Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Microphone, please.

Microphone. Microphone. Turn on all your microphones, please. Do that here. Thank you.

We'll now begin the June 8, 2026 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, and I would like to call this meeting to order. Before we begin, I'd like to ask Administrative Assistant Nicole Nisparos and Planning Technician Matthew Mills to explain the procedure for public comment and participation during tonight's meeting, which is being held in a hybrid in-person and Zoom format. Nicole.

Thank you. Thank you for joining us for the June 8th, 2026 Piedmont Planning Commission meeting. This meeting is being held in person in the city hall council chambers as a courtesy and technology permitting members of the public may participate virtually. However, the city cannot guarantee that the public's access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Public comment is invited for non agenda items during the public forum section of the meeting and separately on each agenda item. If you wish to comment, and you are in the council chambers, please submit a speaker card to Jeff bond on the right hand side of the dice. 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 3 minutes to make comments to the planning commission at the end of your speaking time. I will ask you to conclude your comments quickly and mute your audio once you're done. The agenda for this meeting is available on the Planning Commission's page of the City's website at piedmont.ca.gov. As is the standard practice, community members are allowed to comment one time on each agenda item. We ask your patience and understanding when technical difficulties arise. This concludes my introductory remarks.

Thank you. To start, I'll take roll. Commissioner Yee?

Here.

Commissioner Zaroukian? No, he's not here. Commissioner Busilink?

Here.

Commissioner Cooper?

Here.

Commissioner Pudding?

Here.

I'm Wayne Roland, Chair of the Planning Commission. Jeff, are there other participants in the meeting you would like to recognize for the record?

Yes, thank you, Chair Rowland. I'd like to recognize my colleagues who are here this evening. And you just heard the voice of Nicole Nisparos, our administrative assistant. She'll be joining us in the room in a moment, along with Matthew Mills, who is a new person here with the City of Piedmont. He's our new planning technician. He also will be joining us in the room in a moment. Third person will be back in a moment is Carlina Rose. She is a new assistant planner. And then Last but not least, our associate planner, Tiffany Edwards, who will be presenting the agenda items tonight. And my name, again, is Jeff Bond. I am the interim planning and building director for the city. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jeff.

I would like to also mention that the minutes taker of tonight's meeting use the video of the meeting to prepare the minutes. Thus, 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, Matt, Jeff, is there anyone who wishes to speak on a matter that is not on tonight's agenda?

I don't see anyone in the room, and let me check. So if anyone in Zoom wishes to address the Planning Commission, please use the raise your hand function. This would be for items that are not on the agenda.

We have no speakers at this time.

Thank you. Returning then 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 500 and 1,000 feet of an application property may be recused from acting on the application. If recused, the commissioner will leave the meeting during the consideration of that application. Jeff. Jeff. Are there any conflicts of interest related to applications on tonight's agenda?

Yes, Chair Rowland. I understand that you live very close to the agenda item 5 at 24 Muir Avenue, and you will be recusing yourself from that item. And Vice Chair Yee will be taking over leading the meeting. 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 May 22, 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. Now, normally the next agenda item would be the approval of the meeting minutes of the May 11th, 2026 meeting.

That's correct, Chair Rowland, but unfortunately we don't have those available to you this evening, so they will be placed on a future commission agenda.

Okay, thank you. We'll then proceed with the next item, approval of the consent calendar. I would like to propose that the following applications be removed from the regular session calendar and placed on the consent calendar and approved under one motion of the Commission unless an applicant or member of the public wishes a hearing to be held on one or more of the applications. After the list has been read, any member of the public may request that any application be removed from the consent calendar. A list of draft conditions of approval is available in the staff reports for anyone who would like to see them, and additional conditions may be added prior to approval on the consent calendar. Jeff, are there any applications that have been placed on the consent calendar?

I believe both items have been placed. No, just item 5A.

Agenda item 4, 64 King Avenue, has been placed in the consent calendar with the addition of one additional condition of approval, which we will read into the record at the end of our meeting.

Thank you, Tiffany. 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. Jeff, are there any requests in the council chambers?

No one in the council chambers has a speaker card submitted for this item. Thank you.

Nicole and Matthew, are there any requests on Zoom?

We have no hands raised at this time.

Okay, seeing no request in to remove an application from the consent calendar, do I hear a motion to approve the agenda items on consent?

I so move.

I second.

We have a motion and a second. Jeff, perhaps we can call the vote.

Commissioner Bueseling. Aye. Commissioner Cooper. Aye. Commissioner Putting.

Aye.

Commissioner Yee.

Aye.

And Chair Rowland. Aye.

Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All applications on the consent calendar have been approved subject to the conditions of approval mentioned and subject to the Planning Commission findings for approval of each application which will be stated at the end of tonight's meeting. Before we proceed with the remainder of the agenda, I want to take a few moments to discuss the procedures for the regular calendar of the agenda. All of the agenda items will be heard in the order in which they appear on the agenda. The commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions of staff when an agenda item is opened. At the close of commissioner questions, we will open the public portion of the hearing to allow for speakers. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the commission. At the end of the three minutes, you will be asked to conclude your statements and the commission may ask the speaker some questions. Once all members of the public have had the opportunity to address the commission on a particular agenda item, we will then close the public comment period for that item. Please be aware that your opportunity to address the commission is only during the public comment period for that agenda item. Commissioners may invite members of the public to answer questions, but otherwise the public comment period will remain closed. After the public comment period for an agenda item is closed, the commission will hold a discussion of the agenda item. There is a 10-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 5 p.m. on June 18th, 2026. The next item on the agenda is item number three, an informational report on permit applications received and approved by staff.

I apologize, Chair Roland. I don't have that at my fingertips at the moment. If we could move that to later in the agenda.

That would be fine. Then that moves us into agenda item three. Number five, in which case I am recused. And I therefore turn over the chairmanship of the meeting to Commissioner Yee. All right, thank you.

I'm trying to keep your honor intact. So item five, which is 24 Muir Avenue. I think all the commissioners have reviewed the staff report. And are there any comments from staff on this item?

Staff has no comments on that time, but we are available for any questions that the Commission may have.

Okay. At this point, we'll turn it over to the public comment and ask anyone in the audience who has an interest in this project to speak, either the representative on behalf of the owner or a public neighbor representative.

Okay.

Great. My name is Ben Obrecht. I'm the designer of the project. I'll just speak briefly to the kind of two main design items I think that are going to come into discussion here. The first item I'd like to note is that Nat, homeowner, along with his wife, did speak to both direct neighbors for the project and received their approval. There's, I think, three neighbor comments were submitted. Two of them are the immediate neighbors. um so you know as somebody that works on a lot of projects in the area i always think it's really important that's i think the most important item is to make sure that the neighbors are aware of what's going on and that they're in agreement and they did not bring up any issues which we would have addressed already if they had so the principal change from the exterior is an enlarged dormer One of the main goals of the project was to add a bit of floor area for an additional bedroom, along with some home offices. We considered a number of options, including an exterior addition. However, from the front, the house is quite symmetrical. It's a relatively simple shape, and it has a really lovely brick exterior. We quickly decided that we'd rather not alter the shape of the home. and also not try to mess with the brick exterior. So expanding the existing dormer seemed to be the low hanging fruit to gain some additional floor space. We did take some steps to keep the new dormer, although larger, kind of in keeping with the home. That included keeping the ridge height of the existing dormer, even though we do have quite a bit of additional building height available for the zoning requirements. We decided to keep the ridge height to maintain the existing dormer's presence, I suppose I would say. However, the existing dormer does have a bit of an odd. It's not aligned to the existing ridge, and it's sort of bubbled up on the building. So we designed the new dormer to sort of match the roof line and actually stay symmetrical to the front facade, whereas the existing dormer is not symmetrical to the front facade. So these are kind of the choices that we made to keep, even though we are adding footprint or adding floor plan area, not footprint, to try to keep them in keeping with the central organization of the home, as balanced, as symmetrical as possible, without being overbearing and messing with the brick or doing a whole third story or something along those lines. I think the other item that's certainly gonna come up is the sliding doors. So when we were looking at the home and sort of the age and the topology of the home as defined in the design guidelines, it seems perhaps a version of a styled ranch colonial is what was listed. It definitely has a colonial front. The home was built in 1953. It has a lot of ranch elements that are kind of throughout the interior as well as the exterior. It's definitely of that era. And so while we agree that there are not existing sliding doors, there are large areas of fixed glazing that do not have divided lights. There's two large windows that are over six feet, including one where we're proposing replacing with sliding doors. It's a full height, about eight foot tall by six foot wide open non-divided pane of glass.

Your three minutes have expired. Please conclude your comments.

Sure. So I mean, I suppose the overall point is that even though there are no existing sliders, they are in keeping with the era of the home and some of the existing glass proportions that exist within the home. So that's it.

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

Nathaniel Imoti, would you like to address the commission?

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Nathaniel Imoti. My wife, Maddie, and I own 24 Muir. Ben walked through the design and how it meets the standards. So I'll use my time to tell you that this house was chosen because we really view it as a wonderful home for us and our two young children. And some of our backstory, why we chose to move there and how we approached the neighbors as soon as we purchased the home. We moved here from the East Coast a few years ago in 2017. And what drew us to 24 Muir is that it's a hybrid. It's a 1953 home. that pairs the traditional brick and revival character that we grew up with on the East Coast with the openness of a California ranch. It has a low hip roof. It has a wonderful carport on the back of the house that opens onto a garden patio. And that mix is what made it feel like home to us. So our goal with this project from the very beginning is to preserve that character, not to change it. From the day that we bought the house, we actively considered our neighbors. And as soon as we had initial drafts of our proposed plan, we sat down and walked through the plans with them in person. The only window with any sight line to a neighbor, there's one upper room that we're proposing to add that does have a view of part of 215 LaSalle. And Derek and Sarah there reviewed everything and have no objections. We also spoke with Peter and Alicia Fishel, who are next door at 20 Muir, reviewed everything in detail, and they also fully support the plans. We didn't want anyone to learn about this project at a hearing. We wanted their support first. So what we think we're putting forward is a modest rear focus project supported by every neighbor who could be affected. that keeps a 1953 home true to what it is. Just to comment briefly on the back, the sliding doors, we think this really cleans up an existing pattern that has accumulated piecemeal over 70 years, and it brings it back into proportion and streamlines it as well. And again, we were deliberate throughout the process, working with Ben and others to be very careful and thoughtful about the plan staying subordinate to the original home. We'd be grateful for your approval, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. All right.

Okay. There appear to be no other speakers. We'll close the public hearing and turn to discussion amongst the commissioners. Commissioner Cooper?

I visited the site today, and I found the design well integrated. It's doing a good job of expanding some square footage and integrating it into the current property. Microphone, please. Like you said, you didn't select to put on an entire new third floor. Microphone please in any way. I also viewed the property from across the street and it's um, it's barely visible It will be slightly visible, but I think it has minimal impact on the neighborhood.

So I'm supportive of the project Okay, thank you Commissioner Buseley I have questions first Oh, sorry You mentioned three things were the three things neighbors roof you know, roof design and then and then the sliding doors where those I just want to make sure we got everything OK. That's correct. Yeah. Just just have a few curiosity questions there. Some of the sliding doors you're proposing putting on the like, you know, additional structure in the back, I think. Is there a plan to put like, you know, patio or redo the landscaping back there? Because it seemed like it it would go on to like a dirt area, if that was the, so?

Yeah, I would expect, and I mean, perhaps this is something Nat has comment on, we, there will be some minor editing to the landscaping, which I don't think, I don't think that is actually the primary concern. I think the main concern is that they have the ability to kind of open that space up to the garden. But I imagine there will be some sort of landing, yes, although nothing dramatic. We're not trying to regrade the garden or anything of that sort.

I was just wondering if, I mean, since you're opening it up to that area.

To be honest with you, I mean, there's already a set of stairs. We haven't gotten as far as, like, Are we doing some major thing? Aside from no, we're not doing anything major. But yeah, probably a landing, I would call it, yes. But that would be a landing at grade. It's not a no additional deck or anything like that. Okay, just curious.

For sure. Two other things. This first question will kind of lead into the second question. So the first question is, did you talk with the neighbor up on Crocker whose name will go unmentioned for now, but... Yeah, I'm curious about any conversation as relates to any sight lines. Were there any impacts, any concerns from the neighbors about that?

We haven't heard any concerns. I haven't spoken directly with the neighbor on Crocker. Okay.

Okay. And I... Not sure if I misheard, but were there, you spoke to three neighbors? We see like two neighbor comments that were submitted. Yeah, but the third one was from the other project. No.

No, this project received three comments. Ah.

Two were...

So this project received three comments. Two were from the immediate neighbors. And the third was not from somebody that received a letter. I'm assuming they just noticed the project in the planning agenda and checked it out. But it was positive, is my understanding.

Yes, that is a clarification that was pointed out by Commissioner Buselink. There was one neighbor comment in support of 64 King, which is inadvertently copied over onto this project.

And I was confused because I just read it and assumed it was attached to our project.

Yeah, it didn't make any sense. It's like, why is a neighbor like four blocks away, five blocks away? We also had that question, and I was like, maybe somebody just saw the project and decided to comment.

I don't know, but yeah.

So that leads to, I guess, the bigger question. I understand what you're doing with the roof and the pitch, and that all makes sense. I'm just wondering if you considered having a higher roof matching the pitch of the existing roof if you went through an evaluation of why?

We went through a brief evaluation of it and I think the decision to maintain the height of the existing dormer was based on trying to sort of scale down the addition and kind of keep it subservient to the main roof as opposed to doing a full third story, which would really change the proportions of the structure. So I think instead of considering, because it is within the height limits, and, you know, there was a brief discussion of it, but Nat and his wife were both kind of like, you know, we understand the roof lines in the dormer are, create, let's say, call them cozy spaces where they're not quite, you know, their vaulted ceilings and whatnot. But that felt appropriate to them as opposed to trying to sort of redesign the house, you know, because going from that sort of like low one-story home to a full two-story home is a pretty dramatic transition. And they seemed happy with a version that just avoided the drama of doing that transition and trying to kind of keep it just lower and simpler. Yeah.

Do you want to do questions before I come back to my comments?

Okay. So, Commissioner Cooper, did you have any questions? I have no questions. Thanks. All right. Commissioner Putty.

Yeah. I think the dormer works better than the old dormer.

Great. I thought so, too.

Yeah. My big question is the sliding door off the living room, which is a big glass window right now with two side panels with the additions. So... I know your comment about being in the 1953s and sliding doors, but did you ever consider having a slider that opened in the center and having the side vertical panels match the mullions that you have?

So the decision to keep a three-part slider kind of played directly off of the existing three-part composition you just described, which I actually do have a quick graphic here, which now that we're discussing it might be relevant. So this is the existing composition. So we have this three-part. One of these is a door. One of them is a window. And then we have these three-part windows to the side, which... you know, our view are not, they're kind of, they're different. So, you know, our proposal, we tried to keep the three part, but carry it around the back. So from elevation, it doesn't really capture that these are directly next to one another. So, I mean, in addition to like, obviously the desire to have the sliders is to open the house to the patio. I mean, I think that's the under, it's important to acknowledge the underlying reason. It's not, we're not trying to say we want these sliders because we want them to look better or something like that. It's more that in order to give them the ability to open up to the patio, I think keeping the three-part composition was very intentional. You know, this one, two, three, one, two, three. The function of a three-door slider is such that two of the panels operate and the third does not, as opposed to proposing like a two-door slider, which would actually be significantly less expensive, but yeah, would not, I don't think wouldn't keep the kind of three-part composition that we see around the home. Okay.

Would you mind passing that around?

Sure.

Yeah, because for some reason I thought it was only a two-part. A new one is only two-part. It is three-part, yeah. Yeah, okay. That makes a huge difference.

And it was for that reason, like the two-part, it's a big price difference in those units, but the three-part just makes a lot more sense with the house and with what's there and kind of stay in keeping with it. But yeah, I think part of what that graphic points out is that You know, that existing corner has this like really large opening, which I'd say is almost like the ranch house. And then it has these like small divided light windows that is maybe perhaps the colonial element. But side by side, they kind of look a bit disjointed right now. So in addition to the desire to have both of those rooms open to the patio, it's sort of to also bring that corner just into harmony a bit, you know, to have the same proportions and the same units side by side. Okay.

Okay.

This is very helpful compared to... I know what you're talking about, how you can see it on the elevation, but you couldn't see that they were linked together.

Yeah, I mean, elevations are obviously important in how we do things, but we do have it in 3D, so sometimes these views are worth as many words or whatever, pictures worth a thousand words kind of thing. Yep.

Yep. So, and all the replacements match the existing?

The other units in the home are all wood divided light units that are in keeping with the existing units. Those are very nice windows. Yeah. So, yep.

Thank you.

I assume the solar panels are staying on the front? So the solar panels, we were just discussing this today, and Nat's inclination is he would like to have solar. However, he's been told that the solar panels are out of date. I'll phrase it that way. So we are going to have a solar company review them and China. give us some information on what that would look like to perhaps...

I only ask because, you know, from the front, you know, it does, like, visually kind of... It almost hides, like, kind of angle of the... The hip. Yeah. Yeah, so I was just wondering if that...

I mean, I think the initial impetus is the roof needs some work, so we may have to remove them for that, but, you know, you don't want to lose the solar. You have the solar already, but they are old, so we were just reviewing that today, so... But if there is a solar replacement, we understand it would have to come under a different permit.

It's mostly a non-factor.

Yes. But no, it's a good consideration, and I'd say in discussion. They seem like 20 to 30 years old, so they're kind of nearing the end of their usable life.

Okay. Other questions?

Do you have any comments?

Okay, so I have a couple questions. So you're the only item on the agenda, so you're going to get a little focused. Sounds good. I got nothing else to do right now. So you already addressed the question about the Commissioner Buisling's question about the gable not matching the existing roof slope. Because in the staff report, the residents, which is a very handsome residence, by the way, on Muir, It is a mixed, it's an eclectic building. Once you get around the corner from the front of the street side, it becomes, like you say, like a period of 1950s quasi-ranch style building. So I think the things that you're doing make some sense. But for example, did you consider on the gable just making it a simple gable so that the elevation facing, I can't remember what direction that is. Facing west and east are the same.

Ah, you mean making it a full. So the reason it is not is because the den, which is the room on the first story that, let's say, fills in that void that you're describing, has a vaulted ceiling currently. And it's a nicely finished vaulted ceiling that, even though I'm sure they would have been happy to get the additional space, it created structural complexity. It also messed with a part of the home that has a lot of character currently. and everybody was kind of like, let's not mess with the den ceiling. It's a nice feature of the home. Okay.

All right. Well, that answers that question. Any other questions? All right, I'm going to close that part of the meeting and go back to Commissioner Cooper. Sorry to make you repeat what you said.

Similar comment. Any changes? No changes. I did notice the differences in the gable while I was there, and I thought it didn't turn me off to the design of the building. So I agree with the comments and the questions you folks had. But again, I think it was a... I found that it was a good design that integrates well with the house, even though the cables are different.

Thank you.

Commissioner Beasley?

Yeah. You know, it's interesting about the angle, you know, and the roof pitch. First of all, I'll say I support the project. I'm just, you know, raising... Oh, I'm happy to talk about it. Yeah. You know, it's interesting because, you know, on the one hand, it... you know, it's a different pitch than the existing pitch. And from the design guideline standpoint, you know, it tries to incentivize, you know, having similar matching roof pitch. But, you know, it would protrude more and it would be a higher impact, you know, kind of change to the building. And even from, you know, the front across the street, you know, you go, as far as you can across the street, it doesn't have as much of a visual impact. And so I think the symmetry of it helps compared to the existing dorma. So I think it is consistent with the standards and guidelines. It doesn't extend prominently higher. Like I said, the solar panels, obscure it a little bit. But it's balanced. I thought, I like that it was very intelligent of you to place it where you did and have the bathroom upstairs where you did. I get to see the interior layout and how you're gonna be able to tie in with the plumbing from the laundry room. So that was a wise move. Minimal impact change to the building, addition to the building. The proposed window changes, I think those are generally consistent with the existing. They expanded some, but not too much. The three panel sliding doors, again, I think on the one hand, there could be more divided light in there on the side panels to maintain the consistency, but on the other hand, I think it's a nice modern addition to a modern home of mixed type. So it's relatively consistent with the rest of the building. You're adding the same thing for the addition, or the separate structure in the back. So I think that's consistent. It's gonna have a more modern feeling and connection with the outdoors. The exterior lighting additions are Mem Omas. I know we're supposed to be looking at those. But yeah, and your neighbors are in support, so that helps. Nobody's complained about the sight lines.

No, I think the impact on the neighbors' sight lines is very minimal. Yeah.

So yes, I would support the project.

Mr. Putty? It doesn't bother me at all. Looking at the building, it's a better, it's an improvement of what's there, and It works. You don't notice it. I didn't notice it, that things were slightly different. So I support that. And your explanation of the sliding doors is great. So I basically support your project.

Great.

And I just have one final comment, which is on the second. It may end up being a question and a comment here. I think, again, what you've done, you and the owners have done, it's thoughtful. I think you considered your neighbors pretty thoroughly. You reached out to them, which is always a good decision. I think the building is a mixed bag of this and that. I do have some concern about the south elevation where a piece of the dormitory comes down toward that side, and then you've got the existing gable. Oh, that's the den. That's the den, right? Yeah. The house is already kind of a little bit of a mishmash, you know, between the front and the back. And I find the little dormer, I know why you're doing it, that's why I asked you, because of your existing room configuration. But I find that adds a little bit more confusion to the elevation than it would be Because, again, I think as Commissioner Pudding spoke just a second ago about how the building works as a whole, I mean, I think to me what's missing is that dichotomy of the dormer, the little slit dormer, and then the new piece and the existing gable on the end. I find that part interesting. unresolved in terms of, had you given any thought to, just leads to a question, have you given other thoughts as to how to resolve that?

I mean, I think we're dealing with a situation where that interaction between the gable and the vaulted ceiling of the den, which rises above the floor level of the attic floor, is difficult to resolve in a sense of like, we could either, you know, there would be a destruction of that gable, which is kind of removing this element of the home that the homeowners really enjoy and very much wanna save. Or there's this element of like, okay, well, what if the dormer doesn't continue to that side of the roof? However, which we did look at and there's both a desire to have the additional floor space, but there's also the symmetry from the front elevation, which I consider to be more important in the sense of like know when you see the building from the front you have that symmetry of the dormer i think that is the more prominent elevation i do agree with you on the side elevation it's just tricky to resolve in the sense of like do you get rid of this uh you know nice vaulted ceiling that is already existing and we'd like to retain or do you kind of have this unbalanced dormer uh from the front facade which is you know sometimes in architecture you sort of have these moments where You choose the lesser of two evils, I suppose.

Right, right. My comments have more to do with when I go back to the design guidelines and you look at this house from the street in a neighborhood level, I think the sensitivity with which you use the scale of the dormer and so forth, I think that's pretty appropriate. When you get into the The specific design of the house itself, which is part of what we're responsible for overseeing, is that is the new move something that makes the result more cohesive? And I think for the most part, it does because it checks the boxes about neighborhood views and so forth. and non-disturbance of neighbors looking at your building and vice versa. So I think you've done well there. I think this one area I find a little disconcerting. I don't know how to resolve it either. But that's the only comment I have. I feel like that part is adding more complication, not complexity to the result.

Yeah. Yeah, I think, yeah, I guess I'll just restate. I do think there's a bit of a like, fighting the front facade and that facade and leaning into the front facade as being kind of the more prominent one, although I do hear what you're saying, absolutely. Tricky one to resolve, though, without altering this interior space that nobody wants to alter.

Right. I understand. And I feel for the owner because, you know, like you say, there are some decisions that need to be made to move forward. Okay. I got it. All right. Any other comments?

All right.

That being said, I'd like to see if there's a motion to take action on this project.

Go ahead.

Okay. I would like to make a motion. I move for approval of the project at 24 Muir Avenue, making the following findings. As outlined in the staff report, the project is categorically exempt under The California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 class 1E and is consistent with general plan programs and policies. As condition, project is approved because it complies with the design review criteria under section 17.66.060 as follows. 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 painted wood siding at the attic level expansion, excuse me, the roof form, the asphalt shingle roof material, the exterior lighting material, the window material and fenestration pattern, the sliding door material, and the location of the heat pump in the rear yard. The design has little or no effect on the neighboring property's existing views, privacy, and access direct and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate The addition does not extend beyond the existing structure footprint, and the addition is designed so that the appearance is minimized when viewed from the street. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because there are no changes to the existing parking or pedestrian access proposed. As conditioned, the application complies with the following guidelines and general plan policies and programs. Chapter three, site design, 3.03, 3.05, and 3.12. Chapter four, building design general, 4.01, 4.02, 4.03, and 4.04. And chapter five, building design, single family residential, 5.01. And the project is consistent with general plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element. In particular, design and preservation policy 28.1, 28.2, 28.3, 28.4, 28.5, 28.6, 28.8, 29.1, and 29.8. The project is approved with 17 conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Okay, we have a motion.

From Commissioner Busselink, do we have a second? Second. All right. So let's have a vote. Commissioner Cooper?

Aye.

Commissioner Busselink?

Aye.

Commissioner Putting?

Aye.

And Commissioner Yee? Aye. All right. So congratulations. Thank you. Go forth and build. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So we get Commissioner Rowland back in here.

We can do some consent calendar.

But there's another market.

The honorable chair has returned. Thank you.

So now we return to, or shall we return to an item on the agenda that was an informational report? or shall we?

I do have the information for you. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. So this is a report on permit applications received in the month of May. Of perhaps most interest, we've received a total of four ADU applications. Three of them are ADUs, and one of them is a junior ADU. And with applications already in the pipeline, we've so far in the month of May approved one ADU and one junior ADU. We also had a film permit that was processed, and then other applications that might be of interest. No new SB9 urban lot split applications during the month. And then finally, with respect to director-level design reviews, nine were submitted. So far, one has been approved, and the others are in process. Thank you. You're welcome. Any Commissioner comments on that report? I'm curious about the film permit. What was the film? I'm trying to remember. It was a holiday...

It was an advertising shoot for a holiday edition of a catalog.

It was indoors?

It was predominantly indoors with a few still photographs of the exterior.

I think it was right in your mind.

I would need to look at the permit again to confirm the exact address.

Today I learned that, I guess, filming permits go through the planning department. Is that accurate?

Yes, they do, and they also require approval by the city administrator.

Are you saying that because you would like to get on film? I don't know.

Yeah, I'm just curious.

Some of the larger productions really can have an impact in a lot of different ways in terms of the amount of parking and number of people. So we run it through all the departments, public safety, so forth.

Right.

Just in case there are street closures. Exactly.

I mean, I've seen that sort of thing at work in San Francisco. They block off entire blocks with, you know, trucks and equipment.

We've blocked off our streets for, you know, just a big long street. We block it off for our parties.

Well, we block off the street every time there's a movie on our street. We just haven't had any movies.

I have one question maybe for both Jeff and Tiffany. Are you seeing a rise in ADUs, an increase in ADUs per month? Is there a trend with ADUs?

We would have to look at the data to see if we have a month over month trending upwards. Certainly, it's unusual to get this many applications in one month, as we've seen. But in terms of an upwards trajectory, we could report back at a future meeting. Great, thank you.

So then it appears that the only remaining item is the approval of the item on the consent calendar.

And I guess we do that with a motion. That's correct, and we do have an additional condition of approval.

That's correct. So this item would be approved on consent with the nine conditions of approval presented in the staff report and one additional condition of approval, the text of which is available for your reference on the consent calendar. And so you could read off the language under item four on the consent calendar.

Is there a motion to approve?

I did the last one, so I can do another one if no one else wants to.

I will move to approve it. Okay. Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Excuse me. So the motion incorporating the additional condition of approval. Correct. Just wanted to clarify that for the record. Commissioner Beasley? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Putty?

Aye.

Commissioner Yee?

I'm sorry, if I could just pause for a moment. I believe the protocol, we read out the findings, and then you read out the additional, when it gets the conditions of approval, you read this text.

Okay.

In the past, I've always wondered why we didn't just say, as stated by the proposed findings.

I move to approve the project. at 64 King Avenue making the following findings. As outlined in the staff report, the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 class one E and section 15303 class three section E and CEQA guidelines section 15304 B and is consistent with the general plan programs and policies. 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 in that the following features are consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development. The height of the proposed retaining wall, the material of the proposed retaining wall, the location of the proposed electrical panel, the color of the proposed electrical panel and associated conduit, the design and location of the proposed exterior lighting. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties, existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect sunlight or light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate. The proposed construction does not block any existing views of the bay. The topographical differences are appropriate to preserve privacy, views, and light. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicle safety because the project does not propose any changes to the current pedestrian or vehicular access. As conditioned, the application complies with the following design standards and guidelines and general plan policies and programs. Chapter three, site design, 3.03, 3.08, 3.09, 3.11, 3.12. Chapter four, building design criteria, 4.01, 4.02, 4.04. and the project is consistent with the general plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element. Design and preservation policy 28.2, 28.4, 28.6, 28.8, 29.1, 29.2, 29.4, 29.5, 29.6, 29.8, and 29.9. The project is approved with the following conditions listed in the staff report and the additional condition listed in the consent calendar guidelines. So read it. The additional condition is number 10, fencing. Hog wire fencing shall be designed in stepped panels subject to staff review and approval so that the grid is considered on all parts of the fence.

If I may offer one correction, I believe that the the wording is so that the grid is consistent on all parts of the fence I believe the condition reads so that the grid is consistent on all parts of the fence Thank you, we have a motion in good form now is there a second second I

So, Commissioner Bueseling.

Aye.

Before we go, Commissioner Bueseling, you made a comment earlier about just the recital of the conditions. Could you elaborate on that just a little bit so that we could hear it?

Oh, I was wondering as a matter of process. I mean, I... have been mulling this over on my own and I probably have a conclusion consistent with the staff, but I've wondered in the past whether for consent calendar items that the actual proposed findings were somehow disseminated beforehand and that when we go through the meeting, instead of having to recite the findings and spend everybody's time doing that, having a motion saying, you know, can we adopt the consent calendar consistent, and adopting the findings that were even disseminated so we don't have to read it all over again. But, you know, the other part of that is I would imagine that publishing the proposed findings would require a certain time period that they be allowed for the public to review them before, I don't know, I mean, because we're only announcing them you know, at the moment we read them. So I'm not sure what the real substantive difference is there. And so, you know, if it were me, I would consider, you know, some process where we don't have to, you know, read them all over again when there's no one here. Everyone is already left.

But it seems to make sense to figure out ways to streamline some aspects of this process, which may be by rote. and maybe focus in only on reciting those things that have changed from any public record.

Chair Roland, if I... And just one more thought. I mean, the only other reason why this came to mind was, you know, when you see like a city council meeting You know, when they adopt an ordinance, you know, they make a motion to adopt an ordinance, it's, you know, motion to adopt this proposed ordinance, we're all done, you know, but all the proposed findings for the ordinance, I mean, they don't spend a couple of hours reading, you know, and we don't either, I mean, but we do read all the findings, so.

I'm just not sure why there's a difference there Thank you for making your comments I would like to bring back to the Commission at your next meeting some of my observations as interim director having experience in other communities that Where the process is different than the practices here? And it's a start of a conversation once a permanent director comes into place. I think it's that person's role to to ultimately give you a recommendation but I'd be happy to share some observations that would include not reading the findings and conditions of approval verbatim and rather incorporating them into written documentation that you can acknowledge and then edit as you see fit as a commission before you take action on it.

We certainly look forward to that and that's one of the benefits of an of a new outside pair of eyes.

I'm just passing through here for a few months. I'm enjoying it a great deal, but I would like to leave, if anything, just some recommendations that perhaps you and the future director can work with.

You're welcome.

And acknowledge that Director Jackson was here for a long time. He saw a lot of things, and that process was probably borne out and changed over time to

know accommodate some situations and maybe there's you know a logic there i have enormous amount of respect for for for mr jackson i've known him for many years and so i i would want to consult with him as well just to make sure there isn't some history that i'm not aware of that that um where this is an important practice that needs to be continued yeah once again we look forward to your comments and your thoughts on that i think they can be very beneficial

I go back a long way. I've lived here for a long time and when I first proposed a project in Piedmont on this committee, we didn't do any, the results was aye, aye, or no, no, and that was it. So there's something that's happened. in the interim to take this, make this happen.

And what we will want to do is to make sure that whatever that something is, is logical and continues into the present. And so we want to keep doing it the way that we've been doing it. But if there's reasons to not do it that way, we want to uncover those too. So that we streamline the process. And it's not just for us. It's for the members of the public who have to participate and sit through the process. And we don't want necessarily to have anyone sit through things that are just wrote and are contained in documents that are available. Okay, thank you very much, and Commissioner Bueselink, thank you for bringing that up. Thank you. We proceed then with the...

I think I was in the... You were about to call the... About to call roll? I'll start over. Commissioner Bueselink? Aye. Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Putting?

Aye.

Commissioner Yee? Aye. And Chair Rowland? Aye. Motion carries unanimously.

Okay, that concludes all of the items on tonight's agenda. This has been a rather streamlined meeting. Thank you, everyone, for your participation.

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.