Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Microphone please.

Microphone please.

Thank you.

Before we get started, I would like to ask administrative assistant Nicole Desperos and planning technician Matthew Mills to explain the procedure for public comment and participation. during tonight's Planning Commission meeting, which is being held in a hybrid in-person and Zoom format. Nicole.

Thank you. I'm going to defer to Matthew Mills.

Thank you for joining us for the August 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 the staff member on the right-hand side of the dais. If you are participating virtually, please raise your hand when the item you wish to comment on is called and leave it raised. Speakers will be called in the order hands are raised. Speakers generally have up to three minutes to make comments to the Planning Commission. At the end of your speaking time, I will ask you to conclude your comments quickly and mute your audio once you're done. The agenda for this meeting is available on the Planning Commission's page of the City's website at piedmont.ca.gov. As is the standard practice, community members are allowed to comment one time on each agenda item. We ask your patience and understanding when there are technical difficulties. This concludes my introductory remarks.

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

Here.

Commissioner Buselink? Here. Commissioner Cooper? Here. Commissioner Pudding?

Here.

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

Yes, I'd actually like to introduce myself first. My name is Leslie Mendez, and I have the honor of being the new Planning and Building Director for the City of Piedmont, so I'm very excited to be here. I am joined this evening by Interim Director Jeff Bond, who is helping me in this transition, and this may be his last official day in that role. So I'm thankful for his participation tonight. I would also like to introduce in person both Nicole Nisbaros, who's been the voice behind the timer for quite some time, as well as Matthew Mills, who is our new permit tech, and who will be slowly or quickly taking over that role. And finally, I'd like to recognize our two planners in the room, both Pierce McDonald, who is our senior planner, and also our newest planner planner, assistant planner, Carlina Rose. So we're excited to have a whole new bunch of people here today for you. Thank you. Thank you.

And welcome.

Thank you.

I would also like to mention that the minutes taker of tonight's meeting will use a 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. Turning to the public forum, 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, and Leslie, is there anyone who wishes to speak on a matter that is not on tonight's agenda?

I have no hands raised at this time. And I have no speaker cards in the room.

Thank you.

I have no speaker cards for public forum. Thank you.

Okay. Then seeing none, we will close the public forum. Returning to commission procedures, I would like to mention that as commissioners, we are required to comply with the procedures or 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 an application. If recused, the commissioner will leave the meeting during the consideration of that application. Leslie, are there any conflicts of interest related to applications on tonight's agenda?

There are not, but I do believe there are two commissioners who wish to speak about the 1,000-foot radius.

So first, yes, I'm within 1,000 feet of the Magnolia project, and I did review the regulations myself. I am an attorney. I understand regulations. the meaning of those regulations, and I do not believe those apply to me at this time.

I am within 1,000 feet of the 21 Cambridge Way property, and similarly, I have no financial interest in the property. Thank you.

Standard and project specific conditions of approval. 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 July 31, 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 June 8th, 2026 regular meeting of the Planning Commission.

Minutes for May 11, 2026 will be continued to our next meeting.

Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak concerning the meeting minutes for May 11 and June 11 regular meetings?

I have no hands raised at this time.

Are there any Commissioner comments?

There's one correction on the June minutes. It said that you needed to recuse yourself from 54 King, it was actually the Muir Project that you had to recuse yourself from.

And who had to recuse themselves? I believe you did. Oh, well, thank you. Well, I'm back. Thank you. Thank you for that correction. Now, there are no items on the consent calendar, I believe. Is that correct?

That is correct.

So we will move on then from the consent calendar.

Right. So we will take a first motion and a second on the minutes.

Oh, that's right. Excuse me. Okay. Was there a motion to approve the minutes?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes subject to the correction that I mentioned.

And is there a second? Second. Shall you call the question?

Yes. Commissioner Busellick. Aye. Commissioner Cooper. Aye. Commissioner Yee. Aye. Commissioner Zarookian.

I was absent last night. Okay. So I will refrain. Abstain. Yeah.

And then Chair Rowland.

Aye. Great.

Okay.

Before we proceed with the remainder of the agenda, I would like 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 item is opened. At the close of commissioner questions, we will open the public portion of the meeting 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 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. After the public comment period for an agenda item is closed, the Commission will hold a discussion of the agenda item. There's 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 August 20th, 2026. The next item on the agenda is agenda item number two, informational report on permit applications received and approved by staff.

Chair Roland, my name is Jeff Bond. I've had the honor of being the Interim Planning and Building Director As part of the transition here, I'll be helping out on this particular agenda item So I'll be giving you some data for both the months of June and July starting with planning applications in the month of June the city received 14 design excuse me design review applications and 12 design review applications were approved and In addition, we received three ADU applications, of which two were approved. In the month of July, we received 25 design review applications, of which 24 were approved. These are approved by staff, so the smaller projects, I should clarify. And we received four ADU applications and one JADU, Junior ADU application, And thus far one of the junior ADU application was approved. With respect to building permits, in the month of June we received 86 building permit applications and 97 applications were approved. Obviously some of those were submitted from previous months. And then in the month of July, the number of applications received was 90. and the number approved was 75. These were all processed and action taken by city staff. I'd be happy to answer any questions or clarify anything if you wish.

Commissioner, questions?

Any member of the public wish to speak on this item?

Okay, we'll close the public comment for this item as well.

We now move then to Agenda item number three, a variance and design review permit for 21 Cambridge Way. Do we have speakers?

We do. Thank you, Chair Rowland. My name is Pierce McDonald. I'm a senior planner with the City of Piedmont, and I have two items of business for the commission before we hear speakers. The first is that some of the speaker cards indicate they would like to cede their time to another speaker. And so pursuant to the planning commission's procedures, you have the option of allowing that. If a speaker cedes their time to another speaker, they are given five minutes, not the combined six minutes of the two three-minute speaker periods. So that would be the first item for the commission to consider. Are you willing to allow speakers to cede their time?

The chair is willing to.

Okay, fantastic. Secondly, there was an addendum staff report for this item, and it has been distributed on the city's website and at the credenza at the council chamber's entrance and at your dais, and in that we've amended some of the conditions of approval and analyzed some changes that the applicants made to the drawings to correct them. So I wanted to just make sure that members of the public were aware that there is a copy of the addendum staff report at the credenza and that we'll be reviewing the revised drawings. And in response to those revised drawings, the Public Works Director has issued a memorandum to the Commission, and that is also at your seats today at the dais. I'd like to just read it quickly into the record.

Thank you. That would be appropriate.

This is from Public Works Department, dated August 10th, 2026. to the members of the Piedmont Planning Commission. And it starts, Public Works is responsible for issuing encroachment permits for any work done in the public right-of-way and has visited 21 Cambridge Way to make a cursory analysis of the location, which presents difficult geometry of the existing sidewalk, adjacent slope and street grade, As a condition of approval for a building permit, the 21 Cambridge Way applicant must first obtain an encroachment permit, and Public Works is currently awaiting the required application for the encroachment permit, including formal plans. Public Works recognizes the complexity of the proposed improvements at 21 Cambridge Way, And the application and plans will be carefully analyzed by the city engineer in conjunction with the city's ADA specialist, who does comprehensive and knowledgeable analysis of the city's compliance requirements. There will also be engineering interpretations of the applicant's proposal as they relate to general health and safety, as well as risks to the public's well-being. The engineer's report, including the AD analysis, will be forwarded to Public Works and to Planning and Building for review and a decision as to whether or not to issue an encroachment permit. And a copy of this memo is also at the credenza at City Hall entrance.

Okay.

And that's what this one is here?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you. Okay.

So... Yes, I have four speaker cards from the applicant design team. They start with Linda Lau. I'm sorry, Linda, would you like to come to the podium?

You can speak on her behalf.

Yes. Michael Brady, or Bradley.

These are a few documents that were submitted before, but they found some typos on them. Hello planning commissioners. Thank you for your time And thank you to staff for their excellent work on doing analysis of this project. My name is Michael Bradley I am on the design team for the property we came before you to do the renovation of the house and previously Some of you were here at that time I'm hoping you have a set of plans as well to see what the project entails, but it's to build a a garage in the front and side setback. That's what the variance request is for. I'm involved in the team because of my background in planning. I was an Oakland City planner for 15 years and I have a degree in architecture and I help out with certain projects such as these. This in particular project asks for a variance for this garage at the front of the property. It would be a detached garage at the front. If you're looking at the property front right side of the property. offset from the property line of approximately two feet. If you look at some of our neighborhood context photos, you'll see there is a context for front yard garages within the front setback due to the steepness of the site, due to some of the topographic transition from the street. to the sidewalk and then to the subject parcels. So in that case, we are looking at this as a variance with regard to will it cause any impacts and will they also have the advantages of what other neighbors are having in that same context of the neighborhood. The designer and architect is here as well that can speak on the actual design and some of the technical work he did on the project. It was intensively studied in order to look at radius coming out of the parking space, look at the slope. looking at Size of parking space within the garage so doors could open it could function the benefits of the project would be allowing for an off street parking space because there's a Serious demand on parking on street this would allow for off street parking space as well as allow for an EV car charging station where they can charge the car in on the subject property and This would also allow for a parking space still to fit in front of the subject property on street. So whereas the location is, in our opinion, making sense there because you still have the on-street parking space, you'll also get an additional off-street parking space. You will do improvements to the sidewalk. There is a tree that you'll see in the memo. It's leaning heavily onto the street. analyzed by Public Works. They've given their opinion on it. That tree would get removed and then two street trees would be planted in the public right-of-way planting strip in front. If you could please wrap up. Okay, thank you. I'm at the five minutes, right? Because I'm the seated time.

Some of his time was seated or some of the other speaker's time was seated to him? Yes. So he has five minutes. Okay.

Apologies. No worries. I'll try to wrap it up too.

I'm going to add another 30 seconds for the interruption.

Okay, thanks. Sorry. We talked about the demand of parking on the street, which I'm sure several neighbors have talked about it. We've talked about the other properties in our context study, including the property directly to the right at 25 Cambridge has a front yard garage within the front and side setback. We feel this project has looked at the height, setbacks, design, and felt that it doesn't block any views or impact light or solar to the adjacent properties. We've gone through the findings for approval. Staff has made those findings as well. We've also looked at the conditions of approval that staff has made in place for one example would be concave mirrors that would be placed on flanking the garage opening so that there would be visibility to both directions on the sidewalk as well. And so we could, we're coming up on time here. If there's any questions on the actual plans, myself or the architect can bring those up and talk those through. We also have the owner here and some supporters of the project. I'm sure there's neighbors as well that have other opinions. So happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Are there commissioner questions?

I have one. I'm concerned with the safety of the 40% slope. I understand you're doing the convex mirrors to address the sidewalk, which I appreciate. That can get very slippery when it's wet. So I've considered using slip-proof grates or some composite instead of just flat concrete or something to make the slip hazard less.

That is an excellent question. Yes, we would build it to the standards that the Public Works Department would require for their ADA requirements. So in that memo, they're going to tell us exactly what they feel for slip resistance, how much texture to provide. So we are going to go with the guidelines and the conditions of approval that Public Works would practice.

I have a question. You mentioned... that would also allow for on-street parking? Are you saying at the driveway itself, on the right-of-way portion of the driveway?

Excellent question. Well, for one thing, yes, you could park across the driveway. But by placing it to the right, if we placed it right in the center, you wouldn't have a space. It would essentially, by pushing it to the right, we're still allowing a space on-street, not across the driveway, in front of the subject property.

Yeah, so clarifying question on that, do you have an understanding of, so there is a measurement I saw in the drawings for the width of the driveway, but not the depth leading up to the sidewalk. So do you have that measurement?

I could defer to the architect to tell us that.

And then also at a 40% grade, you know, how does that present and how would someone actually practically use, you know, to navigate onto that ramp with,

know the size of there i just i don't i don't understand how that so on this handout um that we circulated it had before a 12 inch clearance we've done it with a 10 inch clearance with the mid-size mercedes-benz gle 450e suv and so what he's done is taken the slopes and taken it as a progression through the study to show that uh it would You're asking if it would, like, bottom out?

No, I'm asking that if you were parking on the ramp, you know, as proposed, on the street, you know, like, you know, the ramp has, like, hard cuts, you know, hard drop-offs. Yeah. And so based on the width and the depth of that area, how does a car... get on to that and then at 40% grade, it's tilting. I just don't, I can't envision that on the plan. I'm wondering if that study has been done.

Yeah. You're saying probably from the back of the sidewalk down and then into the street over the curb area? Right. That slope area?

Right. I'm wondering about that. Especially considering one of the issues that's been raised is that if the garage is built, it's somehow taking away parking on the street. So that goes directly to that issue.

So for one thing, he'll put it because the adjacent property at 25 Cambridge has that situation where it's into the street, like you mentioned. So he will put a street tree between the two?

Yeah, so we don't have it to share.

Would it be possible to share the plans now?

Yeah. I'm trying to refrain from commentary.

Yeah, I hear you. Totally.

I'm also looking at A4. Yeah, that too.

That works. A6. You're saying this section. Sorry, I don't have a pointer.

Commissioner, which sheet would you like?

A6 was fine. So maybe I don't know how to describe this. On the left side drawing, yes, that shaded area where the cursor is over right now. So if the idea is that there's a car parking like up that ramp before the curb, is it going to be difficult for a car to navigate in and out of that ramp, especially when the ramp is on an angle? Great question. 3% grade?

So we've done the pivot study based on the requirements of the planning code. And I'm sorry, I can't remember what section it is. And it's in the staff report, I believe. So basically, we took the template from the planning code on the radius requirement. And then we placed it, the architects placed it to show it in this study, the radius turn. And I think he studied it multiple times in different angles going, which would be east and west onto Cambridge. And then the idea on both sides of this kind of initial slope would be to do planting and then planting between with a street tree. So that way you would know that there's a transition in grade or a blockage from transition in grade.

Yeah, and looking at the drawing again, this makes more sense. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, I have a question. I'd like to follow up. You mentioned the neighbors, right? Do you know what the slope is on the neighbors' garage? On theirs? Is it similar to this and the depth of the garage because your parking structure is shorter than what was required?

Do we have that front yard that... in our parking study.

So is it similar to other instances you reference in the pictures?

Yes, this one's pretty consistent with our project here.

That would be... Is it the same slope? Because right now you're around 40%.

We're at about 40% with ours.

So can you show precedence? from the neighbors who have the similar slope, similar depth, whether they are really using their garage or... That we don't know what the use of the garage of each neighbor is. Yeah, I think it's good for us to understand if we have done any studies to see if it is practical because there are questions about that. So we would like to know if you have this condition, if somebody else has this condition, whether... they have difficulties using their garage.

Yeah, I totally get that. But with regard to a garage and how they use it in perpetuity, that's really going to... We can't say what the next person will do or what they do if they physically use it for parking, but rather than that or storage, but with regard to whether it actually can physically work, that is something that potentially could be studied, I imagine.

Yeah, it's whether we can use it or not, right? How they use it is not the question. A follow-up question is how, you mentioned that the architect used the radiuses. How was that done? Like you just to really simulate the movement of real vehicles because in the industry, usually we use, especially in difficult conditions like this, a software that simulates the actual movement because just a radius does not simulate the actual movement of cars. Since we have a very difficult geometry, the car will be... spanning on three separate planes, have you used a software?

I'll ask the architect which software. I know which one I've used. I've used the City of Oakland template where it's a clear overlay and you put it on the plans and then you put a pivot and you spin it. It's kind of old-fashioned.

Yeah, well, because the industry standard is like a software. Which software?

Yeah, you can ask the architect on that. I'm not sure what software he used for that.

Thank you.

Would you like to have the architect answer the question?

No, James said no.

Thank you.

That answers my question. I have a question of the applicant. So on this diagram, on the left view, is this slope 40% right here? It would have been helpful to show this on these drawings. because there have been some back and forths with revisions and so forth, so you produced this diagram, which is a little helpful, but it would be good to know what is this slope, what is that slope, what's going on with this little hiccup.

Is it possible to show Sheet A7?

So what Commissioner Yee is asking is the slopes at the first transition from the street. That's the 40%? 32%.

And that's from the edge of the ramp that extends to the street? Is that, you said how?

Could the speaker please come to the podium?

We're going for the street well from From where it breaks here to here is that 30? 32 percent And then And as the the slope is constant across the width of the driveway I

It varies somewhere from 32 to 40%.

And where is it, 40%?

40% is on the right side of the driveway.

So would that be somewhere in here? Yes. So would this... Would that be 40% there?

Yes.

Okay. And this little section, the little step up because of the street. Because of the sidewalk. Yeah, but how steep is that, please? It's about nine inches. No, how steep is it?

If I have to guess, I would say about 45%. 45%.

It shows the cross slope on A5. We could have that. Okay.

Which one, on number five?

On sheet A5. It doesn't show up here. It's right in the front elevation, top right corner of the garage. You'll see there is a cross slope because it slopes down from the lower numbers of Cambridge down to the higher numbers.

You mean on drawing number on A5, detail number two? Because it shows a 40% slope.

Detail one. Detail one. Detail one.

So we have this cross slope that's hash marked. And that corner that you're seeing in the cross section with the last nine inches is in the front right corner.

All right. It doesn't show up here. I mean, it doesn't show there either, does it?

Chair, if I may interject, just one thing is per our discussion with the interim public works director, he has not yet received a formal and or complete packet of the encroachment permit. So we can discuss the slopes, but it may actually be steeper at the driveway. So what the commission here is reviewing is the garage and the variances associated with the garage and just with the knowledge that The slope may be less steep, maybe more steep, but it does need to comply with the- And so those technical details would be done by that department? Correct, the review of that. Okay.

Thank you. Well, here we can make a design review.

Yeah. Director Mendez, I understand what you're saying, and I agree. This is a design review. The slopes are a technical issue with the public works. But if we approve this as a design review with the variances, then if the Public Works decides that the slopes aren't feasible, what are the consequences of that?

Well, I think Senior Planner McDonald has a proposed condition that if this were to be approved by this body, that could address that. And maybe this would be an appropriate time to read that in. Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Mendez. The first condition of approval is called encroachment permit, and it reads, prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to removal of the eucalyptus street tree, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for all work within the public right-of-way. The applicant shall demonstrate that the sidewalk complies with all city right-of-way regulations, including federal ADA requirements. Minor changes to the garage that do not increase the maximum height of the garage beyond 12 feet 4 inches or that do not increase setbacks shall be reviewed for approval by planning staff.

Can I ask a few clarifying questions? I'm sorry.

Yes.

The design guidelines and standards sections, let me take this in two parts. One, it specifies dimensions turning radius for a standard vehicle. In looking at that, that was in the staff report, am I correct in saying that it doesn't require a certain turning radius? Is it just a suggestion? Is there some kind of requirement of a minimum turning radius?

There are guidelines, and they are adopted guidelines, but not... I'm going to actually defer to Pierce McDonald on this one. However, it's not just the sidewalk. The driveway is also in the public realm. So the public works director has to approve not just the slope of the driveway... And we have an engineering firm, Coastland, who can be the traffic engineer to run to make sure that the radius does work for garage parking.

So I guess that leads to my second question, which is, is it the same understanding for the grade, the actual slope, too? It's a guideline, not a hard requirement. So when it says no more than 20%, That's just a design guideline, not necessarily a requirement?

Yes, and in all ideal cases, that would have to be complied with. And when it is being asked to vary from that, it would look at the conditions, not just of the property, but of the street, of vegetation to ensure that safety is guaranteed. Safety in this case is our prime concern of the city on this. So that will all be reviewed as a package.

So even Public Works will review radius, grade, okay, all right.

Correct. And if I could just add to the response given by our director, the condition of approval number two requires the applicants to add convex mirrors to the interior of the garage. to try to overcome some of the sightline issues of the proposed design.

So, Pierce, what happens if Public Works determines that, given the unique nature of the grades on this property, it's not feasible, and Planning Commission has approved the variances?

The Planning Commission's condition is conditioned upon that first condition of approval. Okay. And so if the applicant is unable to obtain an encroachment permit, the approval is null and void. All right.

Thank you. I have another question of the owner. I think it was mentioned in the staff report that the garage is placed as close as it is to the right side property line because there's an existing sewer line. Correct. The applicant doesn't want to move. Is that sewer line far below grade or is it far below grade and is it a main, is it a big issue to?

That sewer line is five feet below the sidewalk.

So you've determined that it's not feasible to shift it to the left, to the north?

There was a water meter over there. We could have shipped a little bit more.

Well, it's a sewer line or a water meter?

There was a sewer line. We can show you on A4 the sewer line and water line, which link both sides of the garage, if you'd like. Okay, so sanitary sewer line is the SS line on site plan sheet A4.

Mm-hmm.

and then W for water line and meter on the left side of the garage.

So it's the water line, it's not the sewer line?

Yes.

To shift it west would be an impact to the water line, not sewer line. Okay. To shift it closer to the property line would impact the sanitary sewer line, but that's not what they're proposing.

Okay, one of the reports said the sewer line was an issue. Okay, so it's really the water line that's an issue. And how deep is that water line?

It's about 24 inches below the grave. Okay.

All right, I've got just one question, and I think we can wrap it up. Okay. So I've been out to this property multiple times. And the property doesn't stand by itself. It's in a neighborhood. And the parking is a little tight. And so you are indicating that you are also you're able to keep the on street parking and add this one space of. off-street parking. Can you just, in a general term, I think that that's what Commissioner Busselink might have asked, but I wanted you to explain how you accomplished that.

Certainly. If you could just slide this site plan up slightly, that'd be great. Is that it? Yes. Okay. So proposed site plan number two. You can see if you were to do an imaginary line of the property line to the west, continue it out, you have between the driveway apron and that property line approximately 24 or 5 feet, which would fit a car to park in front of the subject property and still have the driveway. Very good. Thank you.

All right.

Yeah, I don't get that.

I don't understand that one.

I can't turn this. Section if you start if you start with the property as it is yeah with no garage. Yeah, all right. It's 40 feet wide Yeah, it fits to two parking spaces Right well technically a tandem.

I mean a parallel spaces you parallel 24 feet is that correct? 24 feet yeah, so if you add the garage you're eliminating a space is that correct? Well if they're 24 feet and you have 40 You're running an off-street street parking space and for an off-street parking space. So you're really swapping a space. Yeah, you're still going to have one space for one space because you have 24 feet.

You're not maintaining the existing.

You're not adding to the parking, shall we say. Exactly. You're not adding a space because they're 24 feet parallel and we have 40 feet. So you have one space technically in front of your space. So you're swapping one space for one space.

That was what I was asking. So was whether or not the driveway ramp could also accommodate another car.

Yeah, it's... Oh, like on it? Like, yeah. Right. Not physically. Not physically, no. Because it has to do that transition.

That's what I understood from your question. You know, it's preserving on-street parking. I thought you meant like on the ramp. Right. Thank you. Yeah, sorry about that. Okay, so we've clarified that.

Yeah, okay, we got it. So one-to-one. Right. And then you get, now you get a space in the driveway, in the garage. Okay.

Very good. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker card is Derek Chow.

I have presented a pretty good job in doing that. I'm here for any additional questions you may have.

So do you have something specific to add to that? No. Okay, very good.

Thank you. No, not this time. Thank you.

And the last speaker is Christina Chen, who would like to assign two minutes to Michael Bradley. Great. So we have no other speaker cards from the design team. We have four speakers from adjacent neighbors. The first one is Brian Cantrell.

Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Please identify yourself. I'm sorry, I'm Brian Cantrell. We own 25 Cambridge Way, immediately next door to 21 Cambridge. You already have our detailed written opposition to the applicant's original plans, so we want to focus now on the revised plans and three significant concerns. First, the revised driveway itself is substantially worse. The 30% grade is now 32% to 40%, reaching four times the maximum grade specified for a driveway of this length in the design guidelines. That this change was made to comply with sidewalk accessibility requirements exposes the fundamental conflict with this site. It does not accommodate both an accessible, safe sidewalk and reasonable access to a garage. Second, our pedestrian safety concerns are heightened. Staff recommends conditioning approval on two convex mirrors to observe pedestrians before exiting, a condition that acknowledges that the design as submitted is not safe. Moreover, the Commission has no mirror design before it, leaving many questions. Where do these mirrors go? What sightlines do they provide? And with a nose-in vehicle, how is the driver supposed to use them while driving backwards across the sidewalk? And those mirrors do nothing for the ingress. A high-clearance vehicle climbing this ramp will be pitched sharply upward as its front end crosses the sidewalk. How can the Commission make the required pedestrian safety finding without first having a detailed site distance analysis? Third, the revised vehicle studies have grievous errors. For example, A6 as it models a Mercedes GLE 450E, but its dimensions do not match published specifications or even the dimensions on A7. Worse, the revision to A6 inexplicably reduced the assumed width of opposite side parking from eight feet to seven. Worst of all, the new A7 assumes 12 inches of ground clearance, but published specifications give the GLE 450e approximately eight inches, an error so galling and so favorable to the applicant that it demands explanation. Beyond the errors, the studies are inadequate. A7 analyzes vertical clearance in two dimensions, while A6 depends on a diagonal turn across a warped 32 to 40% surface. Where is the quantitative integrated three-dimensional analysis showing that a real vehicle can actually execute this maneuver? Finally, the applicant uses our own driveway as a comparable. We agree. Ours is less steep, to answer the question previously. It's 29%. But our experience with it is precisely why we oppose this project. We do not use our garage for parking because doing so is neither practical nor safe. Our kids are older now, but all three went to beach. Countless times our kids, assuredly late for school, raced down the sidewalk past the proposed garage. We shudder to think of a vehicle crossing the sidewalk without being able to see them. We ask you to deny this application and to consider denying it with prejudice. At an absolute minimum, please continue it until these unresolved engineering and pedestrian safety questions have been answered in public before approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any commissioner questions?

Thank you very much. Thank you. I have one question. Yes, sir.

When was your garage built?

Our garage was built, we believe, in 1941. Were you built to your house? Yes. What's that?

Was it original to your house?

It was not original to the house. We don't believe the records get blurry. The house was built in either 1916, 1918, or 1920, depending on which document you believe. The garage itself seems to be 1941. When we moved into the house in 2008, neither of our two cars could even go onto the driveway. Both would ground out on the driveway. Thank you.

A follow-up question. Were there SUVs or sedans?

So when we moved into the house, we had two sedans. Again, neither of which could go on the driveway because they would ground out. We currently have two SUVs. Both of them are able to go onto the driveway. We would never use the garage, in part because of these safety concerns. When you are pitched up, when you're driving up at only a 29% grade, you are seeing only the top of the garage. You literally can't even see the bottom of the garage, let alone the sidewalk. You can't see the sidewalk at all. And when you are trying to come out of there, part of the reason we've got real issues with their turning study, I've always had to three or four or five point out of there to wiggle out of there. It's very, very, very tight. And ours is only at 29%. Great. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

The next speaker card is David Howe.

Hello, everyone. My name is David Howe, and I live in 19 Cambridge Way. And I want to say this project is a disaster for the entire neighborhood and the street. Since the beginning, even Linda Lau asked me And why, David, why are you looking so old, lost two years? I was so stressed about all the noise, all the things. And I want to say, I think Michael said it very good. Because even the flatter area you design the parking, you have to have like 22 feet of clearance. We don't have our street. You park two car on two side, you don't have nowhere you can drive your car in. My cross the street from my house, the 18 Cambridge Way and the 30 Cambridge Way. They always hit my car. Their driveway is flat on that side. I got a lot of dents on my door. This is impractical. Also, they take the street pocket away. There's no... Used to be 21 campus away, only have one AD, one car, we're always a fight with the spot. Now you have a 3,000 square feet house, plus ADU, I would say minimum three car. Is that fair? Even now, I park my car two block away. This is not increase the parking spot, it's take the spot away, make the things worse. I just want to encourage Planning Commissioner, objected to this project. This project from the beginning of the disaster is wrong. Making our life is horrible. If you approve this, then make it worse. Yes, we can. So please, consider all the neighbors. It's not for, only consider their benefits. I think Bransford is right. There are a lot of things, we present a lot of facts in the past. We objected to this project. Nobody listened to us. I'm an engineer, I told you guys what my, my understanding the project's so big because this street is very large, compact street. It's not mean too big a building like that. So many cars. It's so crowded now already. Even with one car from 21 Cambridge in the past, I lived there 25 years. I know that, I lived there, I know every day. So please. Don't approve this project.

Thank you. Before you go, questions? I have a question. Sure. So you said that you have to park your car two blocks away sometimes cuz it's crowded.

Yeah, I still have two car parked in my friend's house.

You have two cars parked in front of your house?

Yeah, I have a two car parked in front of my house, yes.

Say that again, please.

What?

Could you just repeat your last statement?

I told her I have four cars.

You have four cars.

I have four cars. I park two cars at my friend's house.

At your friend's house.

Okay? I have two cars because I have to think about somebody else. I always... Even just so rude... 21 companies in the past two years, I still always keep that empty. If they want me to move my car, I can move.

So, yeah, I've looked at the street. I was wondering about the tightness of the parking. What? And the tightness that you're talking about of the parking, but I noticed that there are a lot of cars on that street with tarps on them.

That's a different issue, okay? We talk about the parking. We're not to talk about the cover. Okay, don't do that. When you look at the technical issue, when Thomas Yee, Commissioner, he talk of the technical issue, why you guys want to prove first, then go to technical, that's the opposite. You have to know the feasibility, the safety. You guys make sure this is durable before you prove. Why you go opposite? Oh, you prove first, then you need to see the engineer.

No, I'm trying to get, I'm asking you, because I've driven the street a lot of times, and I've seen what you're talking about, that it's tight. But part of it is...

Very tight. This street is very tight.

Now part of it is that there's several cars.

Not only the lot is very... My lot is 33 feet wide. There are a lot of lots like that. Okay. If you have a big truck, you cannot even park a car in front of your house. You process your street west, it's 30 feet surface. You have to take 10 feet each side. You don't have much space left. You cannot even turn. Brian said, okay, it's very hard to turn. That's why my cars keep getting hit. My good car cannot park it there. Okay? I know, I have a camera, I know who did it, but it's just so loud. I go to the neighbor asking, fight, okay, you hit my car. I move my good car away.

And the impact of the cars with the tarps on them, they don't move.

No, no, I move my car every day. I drive it, okay?

So that's not your car with the tarp?

Yeah, it's in front of my house. What I do, I have the pocket. Every time I move, I have the pocket on the original spot, right? Okay. Of course.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

The next speaker is Gloria Howell.

Hello, everyone. My name's Gloria. I'm living on 19 Cambridge Way. So I'm pretty sure you guys read our written statement and know our concerns about this project. So I'm here just to sort of emphasize a few key points so that it's on top of your mind. I think the importance here is the topographic features of the site. Two years ago, when the project just started, we pointed out this site is steep, it's narrow, it's not suitable for a big house. But at that time, it was proved and it was cited, one of the statements said because it fit all the zoning code, everything, it doesn't need any various, it's a project sort of fit into the lot. But The fact is, it does not fit at that location. The house is too big. And now they come back to ask for variance. And at that time, they want to push the house to front. They add it to the front and the back on the left side. At that time, they said, OK, we can push further up front. We didn't need any variance. But now the variance is needed. They come back to ask for variance. So what kind of practice is that? And now also, again, due to the site, the steepness, and how short it is from the front street, this garage is not practical at all. Everybody knows that. And even Brian says they are not using their garage. The garage is not going to be used for vehicle parking. It's just adding storage. While they're getting a storage, we're losing that one parking spot, because they're gonna not park in the car garage, and they cannot park on the driveway because it's too steep and it's gonna block the sidewalk, and the on-street parking is taken away. So we're losing one parking garage. They're getting a storage. Except that, no benefit from everybody. And we're going to waste a lot of city resources to do the study. It's a waste of city resources. And it's going to cause a lot of inconvenience for the laborers, cause a lot of trouble for the city, and it's going to gain no benefit but just troubles. for everyone. And it's also going to cost a lot of money. Honestly, I think it's a waste of everything. And it's not going to have any benefit except a storage at a big house that doesn't fit into the neighborhood already. So because of all these reasons, honestly, I think it's a waste of our time to even be here. We know it's a space. It's not going to use a car garage. It's going to take all the street parking away. And it's already have the parking commission meeting, have the planning meeting, and the park workers have to do a lot of extra work. So thank you for your consideration.

I have two more speaker cards. The first is Maseo Zhang, who was ceding her time to Derek Chow, and also Nicole Lin, ceding time to Derek Chow.

Just to answer some of the neighbor concerns. In terms of safety, the garage door was designed to be 10 feet wide. two feet larger or wider than regular eight feet for a single parking. With that, we're going to give it a better eyesight. And we also make it up with that we're going to have the 16 feet wide driveway apron, whereas Brian's is only about 10 feet, 11 feet wide. With that, and then we have more space to navigate. And if you refer to the handout that Michael passed out earlier, some of those 40% slope is at all the places that we saw before. Probably not all commissioner has the copy, but I hope that maybe you can pass it on as it's down. So commissioner can see it. And some of those 40% slope, grade, driveway,

What did you say that your driveway width was compared to the neighbors?

And the neighbors is about 11 feet. I see. So, yeah, we come and say that. Okay. Regarding about the parking, taking it away, there's a lot of problems going on over time. If I may, here, can you pass it on? There's a lot of competition for packing space. Neighbor putting cones out there, reserving it. This is not ours. Without a garage, then we have more space, then we keep competing. What are you trying to illustrate with this picture? People reserve their space. And we'd like to have the garage and then we can use it. I'm sorry, say that again, please. Neighbors put the cones out, reserving those packing space. They keep it for their own. Right in front of our property. So whether that we're gonna take the parking space, we're not. When you got two car in front of your property, we deserve also two car.

Another question. Well, you have still 25 seconds.

OK. That's all I have. Go ahead. Give me a second. We also have the benefit is that EV, charging, right? Electrical, here we go. with the garage and then we're able to have that capacity to try to cut down the road with the climate action plan that the state or the people have adopted. And also the 40% that I did, sold it, that's the worst case. That's the most extreme at the edge of the property. So if we're gonna take the average one side 32, one side 40, it's come out 36% slope.

So is that why you had those two separate sides?

That's why I got two sides.

And so on section number three. Microphone, please. Your drawing shows almost the bottom. Sorry. On section three, you're showing the car on that slope almost hitting the bottom of the car.

Yes. Yes.

And that is in ideal conditions, right? Is that if the car has lower tire pressure or... Lower tire pressure or more weight onto it. If it is bouncing, especially due to more textured surface, would you think that the car will be hitting the bottom? Especially other things underneath the car, right? This is just the body, right?

That design would not incorporate with the vertical curve, but we're going to study a little more, incorporate some vertical curve in there, take out that gray break right there and shave it up. Probably that would improve the clearance.

Somebody else raised this in the other comments. Where do you get the 12-inch clearance dimension from?

Originally, the owner owns the car, and she gave me that information. It was measured at the front bumper. So we clarified that, and we corrected that 10%. That's why there was a handout today with that schematic to clarify that, that 10%. I mean, 10 inches.

One last question for me. Do you own a 450E Mercedes?

The owner owns that.

Okay.

I have one other question for you, sir. If this project were approved, how long would the construction take?

How long?

How long would construction take if this project?

I would say about two months. This is pretty simple, right in front of the backyard. We can get excavated in- Two months? Two months. Maybe it's worth three months, but two months. Excavation can be done very quickly.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.

I have no more speaker cards. We may want to open it up for people who are participating via Zoom.

I have no hands raised at this time.

Okay.

And Chair Roland, if I could just make a note that one of the speakers said that staff has made findings for the project. I just wanted to clarify that staff doesn't make a recommendation on projects before it at this time.

Okay, very good. Thank you. I just realized I have some more questions for the architect. I'm so sorry.

No, by all means.

And this goes into the deliberation. We haven't really talked about the design. We've talked about everything except for the design.

Thank you for bringing that up. That's the point we wanted to bring up is that we're looking at the design and the variance that Public Works will review and give a condition of approval. So even if you were to say, yes, we approve this, they still need an encroachment permit from Public Works to look at radius, slope, and anything in the public right-of-way.

Okay. I have questions about the design. Yeah. So first of all, the stucco... Is that same color, same type as the main building? Yes. Okay, yes. Why did you choose sconces as opposed to the recessed down lighting that you have on the primary?

There was no overhang this time.

Okay, why is there no overhang?

Oh, that's a good point. We could incorporate that if that's a conditional approval.

Okay. And then the kind of stone, you know, facade accent that you have on the primary building, is there a reason why you did or did not include it?

We could have done that, but I would think that if I could have put in there maybe too much, it's going to take away the curfew of the building itself.

Maybe a little too crowded. Those were the only questions I had about the design.

Yes, I did thought about that, but then it's given a small area that we have in the front.

It would impact the distance of the sidewalk, I got it.

Okay, thank you. Then we will close the public comment for this particular agenda item and proceed to commissioner deliberation. But before we do, Pierce, was there any information obtained on any traffic enforcement for this particular street? Because this seems to come up as part of these discussions every single time.

We do not have that information, but we could provide it to the commission at another meeting.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we will open up discussion on the subject. Does anyone want to open up?

I will.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Putty, I think you're alternate for this item.

Can I talk or not?

No.

Okay, thank you. So we'll switch then over here. Okay, I'll start.

I'm really not sure where to start, because there's so many finite issues related to this. I think overall... Obviously, there's a limited resource on that part of Cambridge. Everybody who lives in that stretch is basically sticking out their claim for street parking. That's obvious. As Commissioner Rowling said, there's a mixture of cars that short-term parkers who come and go, and then cars with tarps on them who maybe park for a more lengthy period of time. My feeling is that this project is difficult because I don't feel like it really adds, it doesn't really solve the parking issue on the street. It swaps one space which is publicly accessible for a space that's privately accessible. And the notion that It's great that it's going to be a vehicle charging, electrical charging station inside the garage. That benefits the owner, but it's sort of the tail wagging the dog. So I don't feel like we should let that necessarily give us sway in terms of whether or not we should approve this. The applicant is asking for two variances, one in the front and one on the side. The front being... They've made some adjustments to pull the garage back. I feel like the garage is a bit tall. In their diagrams, this diagram, it feels like the vertical clearance for the car is excessive. And therefore, the garage itself is a bit out of scale with its neighbor on 25. So I feel like that should be addressed. The driveway, based on the radius turns and so forth study that the architect did, I'm not terribly convinced by that, because when I used to do this stuff, we used to use the Caltrans template for vehicles, and it is a software program that Commissioner Zurichian alluded to. Which leads me to feel that, you know, I feel like this should have been worked out before coming to ask for variance with Public Works. Because as I understand it, Public Works is going to lower the level of the sidewalk in front of this property, which is great. You know, it helps the garage. But at 36% average slope, I mean, while we were talking, I looked up some of the steepest streets in San Francisco. You'll love this one. So all of us are familiar with Filbert Street, right? That's a pretty steep street. That's about 32% slope. Lombard, the crooked street off of Russian Hill, that's 16%. on the turns and 27% on the straights. And when I've driven up streets that are that steep, you come to the top and you can't see beyond your hood and it's a little scary because you don't know where you're going. And so I feel like given the conditions of the site, it would have been appropriate for the applicant to approach public works First, to see if this is even feasible to do this. Is it better to ask for the variance and then go to Public Works and make it work out? I guess, Pierce, you know, we could do it either way. But it would have been, to me, it would have been better had the applicant come and said, this works. And here's why. And here are the reasons why. The slopes and the turning radii. Public Works is blessed with it. And then the variance, I think, would be easier to grant. But I feel like to me it's a little backwards. I think it's a controversial project because I don't feel like it's going to address the issue of a very limited resource on a very tight street and all the neighbors have treat this as a precious resource and therefore they're sticking out their spots. And any project like this should not solve the problem, it's not gonna solve the street problem, but it should lend to solving it. And I think in this case, it should be that it's tried and true, this is gonna work.

Technically before asking for the variance and that's that's my feeling Thank you, so my comments were similar and it's somewhat process related as you're alluding to is you know which came first right and You know you talked about the public works approval being a condition, but we almost don't have enough information You know we may get the thumbs up or thumbs down from public works, but how does it How much does it change the slope? How much does it change the ingress and egress? There's a lot of questions we have that will be addressed in that study, but we just don't have it now. So as it goes to the process, we're being asked to opine on two variances. Do we stick to that and let Public Works do their thing, or do we kind of wait until we hear from Public Works?

We do have a lane. We don't have the Public Works lane. We're design review. So we can stick to that. Meaning that we don't have to consider what Public Works does. We have this in front of us as design review variance. So we can consider design review and variance. That's our lane. Public Works and other departments can do that. And I actually do think that we have enough information here to do our part.

I would say likewise. I mean, there's a lot of issues surrounding the policy of parking, this commons area that we have that are shared among neighbors. I mean, we don't necessarily get to decide what the policy is for parking on Cambridge Avenue. I mean, that's not within our domain. So I mean, it's troubling, and it's something that we can think about. as a basis for our decision that's outside of our boundaries.

Yeah, I understand, Commissioner Rollin, what you're saying about what's in our purview to act on. I guess I go back to basics in terms of the process. If I were designing a building and I'm going to design it as a concrete building or a steel building or a wood building, You know, I want to know that if I'm coming to a body to approve it, I want to know that if that's my choice to do a steel building, that the steel building's going to work. I don't have to come back again because the building got taller because it had to be... Sorry, if it was concrete and then the building had to be taller because I had to switch it to steel, you know, which has happened. You know, it happens quite often. So to me, the process... We don't need to figure out what Public Works is going to do. You're right, absolutely. That's not our bailiwick. But in terms of the process and stepping through for the applicant, I'd want to know if this is going to work first, technically. And then they can come to us and say, look, we need a variance because of the water line. We need the height because of clearance because of the slope and so forth. And I still feel like the building's too tall That, I think, would be a reasonable approach.

I kind of agree with you. But one thing that I noticed about, you know, in making decisions on so many things in life, I look at them differently and I place the order of decision-making differently. And my first thought about that is, other people aren't me so when they do things in a different order um maybe that's that's from my point of view not the preferred order and i and i agree with you about that but when i have something in front of me design review even though it's not in the preferred order We do have enough information, generally speaking, to evaluate this and make a design review or decision on variances. And we have some very specific guidelines about what qualifies for a variance and what circumstances. For example, looking at this, one of the things is due to the specific configuration or characteristics of the property would they be able to do what they're trying to do without a variance and would they be able to to do what others on this in the same area are able to do if they don't get the variance and when you look at the street configuration you see a lot of variances here for front of the house garages that have fairly similar configuration. Even when you walk the street, you see that. Other, others?

Yeah, no, I definitely am thinking more along Commissioner Yee's thought, is that this is integral, this is a design review, ramps, access to garages are part of the design of the garage. We cannot to completely delegate that. I have concerns, right? I want to make sure, you know, we have said, I have strong concerns that this will not work. So we want to make sure, right, you know, We hear everything. It creates a precedent that projects will want to kind of start doing things out of order. It does make sense for the commission to see what is the issue because it's not an ordinary situation. For ordinary driveways and ramps, we could have deferred 100% to the public roads. Having been involved in designs similar to this, I cannot see how this will work. So I'm anticipating some comments coming back from public works that will necessitate moving the garage, doing some things. What happens then? Do we have to reevaluate? So I think the order of things is, you know, it has to change. the encroachment permit, and from an engineering firm, from really a good calculation that, yes, this is going to work, and then I think we can make it.

So my understanding, and Pierce can help us with this, is... it is a condition that the Public Works has to approve the project, right? And if they come out and say the garage has to be moved, then our approval is null and void, and the process starts over. So I'm with both of you. I largely prefer the order be in the other direction, but I think we can approve or disapprove this proposal, and when Public Works comes out with their information, whether or not they approve or disapprove it, make them move the garage, If they make changes, they don't have to come back to us.

And it's based on our standards, not necessarily possibly a higher level standard that public works would have.

And to the extent that there's an entire department of the city who does that for pay, we don't need to duplicate their work as volunteers. So we have a design review and variance application in front of us. And I think we have adequate information to make a decision. Commissioner Busilink, did you want to make any comments on this one?

I mean, as far as the variance is concerned, I mean, you can see from the map and just going down the street, you know, how many garages are close to the property line, close to the street, close to the sidewalk. You know, I don't necessarily have any issue with... Obviously, I have concerns about the practicality of this, whether or not it would work, whether or not the car would have proper clearance. The EV charger, I would note that my own personal EV would not make it over that. It has 6.8 inches of clearance, and I think a lot of EVs that are low to the ground might not be able to clear it into the garage. But that's not basis for me making a decision on the variance in the design. I think that the variance is appropriate given the neighborhood. The design, I mean, kind of as to my questioning at the end, I think as proposed, it will look somewhat different from the design of the primary residence. It doesn't have the same lighting, doesn't have the same, I mean, it has the stucco, same color and everything, but you know, the roof look, the facade look, you know, they just, they will look different, you know, so it's a markedly different building than the residence. So I'm not sure if, you know, it's consistent. I mean, if we look at, like, design preservation policy 28.5, garages to complement the architecture and design of the primary residence building, But then it also says site to minimize safety impacts and should not encourage parking that blocks all or part of the sidewalk. I'm not quite sure it's consistent to complement the architecture of the primary residence.

When you say not consistent to complement the primary residence, what do you mean? Which part is inconsistent?

So the stucco is consistent. The color is consistent. But there's like a kind of a metal... I don't know if it's called a flashing or kind of like a formed metal.

Do you want to pull it up?

Yeah. And I don't know if I have a picture of the residence easily seen, but there's kind of a metal front along the roof line. where the downward lighting, the recessed lighting comes, like the overhangs from the roof. And so that is like the... Can we get that elevation?

Can you tell me which sheet that would be, please?

A4.

Yeah.

A4, A5, even the look on A5. Okay. A5's the front elevation. Off to the right there. So you see above, like, you know, the second-story windows and the doors, there's, like, kind of you can see where the beam identification is, you know, along, and then the kind of, you know, the roof line there. So there's a style and a look to that that front and the roof and the facade and the stone around. It has a very particular design. And the garage does not. The garage is just a flat front.

So you're saying that the garage should be more designed, for example, the finish of it?

I wouldn't say should. I'm just saying as far as consistency with the primary residence, it's not the same.

Well, it looks the same to me. I mean, you have the stucco here, you have some stucco above, and you have the... The stone or brick at one level, it's all just interlaced. You have an interlaced front appearance of stucco and brick.

There's no brick on the front of the garage. What is that?

That's stone? Yeah. Okay. Looks like brick.

Can you move that up a little so we can see the bottom of the garage? See, so there is no stone accent on the garage.

There's no stone accent on the garage. Right. So you're saying that would that make it better? I think when I'm looking at the whole picture there, I see the garage is stucco. You have some stone above that. And then you have some more stucco on one side and other stucco. It's just...

I'm just saying it's a separate building with different roof, different materials on the facade. Or not quite the same... look is the primary building. So, and so from a design standpoint that, you know, it's, it's a box. It's, it's a, the garage, the garage is a white box, you know, with, with two sconces, which are also, there are no sconces on the primary building. They're all down lights. They're all recessed down lights.

Okay.

So I'm just saying that it's just, it's different. And I don't know if that's, you know,

uh... a primary consideration for whether or not we approved one of the project designer view you know on a designer view i mean it is designed yet but on the garage uh... you've got to have it uh... way be at such a weight that it's mechanically able to open easily enclosed do so over years and years and years so what do you do different

color it's the look really that you know the function is not going to be affected it's really the look it's like how it relates to the building usually a stone when it is at the lower there's a hierarchy for a building like the stone usually is at the lower level to kind of anchor it to the ground and then you use the stucco as you go right there's a hierarchy of lightness so that's kind of so this being lower than the foundation of the building, right? Just lends it to be...

The stone as opposed to the stucco.

Right, right. Got it, got it. So you're saying...

Working up, you're drawing your eye up to the...

So to have some uniformity of appearance, you would have stone as the...

Right, yeah, as the facade instead of the stucco. And then, I'm not sure if, you know, the roof, the feature of the roof, you know, similar to the The primary residence.

What is the primary residence roof? Can we see that? I wish we had a picture. Can they just pull this down a little? I'm not sure. What about it? Just two. It's a flat surface and another flat surface.

It might actually be in those pictures we passed around.

There's more space between the top of the garage door and the cap of the parapet. I think initially this was designed to have some kind of perfect to prevent people from falling because it was designed as a deck. But right now the design has evolved to not be used as a deck, right, to reduce it. I think this will benefit from even reduced height since this is not going to be something to be walked on, right?

Is there a picture?

Well, yeah, you can see the stone here, right? So how this is anchored, that's the stone. So this will be an element similar to that. I think what's really going to help proportion-wise to the garage is you don't need that space above the roof of the garage. to help with the proportions, right?

Because... What space are you referring to?

You see the dashed line above the top of the garage door? Yes. That is where the roof is.

Oh, really?

Right? What you see on the front is about... Yeah, there's a parapet around the roof.

Oh, I see, I see. I get it.

So it just creates... everything is massive so it just kind of makes it lighter less heft and that's easy to achieve probably so what are you saying remove that lower it down well you cannot remove it you can reduce the height of the pyramid would that be an issue reducing the height of the pyramid no

We can, can I, can I see lower? Do you know what, there was enough to say that 10 feet wide by eight feet garage door, and probably the bottom four feet, and we could put some lesser stone matching the stones up in the house. So they're gonna break the plank, the stucco plank,

You're talking about just only like four feet. So the walls on the sides, the retaining walls, are these how big?

On this size, or we can go all the way up. And to answer this commission, that we also can put back the canopy, if you like, just matching the top over there. It won't be as big, but it's going to be a little bit.

Right, yeah. It would be strange to have it protrude too far, especially.

Is there a canopy like at the top?

No, we don't have that right now.

So this kind of follows the top of the building, like the crown of the building. So it's similar. If you put a canopy here, it will be out of place.

uh... charlotte as a point of information the garage is set back about fifteen inches from the property line so any of proposed overhang would probably be limited to about twelve to fifteen inches but that could be sufficient for recessed lighting yeah for a similar look so you want to propose some kind of a change

you know, conditioned on review, you know, of additional proposed overhang and lighting. I mean, that would be subject to staff review.

I think staff would recommend an additional condition of approval if the commission wanted to take action on the application tonight that the entire garage facade shall be finished with stone veneer to match the existing residence, that the parapet will be lowered to, I would assume, a six-inch parapet?

Six inches, yeah.

A six-inch parapet, and that recessed lighting and a canopy would be installed above the garage door, subject to staff review and approval.

Okay, that sounds good.

The only other question, I mean, this goes within what our lane is, you know, the boundaries. I mean, there was a citation to, you know, the code, you know, 17.66.060C, like, you know, we may not approve a design review permit unless it does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety. I mean, is that? part of our consideration process. I mean, a lot of that has been discussed here tonight, so.

And because if we're going to make that motion, we are deferring to the public works, right? And that is the indeterminate. That has to come from public works. It has to be unequivocal. It has to be very clear that it is usable, it is feasible, it doesn't pose any hazard or safety issues. They will not be, you know, the cars will be able to back out without hitting cars that are parked across the street. I have lots of concerns of the functioning of this thing, but we're deferring it to the public.

So we're saying, like Commissioner Yee said, you know, have that. been accomplished first, we would be able to know for certain and have that. But we don't. But that doesn't stop us from making that condition.

My interpretation would be that we don't include that in our findings, that we don't find that it doesn't impact pedestrians because we have to defer to public works.

So I'm going to interrupt here. That is one of your required findings, that it is not, I'm not sure what it says per se, but that it is not hazardous to pedestrians. So that is where this project is not in alone, one, this, and this. There is some intermix. So that is part of your deliberation tonight as well, that the project itself is not I don't know.

I agree with you, Ms. Mendez. If you look at design guidelines, not only is it design, but it also alludes to safety and pedestrian safety and other concerns. And it is... I mean, we should be working holistically within ourselves with the planners and with Public Works to create a project that works for the neighborhood. So just a few more points if you bear with me. I think the goal here should be to make a garage or build a garage, design a garage that makes it easy to use as a garage. It would be a shame if we approve this thing and then it becomes a big closet. Because this section of Cambridge is an unusual situation, exasperated because of the skinny lots and people who own more than two, three, this gentleman here owns four cars. So not everybody owns four cars because he's a very rich guy, I guess. But again, I think our goal should be to make the garage, approve a garage that is really workable, that cohabitates with the rest of the neighborhood and contributes not only to the aesthetic aspects of it, but also its functionality. Does it really improve the parking situation? Even that little bit, that would help. I've heard a lot about, applicants do this all the time. They come and say, look, you know, I've got, you know, 15 precedents here in my neighborhood that says that have variances, right? Well, that's all fine, you know, and I don't know when those variances were granted or when those projects were built, but today we're looking at a variance, you know, is it absolutely necessary to have a variance to make this achievable? And then, I think the, and then, As an aside, somebody said this house is too big back in 24. I wasn't here in Planning Commission at the time. There are no variances, I believe, at the time the approval was granted, which means that the house, and I want the public to understand this, one of our charges here is to approve projects within guidelines, the design guidelines, and within the zoning ordinance. So at that time, this residence met all those requirements, and so we have an obligation, unless there's some overriding issue with design or planning or an issue like that, or safety, that we are obligated to approve it if they're within those guidelines, and they were at the time, right? And so I come back to my original comment about the basics. So the process right now is if we grant the variances, and they go to Public Works, applicant goes to Public Works, and it doesn't work, then they're gonna come back, which tells me that they should've come to us with something that's been worked out with Public Works in the first place, right? Two trips versus one trip. We're a volunteer body. We are happy to contribute our time to the community, but we're about to go talk about item five in our agendas about how to streamline our process, right? Well, one of the streamlines is to, you know, have fewer visits with us to move projects along, right? And to me, my view, it would have been better to work it out with Public Works since they're paid people and come back to us for variances, you know? Then you don't have to come back twice if Public Works doesn't approve it.

We did initially approach the Public Work.

Sir, the public hearing is closed unless I ask you a question. Oh, okay.

So again, that's enough said on my part.

One other concern I would like to kind of add to the whole discussion is that there is not equal accommodation. This really assumes the user of the house, right? There's no guarantee you will be in that house for a long time, right? If you decide to move out and somebody else moves in, they have to have a car that is designed for that, right? It does not accommodate most cars. It accommodates a very small, exceptional cost, right? So we are providing, we're giving variants for exceptional cars and not for wider, like, you know, even electric cars that you're mentioning will be very few that will So I want to add that as a concern that we're approving something that is an exception rather than the rule. For accessibility, we're saying it's not going to remove cars. It's not going to be practical for the lifetime of the building.

Well, it will be practical for the lifetime of the building because if a person has a big dump truck, they won't buy this house and move there. Every house, like a person who needs a big house won't buy a tiny home. So there will always be a market for this configuration of a home with a single car garage space. One of the things about this is that it does eliminate that functional obsolescence of not having an off-street parking space for a house.

Somebody with a sedan can buy the house.

What's that?

Someone with a sedan can still buy the house.

Someone with a sedan, someone who has no car, or someone who has four cars and parks them everywhere. But that's really not as much the issue as the fact that those things that we've been talking about, the design, the safety, those things. So where are we on this? I think we should move forward. Okay. Get to it. All right. Then shall someone make a motion?

So I don't want to make a motion. I do want to clarify the process again. So we have two things in front of us. The variance criteria, which I can support. It's consistent with the neighborhood and so forth. And then there's the design review. And the design review states that it has no impact on pedestrian safety. I don't think we can make that finding right now. I know we say that, you know, it's subject to the public works... But I don't know that we can say it meets that criteria without the public works information.

So let's start with what particular safety issue are you speaking of?

So the turning radius, the visibility, the slickness of the driveway, the slope of the driveway. There are a lot of moving, well, they're not moving parts, but there are a lot of issues on that piece of the property. that is going to take somebody like Public Works. Right.

Slope, slipperiness, those things will be done by Public Works or whatever department does that. So what safety issues do we...

I'm sorry to interrupt you. You finished your point.

What safety issues do we have concern about?

pedestrian and vehicle safety. At that slope of the driveway, I have personal experience slipping backwards down a driveway that was probably not 40% when it was raining. So Public Works has to say they can design this in a way that's not going to impact people on the sidewalk or in the street.

Sorry, my feeling is that the applicant shouldn't ask Public Works to design this for them. They should design it. They need more information to demonstrate to Public Works that it works. They need to make a proposal to Public Works based on the Caltrans standards and go to them and say, this is how we're proposing to solve the issues that were raised by the public and the commissioners or staff or whatever. The onus should be on them to make a demonstration to Public Works that this is our proposal. Do you accept it? And if not, what changes do you propose? Because Public Works has a control over the height of the sidewalk and the fixed side of the street. And then the utilities in the street. So I think Public Works is not in the business of solving.

Am I hearing you correctly that Your preference would be that there would be a denial of the design review. Correct. They resubmit the public works, or submit the public works, a final design.

I agree with Commissioner Zucchin. It's a 35% slope. I mean, if this were elderly people or your teenager driving the car in and out of the garage... Again, I think the goal should be to make a garage that's usable by as broad a constituency as we can. We don't know how many cars people are going to own. We don't know all those factors, who's going to buy the house, who's going to sell, all that kind of stuff. That's outside of our purview. Our goal should be good design is functional and aesthetic, and if you need a variance to make this work, fine, right?

I just haven't seen that. So what you're also saying is that, and what Commissioner Cooper is saying, we can't sign off on the no adverse effects on pedestrians and et cetera because we can't see that. So, and they're saying that it's the, Commissioner Yee is saying that it's the the applicant's responsibility to make that very clear. As he was saying earlier, one of the ways of doing that was to have put this before Public Works or whatever department does that first. If it weren't for the public safety issue of it, I would think that we should just go ahead and move forward. But we can't with that hanging.

And I would say there are questions that have been raised about, you know, where are the sight lines? What kind of mirrors are being proposed? Where are those mirrors? How do we determine whether or not there's sufficient visibility to protect pedestrians. So unless we have those details, like we just, we don't know. We're just assuming and guessing. Yeah.

And also, and this is a design review issue, does a driveway need to be 16 feet wide on a street where most of them are 10 or 11 feet or whatever, you know what I mean? It's creating a wide sidewalk to accommodate something that, you know, If you were to do another one of those maps, these survey maps, I'd like to see how many 16-foot-wide driveways there are within two blocks of this site. I don't think there are any. So again, design-wise, why should we allow 16 feet when if it was designed carefully, maybe it could be down to a couple feet, two, three, four feet. Pierce, did you want to add something?

Yes. Thank you so much, Chair Rowland. The commissioners have raised a lot of really important points this evening, and I just wanted to provide a little bit of context. The applicants did meet with our former public works director and had initial support for the proposed design that would result in a 30% slope. However, when the new interim public works director came in, they found some issues with the ADA accessibility and the grading, and so that kind of resulted in these these changes to the drawings. With that being said, if the Commission wanted to continue this item and give the applicants an opportunity to respond to your comments, you do have the ability to do that. I would suggest, though, that you ask the applicants if they'd be willing to approve a one-time 90-day extension of the Permit Streamlining Act to give us enough time to evaluate any changes and bring it back in compliance with that state law.

So say that and ask them what?

Yes, if the commission would like to continue this item and maybe you are ready to make a decision, I would ask the applicants if they are willing to request a one-time 90-day extension of the Permit Streamlining Act that gives the city time to review changes and comply with state law, the Permit Streamlining Act.

Okay. And what sayeth the commission?

I support the continuation, and, you know, it's up to the applicants if they want to approve the extension of the Streamlining Act, but I support that.

And over here. So do you want to... Yes. Any special language on that, Pierce?

Can you just confirm that you're requesting a one-time extension of the Permit Streamlining Act?

Would we know how long of an extension would you need? It's 90 days maximum. 90 days, okay. I think we could definitely grant that. And just to say that we would follow the procedures set up by staff. I think we attempted to. And chicken, egg, which one comes first? We just submit the application. We do the procedure however staff would like us to do it. I think we could follow that.

Okay, thank you. So that allows us to... postpone this for now?

If the commission approves a motion to continue the item, we'll continue it and re-notice this once we have revised drawings.

So do I hear a motion to continue this?

I'll move to continue this item within the extension of the permit process and be considered in the future.

Is there a second? Second.

Okay.

Commissioner Bruggen?

Aye.

Commissioner Yee?

Aye.

Commissioner Cooper? Aye. Commissioner Booseluk?

Aye.

Chair Whelan?

Aye.

Okay.

Thank you.

We now move to agenda item number four, a variance and design review permit for 310 Magnolia. Do we have speakers on this item?

Yes, we have one speaker card, John Ware.

Please state your name.

Yes, good evening. My name is John Ware, architect and engineer for 310 Magnolia. Thank you members of the Planning Commission and staff for taking the time to review the proposed renovation in addition to this residence. The owners, Peggy and Chris, are Piedmont residents who purchased the home earlier this year so that Peggy's parents could be closer to their grandchildren. Since then, Ware Associates has worked with Peggy and her family to develop a remodel that will make the house safe, livable, and welcoming. The main design issues have been providing accessibility without a street-facing ramp, adding a small front portico, improving site drainage and connecting the home to a functional rear yard, moving the stairs indoors and caring for neighbor views, privacy, and light, an admitted challenge that we have spent a lot of design time on to minimize impacts. Most of the addition is at the lower garden level where we're adding 663 square feet of below grade space with direct access to the rear yard and no need for an elevated deck. We are adding 169 square feet to the upper level to make the bedrooms and bathrooms more usable. One of the two existing bedrooms is currently only eight feet wide. We're asking for a variance for a roof over the front door, something that every neighboring house already has. The existing main floor and partial lower garden level are currently connected only by an elevated outdoor wooden deck and stairs extending into the backyard. The rear addition will be five feet shorter in length than the current deck and will allow the stairs to be moved from exterior to interior while preserving the functionality of the main level. The addition is designed to minimize adding building volume achieved by stepping the building rear roof line down over the stairs. The project also removes the existing elevated deck, which currently gives direct sight lines into neighboring yards. In its place, the proposal improves the ground level by removing almost 700 square feet of concrete hardscape and orienting new windows toward the rear of the property. Together, these changes will meaningfully increase privacy for neighboring properties and improve on-site stormwater infiltration. In summary, this is a modest, largely interior remodel of a small Piedmont bungalow so that two elderly parents can live safely and independently. We respectfully request approval of the design review and variance application. I'm happy to take questions and we'll work with staff on any conditions that the commission wants to add. If time permits, I have a few answers to some questions that came up. I don't want to go for my time. Eight seconds is a lot for me to say, so I'll stop. But I have answers to questions that you may have regarding story poles, distance between property lines, and the size of the portico in comparison to the neighboring porch. Thank you.

Any commissioner questions? I have one question on this. There's a retaining wall on sheet A1.3. How tall is that retaining wall that extends into the backyard?

It's on the north face, north side, A1.3. All right.

It shows up on 1.2 as well.

I believe it's on the order of 2 foot 4 inches.

Let me see. It's below 4 feet, right? Is that the idea?

Yes, it's below 4 feet. I'm not certain of the exact height. I can tell you with certainty it's below 4 feet. All right, thank you.

The extension in the back is actually set back. It doesn't extend along the line of the existing building. There's about a foot and a half or so set back. It pulls further away from the neighboring building.

Yes, Commissioner Zaroukian. That's a good question. This property is very close to the neighboring property. The neighboring property is very close to this property. It's three foot six from the property line to this property, 310 Magnolia, and it's one foot eight and a half inches from the property line to 314 Magnolia. So both are less than five feet, which would be ideal. So what we have done for the small extension on the rear we pulled it back to be compliant with the five-foot setback from the property line. Yes. Which means the building has to jog. You can see that here. It jogs back. And one thing I just want to note, because it's related to that, Someone asked a question about the story poles, whether they show the building line at the exterior building walls or the eaves. They show the exterior building wall, story poles, as currently erected. And the eaves for this project, the existing eaves, and for the most part, all the other eaves, we're designing as one foot six. However, where this setback was... The plan changed. But where the rear setback is that you're asking about, we had kept the building E just straight because it's kind of simpler and cleaner. But that does extend what was a 1-foot-6 E plus a gutter, which is 1-foot-11, to more like 2-foot-11. And we're willing to... bring that back to keep it one for the 11. It just creates a jog there. But we're willing to do that because we know there's a concern there about light. That's something if the commission or staff wants that, we're happy to.

Yeah, that's my question. Thank you.

Sure.

Commissioner Yee, did you have a question?

So there is a concern about light. So have you done any lighting studies? It seems like by extending the top story out, you'll be blocking a substantial amount of light into the neighbors.

Yeah, that's a great question. So we do, the whole thing is modeled in 3D, BIM, Revit, so we can see the light at any time of day. And to be honest with you, the existing and the new, the buildings are so close that it casts a shadow on people. the neighboring building. It's almost unavoidable, except at noon. But our concern has been privacy, because that's really the only thing we can control. So we have added no windows on our north facade. We've taken down this elevated deck that used to look right into 314's room.

Yeah, I understand that aspect of it. There's also a concern with indirect light, though, too, right? So you can say only at noon does light shine between the houses. I understand because they're close together. Very close. But there's still a lot of light coming in from the backyard. Yes, yes. That will be blocked by this new addition as it extends back.

Yeah, so one thing we've done is we've changed. It has a hip roof, the house. So we've changed a portion of the extension, which is on this north corner. over the stair to a shed roof to drop it down to allow more light in. So that's something we changed. It wasn't our original design. And as I just mentioned, we could bring the eaves in there, which will allow more light and reflected light into that space.

Okay.

Any further Commissioner questions?

Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public who? Okay, then we will close the public comment portion for this agenda item and proceed to commissioner discussion.

Can we verify there's no one online?

There is no speakers at this time.

Great, thank you.

Commissioner Cooper, would you like to begin the discussion? Take these into two parts. Again, the variance, I support the variance for the portico in the front. The property is challenged. It's a small property. Putting the portico in will be consistent with the neighborhood. The next four neighbors have one, so it fits, and I definitely support the variance for the portico. I'm still concerned with the lighting in the back. If you stand... in the upstairs bedroom of, what is it, 312? 314. 314. It looks out directly at the property already, but it does have a view to the left, which allows a lot of light. If you extend that upstairs out, it'll be looking out at a solid wall, and that is challenging.

I think there's probably still plenty of light when you consider that. You look at the story poles and the configurations.

And I think it will help to pull the eaves in.

I agree for the front part. I think it keeps in the same character of the general character of the neighborhood. Most of them are already in the front set back. Towards the back, yes, there will be a wall that's added, but as seen from the story pose and as seen from the intent to pull it back from that wall, so standing in that in the bedroom here. Initially, I had an impression that the wall continued straight, and that was, I had more of a concern. Pulling it back a foot and a half, I think, will go a long ways to help, and especially if the E is pulled along similarly with the wall, with the same distance, I think that will mitigate that reduction, especially the light coming from above. I think I would be able to support it in that condition. And it helps safety-wise in the back, right? You know, it is, right? Because from here on the deck, you could see inside the bedroom, right? It does provide privacy. It is safer in the back, so.

Can you guys show me what you're talking about by changing the ease? I'm not sure. It's this. Michael says, oh. Okay. This is updated. I got it. I got it. Okay.

Should we keep going? Well, Commissioner Buselink, did you want to make any...

Yes, I totally agree about, you know, a variance for the Front Portico... No concerns about that. I did originally have concerns about the side yard variance based on the view and the story polls, but hearing and now seeing and understanding this proposed change, I think I could get behind supporting the variance. If I was being a stickler, I'm not sure if it's necessary I'm not sure if there was some reasonable hardship. I didn't see, unless there's been an update and the staff has received some proposed variance findings, I didn't see any proposed... Or side yard variance. Oh, I thought there was a side yard variance. Just the front. Just the front. Got it. Okay. Got it. Okay. Yeah, I was confused because when I was looking at the proposed variance findings, I was like, we're just talking about the portico. What about the rest?

So, I will entertain a motion to, yes, Mr. Lee, yes.

You know, I think I agree with the Commissioners Cooper, Zaroukian, and Buesling about the front yard setback variance, which is fine. I think pulling the roof back on the back because your neighbor is going to get some like afternoon west, southwest west sun. But most of the day, that whole area is going to be in shade. So I applaud the, which is what I was going to suggest, pulling the roof back to allow a little bit more daylight in there. I also want to ask the applicant and the architect, would you be willing to, Instead of just, because we were in the house next door, and I saw the story posted for all of this picture, but you've got some trellis treatments on the other side of the building. Would you be, or maybe some planting treatments on the wall that's facing the neighbor? Because their window does look right onto this area. Would you be willing to soften that elevation a little bit with, again, maybe vertical plantings or... Something that when, and I feel for your neighbor because, again, like they said, I could see you could do this and touch probably the two walls, right, of the two properties. So you're within your rights to extend the addition to the backyard five feet from the side property line. But as a gesture from a design standpoint, would you be willing to look at ways to mitigate and soften that elevation so that your neighbor gets something out of it? Because they are going to lose a little daylight. Soften the blank wall. Right.

Yeah, that's a loaded question. I just returned from Altadena. I was going to ask you if we can cut out all the eaves and soffit them so that the fire doesn't... to burn them, so any vegetation within like three feet of the property, blowing up the wall.

It's not. I mean, within reason. Yeah, it's not ideal. Again, I'm not gonna tell you how to do this. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Would you be willing? We are, yeah. Willing to soften the. Is it just like architecturally somehow?

Maybe architecturally, as long as it doesn't get into the setback issues, you have to work it out. I mean, yeah.

Five years ago, I would have said, yes, we'll put shrubs in there and soften it. Right. But now I can't say that. Yeah, everything's changed. Yeah, everything's changed.

Well, again, the shrubs are very, again. Yeah, yeah. Again, yeah, your neighbor has a back room there. Yes, yes. They're looking at it. Right at a wall. It would be essentially a two-story.

We faced this issue on another application regarding a staircase. Yeah. Right, right. And it was not. appropriate to require foliage within that proximity to the building. I remember Director Jackson saying that. The foliage is an issue because of fire hazard.

Is there any way to soften it? We don't want to tell you.

The architects are trying to tell you, can you make a cute wall? make it look good.

Or refractive.

We're totally open to it. Yeah, I hear your concern. I hear the neighbor's concern.

You're going to get benefits because I think it'll help ameliorate some of the discomfort your neighbor has with this blank wall, which is about two stories. I think that would help.

Yeah, it's a valid concern, and I hear that and applaud that. Thank you.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

Motion.

Okay. I'm always terrible at this. I move that we... This will be improved over time. Yes. It won't be improved over time. Hold on. Just let me find the motion. All right. I have it. Okay. So I move that we approve the project at... 310 Magnolia Avenue making the following findings. Should I go ahead and read through this stuff? Yes. The project is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 class 1 parentheses E existing facilities because it is a 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 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 17.70.040.A as follows. The property and existing improvements present unusual physical, well, it doesn't really. The project is compatible with the immediately surrounding neighborhood and public welfare because there are other homes with entryways partially in the 20-foot street yard setback. Accomplishing the improvement without a variance would cause unreasonable hardship in planning, design, and construction. because the existing uncovered entrance to the house is within the 20 foot street yard setback and moving the entry outside the setback would require significant reconfiguration of the existing house and possible demolition of the front of the house. 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 GUIDELINES IN THAT THE FOLLOWING FEATURES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL SETTING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT. THE PORTICAL MATERIAL AND DESIGN, THE PORTICAL HEIGHT, LOCATION AND LANDSCAPING AS CONDITIONED, THE MATERIALS USED FOR ROOF, WALLS, DOORS AND WINDOWS ON THE ADDITION TO THE MAIN HOUSE, THE SIDE YARD ARBOR MATERIAL AND HEIGHT. 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 the neighboring homes is appropriate and is similar to existing conditions. The proposed portico is in similar location as existing pathways, steps, and landings. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the project stabilizes the access to the residents, thereby improving on-site safety conditions. Vehicular circulation does not change. As a condition, the application complies with the following design standards and guidelines and general plan policies and programs. Chapter three, site design, sections 3.03, 3.05, 3.08, 3.09, 3.11, 3.12. Chapter four, building design, 4.01, 4.02, 4.03. 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 policies 28.1, .2, .3, .5, .6, .8, 29.2, .6, .8. The project is approved with the following conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. Can I say that?

Yes.

With one additional condition that the applicant will work with staff to present a design option on the east facing wall of the addition to soften its impact and scale.

I believe that's the north.

Is it north?

Okay, north. Well, it looks like east. Do we have to add a condition about the east?

Yeah.

If you want it as a condition, yes. If you want it as a recommendation to the applicant team to work on it, no. It's noted for the record.

And the next condition, new condition, the revision to the Eve on the addition on the northeast side as Presented in the document revised document a 1.4 from the applicant Well, are you going to how's this work?

It's right there Commissioner again, can you speak in your? So that condition, the applicant will submit a revised drawing to staff to document the change in the roof eave on the northeast side.

And I apologize. Did you add a condition about the softening on the, or did you add it?

I did. Okay. He did not accept my language to cutify it.

I second.

Okay. So we have a motion and a second.

Commissioner Zerukian. Aye. Commissioner Yee.

Aye.

Commissioner Cooper. Aye. Commissioner Uslink.

Aye.

And Chair Rowland.

Aye. Thank you. Okay. We now move then to agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Agenda item number five. Presentation from interim planning and billing director on planning application review and commission procedures.

Good evening, commissioners. Once again, Jeff Bond, who has served as the interim planning and building director, and happy to turn it over to Leslie here to take the reins. This first came up at your last meeting. There was a discussion at one point regarding some of the procedures, and using as an example what you just did in reading findings, I think provoked a little bit of a discussion about what having an agenda item where you could talk about perhaps modernizing some of the things that you've done in the past. And so this is that in response to that discussion. And it's, in general, a good thing to do. As technology evolves, as laws evolve, as best practices in the planning world evolve, local governments should look at our practices to ensure they're being efficient and accessible and transparent in everything we do. None of these discussions this evening require any action tonight. This is intended to be an introduction. You're in good hands with Director Mendez to be able to begin to implement these over time. Some may require action by the City Council. Others are completely administrative actions that staff can do right away. But I think that you can expect them to be phased in as the practices evolve. So I'm going to go through the points in the staff report. Please feel free to interrupt at any time if you have any questions or comments. I don't mind that at all. First of all, with respect to agenda packet distribution, under Piedmont's current system, there's essentially two separate packets that are prepared for the Planning Commission. The first is distributed about 10 days before the meeting. It includes project plans, staff reports, draft conditions of approval, and a findings worksheet. The staff reports portion of those materials are posted on the city web page for public review. The second packet goes out usually a few days at the end of the week before the commission meeting, four days or so, includes any public communications that might have been received, any notes that come out of site visits, any updates to plans or staff reports and so forth. The suggested improvement for consideration is To consolidate into one comprehensive staff report that would come out Sometime the week before the meeting in most cases. It's if you have a Monday night meeting Probably the Wednesday Thursday timeframe would be typical Friday is still perfectly legal those that need to be posted 72 hours before but Generally to give everybody a little breathing room sometime mid to late week And then the exception to that would be any architectural or engineering plans that are copyrighted. In that case, we do need permission from the copyright holder, the engineer, architect, or record to make those available publicly. Most cases that can happen, some cases not. And there is interstate law provisions to ask for massing studies as an example, as an alternative to the details in the plans. The second item is site visits. So a number of years ago, 2005, the city council adopted a policy requiring commissioners to visit the site of every application. This means that applicants must facilitate access. And if a commissioner cannot visit a site, you are required to recuse yourselves from that item. As a practical matter, to avoid Brown Act violations of having more than a quorum of you together at the same time to talk or look at an application. The practical matter from a staff perspective is that we're scheduling three different site tours, typically on a Friday before the meeting. This is an unusual practice. There may be exceptions in various communities for particular projects, but for the most part, it's a very unusual practice. And as a starting point, I would suggest that eliminating the mandatory part of that, whether it be for you as commissioners or for the applicant, to require your recusal or to require the applicant to allow you to visit the site in order to have action taken on the application. And part of this, there's a variety of reasons for this, both in terms of safely accessing private property for people you know either some cases I've been on active construction sites that's not a very good practice to be walking around a construction site unless you've properly equipped. Accessibility is another issue and then the information that you are using to make your decision should be in the administrative record in one way or the other, written down or photographed or so forth. So the recommendation and the common practice is that you would familiarize yourself with an application based on the material in the staff report or other publicly available information if you want to look at If you're able to drive by, great. Look at Google Street View, those kinds of things. For applications where you really want to know the nuances of something that's in the backyard or a side yard that's not visible, that's where it's upon staff to make sure that we're giving you the information that you need to make an informed decision. And if you're not seeing that information, to request that from us. so that we can get that for you, whether it's a photograph or what have you, or a drawing from the architect or engineer or designer, so that that information is all in the record. It's part of the materials that everybody can see, the community can see. And then if there's ever any question about the decision-making process, there's a good established record rather than just a visual experience that you might have from a site visit. The third thing is getting to what you see in your staff reports and how they're presented to you. Commission meetings. Currently publicly released staff reports do not have staff recommendations and we do not have draft findings. That's again an unusual practice and it's considered I think a best practice for staff to make a recommendation to you. You certainly don't have to agree to it but it does a couple of things. It allows particularly it gives you a point of departure first of all based on the professional experience of your team, where we're coming from on it. It gives members of the public and the applicant a better idea of what might happen in the meeting if they see, oh, I think they're going to approve this. That gives them an idea. It's less of a surprise. The second part of this is you don't normally receive from staff in a commission meeting a brief verbal presentation from staff. And again, this is an unusual practice. I think it helps. particularly on a night where you have three, four, five, six agenda items that might help you remember, okay, which one are we talking about? But more importantly, usually almost always you can track where you are on an agenda, but more importantly for applicants or members of the public who don't read the staff reports or aren't familiar with the process that you're familiar with, it helps them understand the key points and some of the key issues that at least staff that you feel like you' re going to be wrestling with. The fourth point is consent calendar procedures. Currently the agenda does not list what applicants are going to be on the consent portion of by essentially pulling the commissioners where you agree that, okay, one or two applications or three, whatever the number might be, are moving to the consent calendar. And then those are bundled up and that calendar is announced and voted on. But given that you haven't read the findings out loud, the reading of the findings are postponed to the end of the meeting. So technically, although you've adopted the consent calendar, you haven't approved the project because you haven't made the findings. The alternative practice and the more common practice is by having a staff report that has the findings and the conditions of approval and having something that's already on the consent calendar, you're basically approving the consent calendar with the findings and conditions. And by voting on that consent calendar, those items are approved at that moment in time. Therefore, you don't have to read the findings at the end of a long meeting, and the applicant either doesn't have to stay because they have otherwise a very routine application, or in the very remote possibility, but it would certainly be within your purview, the applicant leaves, and then at the end of the evening you're reading the findings and you decide, oh, wait a minute, we can't make these findings. We need to make some changes to the action that's being taken. that would be very awkward because the applicants already out of the room so by having the conditions and the findings in a package and the the proposed items that are posted on the consent calendar it's just cleaner and everybody's expectations are written down in advance on the agenda now in the event that you disagree with the staff's determination of what should be in the consent calendar you're more than welcome again or for that matter the applicant or a member of the public can can ask that something be pulled from the consent calendar at which point in time it all it essentially automatically becomes a regular agenda item when that happens the typical practice is let's say hypothetical you have three things on the agenda on the consent calendar agenda one of them is being pulled and the chair would then ask for a motion on the other two that no one has any comments about you vote on that those two applicants may stay or leave their action is taken then you act on the third one where there's a discussion to be had and it might be something very simple like can you just do this little thing Or sometimes they're pulled off the agenda just to say, nice job, beautiful design, just want to acknowledge it. That's fine. That's great.

I didn't hear that part. What did you just say?

You can have it pulled off not only just to correct something, but to compliment the architect or the engineer or the designer in some cases.

I'd actually like to give a different opinion, which is that you don't have to pull off something from the consent calendar to say nice job or can you add a period on page three. However, if there's any substantive discussion changes, requested questions, that would be the time to pull an item from the consent calendar.

Thank you. Would you determine that if someone, you know, brings it up? It's like, oh, you know, we saw this condition, you know, it's like maybe that should be modified a little bit. Do you take it to the rest of the commission and then we all decide whether or not to pull it and discuss?

Generally, if it's substantive, which would be a modification of a condition, that would be pulled. But if it's like you spelled there the wrong way, that could be just part of the consent process. similar like we approve it with this correction.

So who makes the initial determination of what goes on? Is it staff?

That would be a staff initial determination. And I think generally the practices were pretty conservative about that. So in other words, if we think there's likely to be any commission discussion or for that matter, if we're getting some communications that, hey, this could be... challenging application It won't stay on consent. It's it's only for those things where there's no indication of any issues at all So generally, yes, like it can go either way and

Staff could create a consent calendar. Anyone could pull it off, including members of the public, because if there's one person who wants to hear it, it deserves a hearing for the public. If we haven't put something on the consent calendar that you are all good with, there are no objections from folks in the calendar. We could add that to the consent calendar. So you are correct.

Thank you.

And then the final item. is the neighbor approval process for minor modifications currently there are certain types of minor design review applications that can be approved by staff only if adjacent neighbors grant written consent and then if a neighbor doesn't grant consent there's the the level of review it goes to a higher level of review this is without any in any interaction with between not necessarily with interaction between city staff and and the neighbor the recommendation would be that neighbor input be submitted not to the applicant for them to work out although it would be nice if they had a conversation but in the formal process that the neighbor communicate to the city And city staff would evaluate whether the neighbor comment is within the bounds of the regulatory framework that we have. In many cases, it might be. But in some cases, the neighbor might be asking for something that is not regulated by the city's design guidelines or the city's municipal code. And in that case, there's really not a basis, a legal basis, change to be required again if they want to have a private conversation before the application process starts up that's great and work things out that's fantastic but this is when we're in the formal process the the second part of this would be to give the director the ability to elevate something at this lower level review but still elevate it to the Commission we're not sure where if let's say a neighbor raises a good issue it could go either way that does warrant the Commission input that's why you're here is to make those judgment calls but to be able to bring that to you without requiring the applicant to resubmit to a higher level of review and that that's just kind of a way to expedite the process and and keep the process moving again for these relatively simple applications rather than to have a relatively simple application get bumped up to a higher level that generally is still a simple application but it just requires more work on our part.

You mean like a full-blown design review?

It could be different levels of design review, yeah. And all of this that through all this either than the applicant or anyone else for that matter still retain their appeal rights so if if a person raises an issue with the city city staff says I'm sorry but that's not covered that's a concern that's not covered in a design guidelines we can't accommodate your your request they can appeal that decision, formally appeal it, and then that would automatically come to you. But giving the director the ability to make that judgment call is just kind of a courtesy to not elevate a situation where there's unnecessarily, if indeed there's a legitimate judgment call to be made there. So those are the five points that were outlined in the memo. Um, as I mentioned, this is just kind of to provoke a discussion and, um, get your feedback. And if there are other things that, um, director Mendez could take on, um, as well, I'm sure she'd be happy to hear about them. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. I wanted to wait, like until you were done before asking a bunch of questions about it, but like, you know, do you mind if we go just briefly through some of these things? Like, uh, Number one, you know, four days for the first packet distribution or final packet distribution before the meeting seems really tight to me. This is just, I mean, speaking from experience, I mean, two of those days are weekend days. It would be like a day before any site visits if we are doing site visits. So I'm not sure if, you know, more commonly it would be distributed much earlier than then, not only for the public, but for us. So we have more time to review. I could easily imagine a meeting where there might be five or six agenda items, not all of which are consent calendar type of items. And that's just a lot of information to sift through on a short-term basis, and then having to make sure we're available even over the weekend, if possible, to spend the time to do it, just as a practical matter. So that's just one comment.

Anybody else? Yeah, I was going to say, I was thinking the same thing, especially when you said four days ahead of time. And you're thinking about some administrative requirements of giving adequate notice to the public. But you actually have volunteers who are looking through this material. So four days, well, maybe they're going to hire us. Maybe that's what it is. But for volunteers, that first package, let's say it comes a week in advance or so, I think that's your cutoff point. And it could be one package, but it can't be four days.

Yeah.

It's also helpful if we continue site visits, even if they drop down to drive-bys. It's helpful to review all the packets before going to the site, so you know what you're looking at. Yeah.

And comparing with the plan, just like, oh, I see what that is, and maybe there's something at the site visit with the story pools that is not consistent with what the plans are. You know, what has changed? And we're used to getting some of the materials, you know, at at the meeting and neighbor comments, you know, right before the meeting. And, you know, hopefully, you know, it's not significant enough to make us completely have to reevaluate, you know, our understanding of the project or the proposal. So the more lead time we have to kind of consider all the factors, like, is helpful. It's helpful.

Yes, I agree with both, all three commissioners here that I like getting the package when we get them now a week a week before, like a week ago Friday, because it does give us time to, especially if we have more items on the agenda. If we want to streamline the process, the final package right now, the practice is to send everything back again on the drop box. But maybe what staff could do is just give us the differences, the changes, the different documents that have come, like the neighbor comments, if there are new drawings. I don't need to see the original package again, because I will have reviewed it. And so that hopefully cuts down on the work. So we're only four days before the meeting, we're only transmitting the things that have changed. And using today as an example, the 21 Cambridge, if I look at my list of stuff that we got here on 21 Cambridge, I mean, it's almost 12 documents.

and build on your comment to highlight changes. The updated package for 21 Cambridge went from 17 pages to 20 pages. Then I was like, okay, what do I look for in the three extra pages?

Right, and then they gave us stuff at today's meeting. So there's a point, I mean, we're a small city, so we can kind of roll with the punches a little bit, right? So we give the applicants a little slack so that we're not so hard-nosed about it. I think that's fine, right? But there's a point at which an applicant may be trying to, and I think the 21 Cambridge applicant had done so much work, but they didn't focus their efforts. If they had focused their efforts, they could get what they wanted to get with much fewer documents. So one of the things that I feel is important to do is for staff to advise the applicant on what is appropriate to submit. Because when I was in private practice, when it came time to submitting for a planning application, you don't submit working drawings. So we're getting working drawings on all these applications.

That has been my biggest thing. We don't want to see working drawing. We don't need that. Construction documents with all the extraneous dimensions. Yeah, the notes. It just makes it difficult to read. You know, the drawings need to be clear.

Yeah, I think what the applicants are trying to do, they're trying to submit the whole working drawing package with the idea that we'll approve it and they're ready to go into construction. Right. Right. but they're forgetting their audience. So when you go to a cocktail party, don't wear blue jeans and tennis shoes. So they need to, I think staff needs to advise the applicants as to what is appropriate for this venue, for this meeting. And all the other extraneous stuff, it's time consuming for staff to process it. We're gonna look at it, but we're not really gonna look at it. And we wanna focus in on what are the issues that are really relevant to the decision-making process at this stage. It's not telling the contractor they have to stake the site or do whatever. We get all this stuff with the general notes of the contractor, and we don't need to see that. So I think that would cut down on the amount of stuff that gets transmitted at this stage. That would help streamline the process. And then if we could just, if staff could just present, transmit the changes on that four-day in advance of the meeting, again, trying to cut down on your time to resend everything again, because that's just, to me, that's busy work.

You know, peering through, you know, pulling back the curtain on the planning and building department, I'm wondering if, like, sometimes the... that additional information is there because the planning department has gone over a building and says, hey, can you take a look at this before we put this in front of the commission? Is that what's usually going on?

That could be here. There is a lot of pre-review by the different agencies prior to coming to you all. However, it is not typical. In the jurisdictions I worked for, we would not be providing the planning commission with structural calculations or, you know, we'd focus on the architectural plan set.

Usually, exactly, that has been my experience. There's a package that is... Microphone, please. And what is required is very clear. You know, it's a planning review document and it's not... It doesn't have...

I mean, there is a balance between providing quick service for the applicant versus our time and our ability to get through sometimes voluminous information when we have very large specific plans or zoning amendments and the package is like 500 pages. I could easily imagine, you know, four days to go through all that is not much. But, yeah, I realize we want to be responsive to applicants.

I'm going to just give my one op-ed from my week and a half about the quick service that I've observed. Something that we all strive for in Piedmont, though I feel that sometimes the quick service puts the cart before the horse, and sometimes it's actually more efficient and quicker service in the long run. have a little extra time, be it to see the staff, to have time to analyze what we're given, for us to ensure that we get the comments from the surveyors or the other reviewers and to provide you all with what's relevant. So when it does come to you, hopefully you will be able to make an informed decision with what is before us and been shared with the public ahead of time and not handed to at the meetings.

So the part about the site visits, yeah, I agree that they shouldn't necessarily be mandatory. I have just by happenstance been acquaintance to more than a couple people who have been commissioners before and they told me what they did. In at least one instance, it did not include anything more than a drive-by and review of material. On the other hand, and so the mandatory part, I agree with, but to facilitate a site visit is important, I think, to make sure that site visits are possible And the applicants are prepared for that. Because take, for example, 21 Cambridge. There are so many things about that application that don't show up on the application. This business of parking. And I had pictures of... of that street where there is a house that has less than two inches distance between it and the next house over. There are just some very special circumstances that you won't be able to see unless you make a site visit. Now that's up to the commissioner, but if there's enough information to be able to determine whether or not a site visit will be beneficial, then we can make that determination on our own. But I think that the applicant and any neighbor who wants to have any influence on the subject matter by sharing their point of view like this blocks my view or something like that, they still need to be prepared to show us. And then you mentioned something else that I thought was interesting and I hadn't thought about about going into construction zones. We take for granted that we're just walking into a safe site and then we leave with a twisted ankle or something like that. I mean, that's not a regular thing. But you are on an active, in many cases, you're on an active construction site. So that is something that a city may not want to necessarily require someone to do. Now, if they do it because they want to see whatever they see, they're on their own. But I think that you're right. And if a commissioner does go into those, they should be properly dressed or whatever. So they should be warned or informed that there's some loose material and some boards on the ground with nails protruding and things like that. Or you may have to do a little climb. There was one where we had to go up, climb on some wall behind the lake over here, Tyson Lake. And so yeah. But the mandatory part, no. But the applicant should be prepared that some of us are really thorough. And we know that a lot of the decision making information is contained in a site visit to visually see something and to see what's not discussed.

Again, I understand your point, Chair Rowland. I just ask you to imagine if one of you was in a wheelchair and you're in a wheelchair and you're not able to conduct the site visits that others are doing. Are you comfortable with that arrangement? Normally, everything we do in government, we try to make it accessible to everyone. So to the degree that you're getting information out of a site visit, at the very least, that needs to be very well documented in the record so that that commissioner who would happen to be in a wheelchair has enough information to feel like they saw it as well, would be my point.

Are you saying that that should be documented in advance of the meeting? Ideally. Or can it come out during the meeting?

Ideally it would be in advance, but at the very least during the meeting, for example, your ex parte communications, when you disclose those, like I spoke to the architect or I spoke to the applicant, here's what I heard, you're sharing with others information that, that the others might not have received. And you may have received really good information, so the purpose is to make sure everybody has the same amount of information.

I think you're complicating it when you do that. I think that we have to figure out ways to accommodate someone who's disabled. For example, I'm not sure anybody wants to see the number of notes that I take on anything. and the number of photos that I've taken. And so it's not clear that that is something that the average person can do for example, writing off all these things and giving them to people and then Commissioner Zarouki might say that just like these construction notes, it's like, what's all this stuff?

I think it is the availability. It needs to be available. What each commissioner does, I think, is kind of...

If you could use your microphone, please.

I think it's the availability of the information. What each commissioner decides to take from that information is up to each commissioner. But are you saying, in terms of the accessibility, because it is not available for a potential person with disabilities to be on that site, no one should go on that site? What is being proposed in lieu of that? Because in that case, no one can go there. And how do we document?

Right. So I think that's a great question. And I think site visits have value, without a doubt, even on flat properties. But once you get some topography, unusual conditions, something at the rear, I think they are incredibly valuable. But we do have to be cognizant of folks who don't have access. And I think what I've heard so far is not have them mandatory, but have them available. And I think just from best practices, it's just... critical that everything that is being considered by the commissioners obviously when you go on a site visit you're going to see things that can never be completely recorded but I'm new here but I'll be looking at what we're requiring of applicants because there should be sufficient information within the application packet to share that with not just someone who's disabled, but maybe someone who wasn't able, you know, you're on vacation, you just came back the day before the meeting. Someone in the audience who is not a commissioner, everyone should be able to have access to the same sort of visual to the best of our ability. So I'll be looking through what we require and what we've been submitting and how we can ensure that as much information is provided to everyone, which again doesn't negate, you know, the value of .

I don't think what you're describing is an improvement. If you want to make an improvement on... This particular point is not an improvement. The idea that everybody has to have access to what everybody else did, I think that that's impractical.

I want to hear what you're saying, but I don't think that's what I said. I don't think that everyone needs access to what everyone else did. I think what is important is that as much of a site visit is shown in the project plans, be that through photographs, be that through perspective drawings, be that through section drawings that show difference in topography, you know, adjacencies of structures that as much information, it shouldn't be dependent on a site visit to make a decision on the applications before you. The site visit should be an enhancement, but not the decision-making criteria.

So, you know, I'm seeing both perspectives here. The thing I would note is that you know, sometimes like perspectives are not necessarily being documented in the written materials and the site visit is the only way you can get perspective. So when I walk into the neighbor of the Magnolia property and I'm looking out from his window at the story poles, like the neighbor hasn't provided those pictures and, you know, the applicant obviously has not provided those pictures. I mean, if we're talking about, like, the access to the same information, we're not providing the public with access to the neighbor's bedroom from which to view the story. So I don't, I mean, there's kind of a both of these things at the same time.

It has been best practices in other cities to have the neighbor send in the photos of what they see. Make sure you have the frame of the window so you know it's not zoomed in or zoomed out, which does at least have that in the record. And in many cities that I've worked at, not all, they've allowed neighbors to invite the commissioners. We're not changing this any time soon as I visit. But the idea, they could still be facilitated for commissioners to visit, but it still has it in the record what is there. you're in France, you can still participate in the meeting because there is sufficient information in the administrative record. And the administrative record should contain everything with what decisions are based so that if it were to be appealed, if it is litigated, it is there in the record and not, you know, well, what did you see on your visit? Obviously, what you see on your visit, and I'm not saying we should take away them or facilitate.

No, no, no, I'm saying, for example, if he's in France, then he should stay in France.

I agree.

I would totally agree with the chair on this. That's from Brittany, by the way. But... There's some requirements of being a planning commissioner. And it's just like the requirements of so many other things. 80% of it, according to that famous philosopher Woody Allen, is showing up. And so we have to show up to do this. We're not going to be able to turn this into remote. and concern ourselves with trying to make it easy for people to do elsewhere. This actually is a hands-on endeavor, and I know that it's a good idea to figure out ways to make it easier for staff to do things, but this can't be high tech. It's gonna be high touch. We have to see these conditions that people are describing. We have to see the project I'll give you an example. There was a house where the neighbor, the applicant had gotten a permit to do some work and the permit included some excavation. Well, she did way more excavation than was supposed to be done and that was included in the permit. But it's not that the applicant did more work than they were permitted to do. That's one aspect of it. It was also so close to the foundation of the house next door that you wouldn't even be able to know how urgent it was to get this person to stop and reinforce where they had taken soil away. So the site visit is that important. And for the basis of making decisions, not for the basis of making it easy for someone who's not there, who's not showing up. I mean, that's my point. I'm not in sync in any way with not being there to see. It's just like what Commissioner Zaroukian said. It can't be slanted in the direction of if a person who's disabled can't make an inspection, then none of us can make an inspection. Or it can't be slanted in the direction of if I take a lot of notes and someone else takes little notes that I have to figure out how to make my notes available to them. We can't create a scenario of what would appear to be extra work or make work and say that is a streamline or a best practice. And I'm not hearing any acceptable best practice coming from what you're referring to. I know I'm missing something, because what I can agree with is that the site visit, there are some instances where it's a very easy scenario, like a portico. But that business of the visual and the impact on light in this person's house of that storyboard, you can't really connect with that until you get there and look. And so the commissioner will go there and look. But the commissioner will go there and look Maybe take a photo. I don't have any notes on this. I took a photo, but the photo speaks a thousand words. But it's not like I'm doing that for anybody else. I'm doing that for the decision-making process that I might need to engage in. Of course, I do make copies and I share because there are common things that we're all looking for. And they come up and I can just share a photo because that's what I was thinking of But the bottom line is that making it not mandatory, that allows the commissioner to use judgment. But that allows the commissioner to use his or her judgment as to whether or not to do an inspection. But that would be the purpose of that, not for an extraneous purpose of the person is in another city, and so we're going to make sure that they can handle this from France, for example. And I don't mean to be too critical, but I'm not getting the...

Well, I hear what you're saying about the value of, I've got it. I'm wondering if anyone else has strong feelings either way. We are not making any, what we are here to gather decisions, not decisions, your thoughts, your feelings, if not about the site visits, findings, conditions, staff recommendations.

So on the site, me jumping around, on the current practice about the documents. I think we said our piece on that. On the site visits, I think what you're trying to get at is that the public record's important to have and there's an accessibility issue that we have to address. So my feeling is on the public record, I think, again, it's important that the applicant hear from staff have them counsel them on what's important to submit. Same thing with neighbors if they have an issue in the package so that those of us who get these packages, right now I think the drawing packages especially, not so much the staff reports because I think the staff reports are pretty good. The documents are not appropriate to what decisions we need to make, either from the applicant or from the neighbors. So maybe that can be more streamlined. I do agree that I don't think a commissioner should have to do a site visit in order to make a decision on a project, especially if the first two are done. If the documents are more apropos to the decisions, maybe that's not important to make it mandatory. I'm not clear about what you're proposing for the site visits themselves. you're making them mandatory or you're making them discretionary. I find the site visits very important because we're a small community. You saw two examples today. You have one house on 21 Cambridge, which has its own set of circumstances and conditions, and then you have the Magnolia one where two buildings might stretch apart. And then a lot of cases, the work is being done not from, you can't see from the street. So I think seeing the property is important. And then sometimes the neighbor will say, look, look at what's going on with my window here. I think those are important because then I feel like much to the gentleman who complained about the 21 Cambridge, nobody listened to me. Well, in fact, we do listen to everyone. We may not decide along their viewpoint, but we do hear what they're saying. So I think this gives them a little bit of, both the applicant and especially the neighbors who are concerned, a little bit of stake in the outcome in terms of the observation.

Can I add to that one point? As a litigator, I would just say that having the ability to say, will the commissioners have gone to the site? They've seen it. They have heard these. It's an additional defense to the ultimate findings. It's a characterization that you can used to build the narrative that there is a full record and commissioners did this with knowledge, understanding. I'm not the city council.

The proposal so far in the memo was just to remove the mandatory part.

The mandatory portion, right.

And I don't know if Commissioner Cooper, you had anything to add.

I think the site visits are extremely valuable. I learned something on all of them. Nearly all of them. Things like the Corpus Christi gate. I was like, yeah, we probably didn't need to see that. But nearly all of them we learned something on.

I will say I did not know until this was on the agenda that that was an actual requirement to do the site visits or recuse. I don't know if that was in the recusal policy requirements in the Planning Commission. I didn't see that.

Okay, all right. Yeah, it was adopted policy in 2005 and it's embedded in your design guidelines.

You know, there's also a case, and I'm saying that I can agree with the commissioner using his or her judgment on that, but there's also a strong case to be made for sustaining the way that it is, that it is mandatory. Because, I mean, from this litigation point of view, we make a lot of... of decisions that have a subjective nature to them. And that subjective decision, I think, is a lot stronger when you can say that you looked at this particular site and you were able to evaluate these various aspects of it. And you can use that to justify the decisions that you make.