slip resistance of the landings and the treads themselves. They do disappear. They are floating from the street. Right? You know, you as you can see in your in the renderings, there's not gonna be a lot of it visible.

The cabling, the the profile of the vertical posts. Right? Be having it powder coated similar to what you have on the house. I think it's a it's a very it's a pretty design, so I'm in support of it.

Thank you.

I have mixed feelings. I'm maybe more traditionalist, but it's it's an interesting design, but it doesn't quite fit the house to me. I mean, to meet the standards of traditional house. So

that's my all.

Thank you. I like the homeowner's description of what she thinks will be the final result of gorgeous. Gorgeous helps. And when it comes to a variance, you have to be able to get to your house. And so needless to say, the pathway to the house warrants a variance.

Mhmm. And I've been going to homes on Saint James Drive since I was in elementary school, And they've been on that side of the road where there's you get out of the car and there's a step down. And even if a tree had not hit this staircase area, time and mother nature does. And from time to time, you have to replace those things. So naturally, when you're replacing it, you wanna replace it with something that generally fits what you have.

Well, first of all, gives you access to your house. And then it fits what you already have and there's already design elements of this fencing already contained in the decking that you have. So there's some consistency there. And you have a few other elements that you are able to point to speak well of this particular project. One of them is fire safety.

There's a lot of foliage there. You're living in a forest. And those things that you can do that would diminish the likelihood of fire or fire spreading are useful. But I was asking about how long you've been without these rails because I'm not sure if I could do it. I am I for a long my my benchmark is sometimes whether or not you can take a lemon drop from, you know, one place to the next without crashing and burning.

And you've got a lot of distance that you're covering. So to have an appropriately designed, safe for on different levels staircase, I think is a very good thing and very good stewardship of this house. I did have the same question that Commissioner Zeroukian had, but it's a question that is relevant regardless of what kind of stairs you have there, which is that slip resistance. Would you mind just to just tell us a little bit?

So part of it, I think, where the stairs, we're going to try to orient the slats so that they're always perpendicular to the way you're walking. And then I've also kind of investigated, they do have some with the powder coating, you can there's different additives and stuff that you can do that are kind of like grit that would be embedded in there. So I talked to the supplier about that. And then I've also even looked at that they'll sometimes like make little grinds into the material to do that because, yes, I mean, my mother is 86 years old and she can't come to the house right now, which is heartbreaking.

That

is absolutely something that we want to address and

Thank you.

Yeah. And we want to get old in that house too.

If I may add on that too, just if we were to do wood or cement, it'd be very similar to what we've had to do with the brick, which is David goes out there with something that's pretty toxic and scrapes off all the moss and everything that builds up every year, so and that will not happen on this metal grading.

Yeah. Thank you. So with those thoughts in mind, it does qualify, from my point of view, for a variance. The design itself is consistent with other elements that are already contained in the house. You have to have a pathway from the street to the front door. And I think that the design is superior in the sense that you have some space between getting out of your car and arriving at the stairs. So I support this gorgeous project. So is there, commissioner who would like to make a motion?

I'll go ahead

and make a motion. Thank you.

Okay. I move approval of the project at 115 Saint James Drive, making the following findings. The project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section fifteen three zero one class one e existing facilities because it is minor change to an existing private residence, which is less than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the construction. And the project is consistent with the general plan policies and programs with no exceptions as provided in the staff report. For the variance, variance from the street yard setback is approved because the project does comply with the variance criteria under section seventeen point seventy point zero four zero dot a as follows.

The property and existing improvements present unusual physical circumstances of the property, including the lot is unusually steep. The applicant has provided evidence demonstrating that the proposed location is the only feasible location for the walkways, steps and railings on the lot. So that strictly complying or strictly applying the terms of this chapter would keep the property from being used in the same manner as other conforming properties in the zone. The project is compatible with the immediately surrounding neighborhood and the public welfare because the proposed deck material is more hillside stable and safe than other solutions. The applicant has provided evidence that design is compatible with surrounding neighborhood and public welfare because it will be constructed close to grade.

Accomplishing the improvements without a variance would cause unreasonable hardship in planning, design or construction because the hillside would need to be regraded in order to locate and construct the proposed walkways, steps and railings to access the home's entrance. The design review, as conditioned, the project is approved because it complies with the 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 and that the following features are consistent with the original setting and neighborhood development. The walkway material and design, the walkway height, location and landscape as conditioned, the steps and railings material design and location. 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 projects and neighboring homes is appropriate. The proposed walkways, steps and landings are in a similar location as existing pathway steps and landings.