City of Piedmont
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: November 4, 2024
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Rosanna Bayon Moore, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Conditionally Approve a Design Review Permit Application (DRPC2023-016) to Renovate and Add a Second Story to an Existing Single-Family Residence at 21 Cambridge Way
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal (Attachment B) and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision of a design review permit conditional approval, and adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A, agenda report pages 9-11).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Gloria and David Hou, owners of 19 Cambridge Way (“Appellant”) have appealed the September 9, 2024 decision of the Planning Commission to conditionally approve the application to renovate and add a second story to an existing single-family residence at 21 Cambridge Way. The appeal, submitted on September 19, 2024, asserts that the findings made by the Planning Commission as a basis for its action are not supported by the weight of the evidence and that there was significant error in the application of the Piedmont Design Guidelines. As explained in further detail in this report, Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal, and uphold the action taken by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
The appeal is in response to the September 9, 2024 Planning Commission decision to conditionally approve an application for design review permit submitted by the Property Owner (“Applicant”) of 21 Cambridge Way. The application proposes to expand and renovate the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; comprehensively changing the architectural style; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property.
Because the application met the criteria of Piedmont City Code section 17.66.040(A)(1)(b), the application was subject to review by the Planning Commission.
The application was originally heard at the August 12th Planning Commission meeting and continued to the September 9th Planning Commission meeting. The application was approved by the Planning Commission on September 9, 2024, subject to 21 conditions of approval. The appeal was filed on September 19, 2024.
Subject Property and Application Description
The existing single-family residence is a one-story building with a basement built in 1921 on a lot that slopes upward from Cambridge Way. The living area is located on the main floor, and an unpermitted bedroom and workshop are located in the basement. The architectural style of the existing residence is Spanish Revival with minimal embellishments. The roof is composed of both flat and pitched areas and features clay tile along the roof lines of the porch and the pitched roof.
The application reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 9, 2024, proposes to expand, renovate and comprehensively change the architectural style of the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property. The proposed architectural style is 21st Century Modern, with primarily stucco walls and a ledgestone wall surface at the entry stairway and porch. The roof is proposed to be slightly pitched but appears flat due to a surrounding parapet capped with bronze anodized metal. Bronze aluminum awnings with recessed lighting are also proposed above the exterior doors. The main level is proposed to contain a kitchen, living and dining areas, a lounge, a bedroom and a bathroom. The second floor is proposed to contain three bedrooms, three bathrooms, a laundry room, and a balcony adjacent to the primary bedroom. The windows and doors are proposed to be made of fiberglass and are proposed to consist of a mixture of casment, awning, and fixed operation.
The application also proposes to rebuild the existing entry stairs and path, as well as to construct additional pathways along the sides of the house. The path and steps at the entry and along the west façade are proposed to be supported by retaining walls. These retaning walls are proposed to be concrete. The guardrails along the stairs, porch and balcony are proposed to be glass. The application also proposes to install a mini-split AC unit approximately 3 feet 7 inches from the western property line.
The current application and plans considered by the Commission on September 9, 2024, differ from the application reviewed by the Commission on August 12, 2024, in that it included:
1. The addition of windows at the side yards in the bedrooms to reduce the massing along the side facades.
2. The addition of a new window in the walk-in closet in the owner's suite, with the intent to create symmetry in the pop-out of the left elevation.
3. The conversion of proposed windows from hung to casement and awning.
4. Reduction of the roof parapet height from 3 feet 11 inches to 2 feet 8 inches.
5. The addition of awnings and canopies above exterior doors throughout the residence.
6. Changing the proposed guardrail material from metal to glass.
7. Changing the proposed rear patio door from a 6-foot 6-inch casement to an 8-foot bifold.
8. The addition of ledgestone veneer to the south, west, and north facades, and the addition of WPC wood paneling to the entry and primary bedroom decks.
COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS AND ACTION:
The Planning Commission considered the application at their regularly scheduled meeting on August 12, 2024. Prior to the hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed all the application materials (Attachment C, agenda report pages 60-71) and the staff report (Attachment E, agenda Agenda Report Page 2
report pages 79-87), and made site visits to the Applicant’s property. The Commission also reviewed multiple written comments from community members, which ranged from support to opposition.
At the August 12, 2024 meeting, public comment was received from community members, who stated they have concerns regarding the scale and massing of the proposed second-story addition, as well as regarding potential impacts on views, light and privacy. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue the application to the September 9th Planning Commission meeting.
During the hearing of the application during the September 9th meeting, testimony was received from community members, voicing concerns similar to those expressed during the August 12th meeting. The Commission found that the changes to the design addressed the Commission’s August 12th concerns and therefore the project met the standards for approval. The August 12, 2024 and September 9, 2024, abridged meeting minutes are included at the end of this report as Attachment F, agenda report pages 88-96.
Design Review Findings
The Commission determined that the project complies with the design review criteria set forth in Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code with the following findings:
1. The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines. The following building features are consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development including the scale, height and bulk of the expanded residence including the second story, the new architectural style is compatible with the neighborhood architecture, the wall material, the roof form, the roof material, the window and door material and fenestration pattern, the guardrail material, and the retaining wall and fencing material and design.
2. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties' existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate. The views are not significant views, the siting of the modified existing structure and the location of its exterior openings respect the visual and acoustical privacy of the residences located on contiguous properties. The topographical differences are appropriate to preserve privacy, views, and light.
3. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the new pathways, handrails and on-grade steps should improve on-site pedestrian safety, and the project scope proposes no changes to the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the public right-of-way.
4. The application complies with the following Design Review Guidelines and General Plan policies and programs: Site Design: 3.03, 3.05, 3.08, 2.09, 3.12, Building Design: General
4.01, 4.02, 4.03, 4.04, 4.05, and Building Design: Single Family Residential 5.01.
5. The project is consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.3 (Additions), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.4 (Setback Consistency), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.5 (Garages, Decks, and Porches), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.6 (Exterior Materials), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.8 (Acoustical and Visual Privacy), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.1 (Conserving Residential Yards), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.5 (Fence and Wall Design), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.6 (Retaining Walls), and Design and Agenda Report Page 3
Preservation Element Policy 29.8 (Exterior Lighting).
Copies of the City of Piedmont Design Guidelines and Standards and the City of Piedmont General Plan are provided on the City’s website.
DISCUSSION
A. Appeal Criteria
Section 17.78.040 of Piedmont’s City Code sets forth the standards of review for an appeal as follows:
A. General. An appeal is not a de novo hearing, but instead will be governed by the following principles:
1. Deference. Due deference shall be given to the actions of the Planning Commission in light of the substantial number of planning applications heard by them and the major accumulated group experience that those actions represent.
2. Grounds for overruling decision. The appeal body may overrule the action of the decision maker only if one of the following occurs:
a. The findings made by the decision maker as a basis for its action are not supported by the weight of the evidence;
b. There is a significant error in the application of the requirements of this chapter 17 or other requirements of the City Code;
c. There is a significant error in the application of the Piedmont Design Guidelines and Standards; or
d. Significant errors in the application, plans, drawings or other materials provided to the decision maker are discovered after the hearing, which were a basis of the decision.
3. Burden of proof. During an appeal, the burden of proof is on the Appellant.
B. Analysis of Appeal by the owners of 19 Cambridge Way (“Appellant”) Appeal Form and Statement
Attached is a copy of the Appellants’ original appeal form and statement filed on September 19, 2024, stating the reasons for the appeal (see Attachment B, agenda report pages 12-59).
Staff Analysis of Appeal
Appeal Basis #1: The findings made by the Planning Commission as a basis for its action are not supported by the weight of the evidence; there is a significant error in the application of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines.
Appellants make the following contentions in support of their appeal: (1) the proposed project is too large for the neighborhood; (2) the proposed project significantly blocks direct and indirect light at 19 Cambridge Way; (3) the proposed project negatively impacts the privacy of neighboring residents; and (4) the proposed project impacts the Appellants’ views.
At the outset, staff notes that Appellants cite certain comments from individual Commissioners during deliberations at the August 12 and September 9 meeting. These comments are not part of the Planning Commission’s ultimate findings in support of its decision to approve the project.
Agenda Report Page 4
Thus, references to individual comments of Commissioners do not support Appellants’ contention that the Planning Commission’s decision is not supported by the weight of the evidence.
The Scale of the Design
Appellants assert that the proposed project is too large for the neighborhood, citing City of Piedmont Design Review Guidelines 3.03, 4.01, 5.01, 5.02, and Design and Preservation Policies
28.1 and 28.02.
• Design Guideline 3.03 Site Development seeks designs that avoid adverse impacts on significant views and designs that respect the visual and acoustical privacy of adjacent properties. As provided in the Privacy and Views section below, the appellants are incorrect as to the project being too large. In addition, as noted on page 2 of this report, the applicants revised the design between the August and September Planning Commission meetings to address concerns about the proposed size of the project. • Design Guideline 4.01.02 On-Site Aesthetic Design states “Where there is a desire to change the existing building style, such changes should be applied to the entire exterior, and to accessory structures, and not only to the area where new construction is proposed.” The appellants are incorrect to cite this guideline because the proposed design is a comprehensive change to the architectural style of the house and the Planning Commission found that the change was successfully accomplished.
• Design Guideline 5.01 Building Scale and Massing sets standards and guidelines for the scale and massing of new and expanded residential structures relative to lot dimensions, topography and natural vegetation. The appellants are incorrect in citing this guideline because Commission found that the proposed design fits into the topography and the neighborhood since its bulk was of similar placement and proportion to many of the 2-story residences on the uphill side of Cambridge Way, which are the predominant building form. • The appellants are incorrect in citing Design Guideline 5.02 Detached and Attached Garages, because it calls for garages to be integrated with the neighborhood development pattern, to be architecturally consistent with the main house, and to avoid pedestrian and vehicular hazards. The existing house has no carport or garage and the proposed project is not proposing a garage or carport.
• Design and Preservation Policy 28.1 Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility calls for the scale of new construction, additions and alterations to relate to the existing neighborhood context and avoid overpowering contrasts in scale and height on adjacent lots. The appellants are incorrect as to the project being out of scale to the existing neighborhood context because a predominant building form on the uphill side of Cambridge Way is a 2- story house over a basement or garage.
• Design and Preservation Policy 28.02 does not exist so staff assumes the appellants meant to cite Design and Preservation Policy 28.2 Style Compatibility. This General Plan policy calls for construction on blocks where one architectural style or design theme is predominant to be compatible with the prevailing style. The appellants are incorrect as to the first block of Cambridge Way having a predominant architectural style. The block has a mix of architectural styles: Victorian, four-square prairie, stucco craftsman bungalow, Mediterranean, 20th Century traditional. In fact, no area of Piedmont has a predominant architectural style. Houses built in a 21st Century modern style have been built in several areas of Piedmont and, like the proposed house at 21 Cambridge Way, they comport with the existing building styles because the building elements are consistent: foundations, porches, exterior stairs, doors, exterior materials, roofs and window articulation.
Agenda Report Page 5
Section 5.01.01 states that minimizing building bulk on steeply sloping properties is important and that a new or expanded structure should be physically integrated into the neighborhood. During its discussion of the project, the Commission identified multiple existing properties on Cambridge Way and within the wider neighborhood that are at least two stories and on lots with a similar topographic profile. Additionally, the Commission noted that there is not a unified architectural language along Cambridge Way and therefore the proposed addition and stylistic change is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards, especially regarding building scale and massing.
Direct and Indirect Light
Appellants assert that the proposed project will have adverse effects on access to direct and indirect light, citing City of Piedmont Design Review Guideline 3.03. • Design Guideline 3.03 Site Development seeks designs that avoid adverse impacts on significant views and designs that respect the visual and acoustical privacy of adjacent properties. The appellants are incorrect in citing this guideline because Commission found that the proposed design does not have adverse impacts on direct and indirect light since there is no proposed encroachment into the required setbacks and there are multiple existing 2-story residences on the uphill side of Cambridge Way.
Section 3.03.02 states that the siting of a new or modified existing structure, the location of its exterior openings, and the location of exterior mounted appliance ventilation and exhaust ports should respect the visual and acoustical privacy of the residences located on contiguous properties, including their outdoor living areas or open spaces. During its discussion of the project, the Commission noted that there are other two-story residences on Cambridge Way that have analogous impacts on direct and indirect light and the proposed additions were not located in any required setbacks. The Commission therefore made findings that the proposed addition is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards, especially regarding direct and direct light.
Privacy
Appellants contend that the proposed project’s balcony will impact privacy, and that the placement of the air conditioning unit will impact their acoustical privacy. Piedmont Design Guidelines and Standards 3.03, 3.09, and 4.04, and Design and Preservation Guidelines and Standards 28.8 and
29.5. • Design Guideline 3.03 Site Development seeks designs that avoid adverse impacts on significant views and designs that respect the visual and acoustical privacy of adjacent properties. The appellants are incorrect in citing this guideline because the Commission found that the proposed design does not align the proposed windows with the adjacent residence, fencing will mitigate any visual and acoustical privacy impacts from windows and mechanical equipment on the first floor, and there are multiple existing 2-story residences on the uphill side of Cambridge Way.
• The appellants are incorrect in citing Design Guideline 3.09 because the fence is 6 feet tall and outside of the street-yard setback and is therefore exempt from design review. • Design Guideline 4.04 Mechanical Equipment seeks noise limits on mechanical equipment and that adequate screening measures are installed. The appellants are incorrect in citing this guideline because the Commission found that the proposed fencing will mitigate visual and acoustical impact of the proposed HVAC unit and applied a condition of approval Agenda Report Page 6
requiring the unit meet the City’s 50 decibel limit on mechanically generated noise.
Section 3.03.02 states that the siting of a modified existing structure, the location of its exterior openings, and the location of exterior mounted appliance ventilation and exhaust ports should respect the visual and acoustical privacy of the residences located on contiguous properties, including their outdoor living areas or open spaces. It also explicitly states that the guidelines shall not be interpreted as an outright prohibition of side yard windows. The proposed additions are outside of the 5-foot setback areas and do not require any variances to accomplish their construction. Additionally, the proposed HVAC unit is screened from view by a proposed fence and there is a condition of approval mandating it comply with the City’s limit on mechanically generated noise. The Commission reviewed the application per these criteria and based on the proposed fence, type, number and alignment of the proposed windows, and made findings that the project’s windows meet the criteria for compatibility with contiguous lots.
Views
Appellants contend that the proposed project will impact significant views from their property, citing Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines Section 3.03.01.
Section 3.03.01 notes that Piedmont is an urban community where some views will be affected by new development and continues in defining a significant view as one shared by contiguous and nearby properties from primarily occupied rooms of a residence. It further cites specific views including long distance views of topographic, geographic, or water features, including San Francisco Bay, or architectural points of interest, such as well-known public structures, or monuments. Piedmont City Code section 17.90.010 provides a definition of view:
View means an existing significant view involving more than the immediately surrounding properties or a view of sky, including, but not limited to, any of the following: city skyline, historic landmark, bridge, distant cities, geologic feature, significant hillside terrain, wooded canyon or ridge.
None of the features included in the definition of view are implicated. The “view” Appellants refer to are views of anthropogenic features, such as other single-family residences and trees within Piedmont’s urban canopy, which are not protected views under the City’s regulations. The Commission reviewed the application accordingly to these criteria and made findings that any potentially impacted views were not significant per the stated criteria.
Based on the foregoing reasons, staff’s analysis concludes that the Planning Commission’s decision is supported by the weight of the evidence, and that the Planning Commission did not significantly err in applying the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines.
Appeal Basis #2: The Planning Commission erred in not being consistent in applying the City Code.
Petitioner contends that the comments made by individual Planning Commissioners at the August 12th meeting in comparison to the September 9 meeting demonstrate that the Planning Commission did not consistently apply the City Code. However, Appellant does not cite any City Code when claiming an error in consistency, and merely references the deliberation that took place at the two Planning Commission meetings. Thus, this appeal basis is without grounds.
Agenda Report Page 7
Appeal Basis #3: The Planning Commission erred in not being compliant in the reviewing process.
The third basis that the appellants discuss claims that the deliberation of the application during the August 12th and September 9th meetings did not focus on the application, specifically calling out comments and statements made by one Commissioner. This section of the appeal form does not specifically identify a Code section or design guideline or standard where there was significant error in its application. Discussion of the application by the Commissioners does not constitute grounds for appeal because it does not meet the criteria outlined in Section 17.78.040.
C. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Appellants have not met the burden of demonstrating that the Planning Commission’s decision was in error.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:
City Council action is required to uphold or overturn the decision of the Planning Commission.
By: Kevin Jackson, Planning & Building Director
Joshua Muller, Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment Pages Document
A 9-11 Resolution Denying the Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to conditionally approve the design review permit application DRPC2024- 016 for 21 Cambridge Way
B 12-59 Appellants’ Submission, submitted on September 19, 2024 C 60-71 Application Materials
D 72-78 Applicable General Plan Policies and Design Guidelines E 79-87 Planning Commission Staff Report
F 88-96 Abridged Meeting Minutes, Planning Commission, August 12, 2024 and September 9, 2024
G 97-145 Public Comments received for the August 12, 2024 and September 9, 2024 Planning Commission meetings
Planning Commission Meeting Video:
August 12, 2024 Meeting: https://piedmont.granicus.com/player/clip/2962?view_id=9&redirect=true September 9, 2024 Meeting: https://piedmont.granicus.com/player/clip/2969?view_id=9&redirect=true Agenda Report Page 8
1 RESOLUTION ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PIEDMONT DENYING
THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATION DRPC2024-016 FOR 21
CAMBRIDGE WAY AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT UNDER CEQA WHEREAS, on June 5, 2024, Linda Lau (“Applicant”) applied for a design review permit that proposed to expand and renovate the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; comprehensively changing the architectural style; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project, reviewed written comments from the public, received oral comments from the public, discussed the matter, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the application to the September 9, 2024 Planning Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project, reviewed written comments from the public, received oral comments from the public, discussed the matter, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the Project, finding that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA per Sections 15301, Class 1 (e), and 15303, Class 3 (e), and that none of the exceptions to the exemptions apply, and that the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Piedmont Design Gudielines and Standards; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2024, Gloria and David Hou (“Appellants”) appealed the Planning Commission decision in accordance with Division 17.78, Appeals; Calls for review, of the Piedmont City Code (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2024, a 14-day public notice was duly given to the Applicants, the Appellant, the surrounding property owners notified in the original application hearing, and to any other person requesting notice, in accordance with Section 17.78.030 and Section 17.66.050 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, based upon all of the evidence in the record and after reviewing the application, plans and any and all oral or written testimony and documentation submitted in connection with the Project, the Piedmont City Council denies the appeal and upholds the findings rendered by the Planning Commission to conditionally approve the application for design review permit, and finds that the Planning Commission’s decision is supported by the weight of the evidence:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Piedmont denies the appeal, and finds that:
the Project complies with the design review criteria set forth in Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code for the following reasons:
1. The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines. The following building features are consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development including the scale, height and bulk of the expanded residence including the second story, the new architectural style is compatible with the neighborhood architecture, the wall material, the roof form, the roof material, the window and door material Attachment A Agenda Report Page 9
2 and fenestration pattern, the guardrail material, and the retaining wall and fencing material and design.
2. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties' existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate because it is approximately 12 ½ feet away from the nearest neighbor and the proposed addition complies with the Zone A setback requirements. The house at 21 Cambridge Way is located northeast of the house located at 19 Cambridge Way. Therefore, the proposed second story addition will have little or no effect on the direct light reaching the house located at 19 Cambridge Way. The upper level and rear additions to the house at 21 Cambridge Way are likely to increase indirect sunlight reflected off of the west façade and onto the east façade of 19 Cambridge way in the late afternoon and early evening. The views from neighboring properties are not significant views as defined in City Code division
17.90, the siting of the modified existing structure and the location of its exterior openings respects the visual and acoustical privacy of the residences located on contiguous properties.
The topographical differences are appropriate to preserve privacy, views, and light.
3. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the new pathways, handrails and on-grade steps should improve on-site pedestrian safety, and the project scope proposes no changes to the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the public right-of-way.
4. The application complies with the following Design Review Guidelines and General Plan policies and programs: Site Design: 3.03, 3.05, 3.08, 2.09, 3.12, Building Design: General
4.01, 4.02, 4.03, 4.04, 4.05, and Building Design: Single Family Residential 5.01 because the guidelines and standards cited by the appellant either do not meet the threshold for an appeal or are cited incorrectly.
5. The project is consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.3 (Additions), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.4 (Setback Consistency), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.5 (Garages, Decks, and Porches), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.6 (Exterior Materials), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.8 (Acoustical and Visual Privacy), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.1 (Conserving Residential Yards), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.5 (Fence and Wall Design), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.6 (Retaining Walls), and Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.8 (Exterior Lighting).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Piedmont City Council does hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are correct and that the Piedmont City Council finds that the Appellants have not met the burden of proof that errors were made by Planning Commission or Planning & Building Department staff, pursuant to Section 17.78.040(A)(2) of the Piedmont City Code, and have not met their burden to demonstrate that the Planning Commission’s findings made as a basis for its action were not supported by the weight of the evidence.
SECTION 2. The City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the Design Review Permit application to expand and renovate the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; comprehensively Attachment A Agenda Report Page 10
3 changing the architectural style; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 (e), Existing Facilities because it is a minor change to an existing private residence which is less than 10,000 square feet and the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the area is which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, and Section 15303, Class 3 (e), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because retaining walls are small accessory structures, SECTION 4. The Planning and Building Director is the custodian of documents and other materials that were considered by the City Council and constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision was based. The records are located at the Planning & Building Department, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.
SECTION 5. All portions of this resolution are severable. If an individual component of this Resolution is adjudged by a court to be invalid and unenforceable, then the remaining portions will continue in effect.
[END OF RESOLUTION]
Attachment A Agenda Report Page 11
Revised: July 1, 2024
CITY OF PIEDMONT
120 VISTA AVENUE
PIEDMONT, CA 94611
TEL: (510) 420-3050
FAX: (510) 658-3167
APPEAL FORM
Pursuant to City Code Division 17.78
GENERAL INFORMATION
Who: Any interested person may appeal a decision of the Director to the Planning Commission, or a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council.
When: A written appeal, stating the grounds for appeal, must be filed within ten calendar days after the date of the decision.
Where: Appeals must be submitted to the City Clerk at the address at the top of this form.
Cost: $856 (includes a $29 records management fee)
Process: Appeals of Director (Planning Staff) decisions will be considered by the Planning Commission. Appeals of Planning Commission decisions will be considered by the City Council. The appeal body will hear the appeal as soon as is reasonably possible, taking into account the notice requirements.
Grounds for overruling decision: The appeal body may overrule the action of the decision maker only if one of the following occurs:
a. The findings made by the decision maker as a basis for its action are not supported by the weight of evidence; b. There is a significant error in the application of the requirements of Chapter 17 or other requirements of the City Code; c. There is a significant error in the application of the Piedmont Design Guidelines; or d. Significant errors in the application, plans, drawings or other materials provided to the decision maker are discovered after the hearing, which were a basis of the decision.
If you have any questions regarding the appeal procedure, please call the City Clerk at (510) 420-3040 or the Planning Division at (510) 420-3050.
I wish to appeal the decision of the: Planning Director; or Planning Commission, which took action on ____________________ in the matter of ___________ at __________________________________________________. (date of decision) (application #) (project address)
Signature: _____________________________________ Name: ______________________________________________ (please print) I am the applicant, concerned, other. Phone number _______________ Email ____________________________ Mailing Address ____________________________________________________________________________________ The grounds upon which this appeal is filed are: (List all grounds relied upon in making this appeal. See City Code Section
17.78.040. Please attach additional sheets if more space is needed.) __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ (For staff use only)
APPEALED APPLICATION # PLANNER $856 FEE PAID
September 9, 2024 DRPC2024-016 21 Cambridge Way
Gloria and David Hou
415-806-3535 [email protected]
19 Cambridge Way, Piedmont, CA 94611
Planning and Land Use Code of the City of Piedmont, Section 17.78.040 2 (a) and (c) See attached letter and exhibit for details. More materials may be submitted at a later date We would like to invite all City Council members to visit our property in persion to see and feel the real impacts themselves from inside of our house and surrounding areas.
As the Appellant, we request that our speaking time is not limited to 3 minutes and not limited to just once during the hearing
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 12
September 18, 2024
Members of the City Council
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
Re.: Appeal of September 9, 2024 Planning Commission’s approval of the design review application for 21 Cambridge Way (DRPC 2024-016)
Dear Council Members:
We hereby appeal the Planning Commission’s September 9, 2024 decision of conditional approval for 21 Cambridge Way design review application, which has virtually no changes on reducing critical mass nor addresses any concerns brought by neighbors from Aug 12, 2024 meeting. The only condition added to the approval was to change the left side door to be frosted glass. Because the Planning Commission has not published the meeting minutes of the September 9, 2024 meeting, we reserve our rights to supplement or augment this appeal to add more grounds, provide additional supporting evidence or appoint representatives. Subject to the foregoing, our appeal is based on the following, and incorporates and relies upon all the materials previously submitted to the Planning Commission and the City Council, in connection with the current design permit application for 21 Cambridge Way.
Pursuant to Section 17.78 of the Planning and Land Use Code of the City of Piedmont, the City Council can overrule the action of the Planning Commission for reasons including “the findings made by the decision maker as a basis for its action are not supported by the weight of the evidence”, and “there is a significant error in the application of the Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines”. As detailed below, both grounds are clearly met for the approval decision of the Planning Commission for the 21 Cambridge Way design permit application.
1. The findings made by the Planning Commission as a basis for its action are not supported by the weight of the evidence
As evidenced by the photos previously submitted to the Planning Commision, the 21 Cambridge Way proposed design is too big, too high and too bulky for the location and neighborhood, and it substantially impacts the adjacent neighbors. The proposed design at 21 Cambridge Way significantly blocks direct and indirect light of the house at 19 Cambridge Way, which dramatically changes the living condition and potentially causes health concerns. The proposed design at 21 Cambridge Way blocks significant views of the houses at 19 Cambridge Way and 17 Cambridge Way. The proposed design at 21 Cambridge Way imposes serious privacy concerns for 19 Cambridge Way, 18 Cambridge Way and other neighbors across the street from 21 Cambridge Way.
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 13
Five neighbors expressed their concerns about the proposed design. All neighbors' comments, including two letters of our own, are attached here as Exhibit A. We presented at both the August 12 meeting and September 9 meeting; the owner at 42 Nace also presented at the September 9 meeting to oppose the project. Everyone that passed by the story pole was shocked how significant and how bulky it was, and how inappropriate this big building was for the location and the neighborhood. (a) Substantial impact on neighboring properties
At the August 12 Planning Commision meeting, Commissioner Ortiz and Commissioner Jajodia acknowledged the impact of direct and indirect light on our house. As indicated by the Minutes of the August 12 meeting, one of the findings of the August 12 meeting was “some effect to direct and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes, and the height of the new addition reduces direct and indirect light of the neighbors”. At the September 9 Planning Commision meeting, the only Commissioner who was excused at the August 12 meeting for unknown reasons, Commissioner Bartra, said “this project would have a pretty profound effect, particularly on Mr. and Mrs. Hou’s home at 19 Cambridge Way, both in terms of light and privacy, because the massing is so vertical, does not have angles to allow more light to come in….It is a very substantial impact…21 Cambridge has ample space to go backward, actually not be blocking the neighbor on either side. There are other options to get the square footage without getting variance, that will be much less impactful on the neighbor”. However, the Commission’s approval decision was made based on the finding that the design has no impact on the neighbor's light, view and privacy. This finding not only completely disregarded all impacts on the neighboring properties, but directly contradicted the findings of Commissioners Bartra, Jajodia, and Ortiz. This finding is definitely not supported by evidence.
(b) The scale, height and bulk is not compatible with the steep sloping lot and not consistent with the architectural style and mass of the existing building and the neighborhood
As indicated by the Minutes of the August 12 meeting, the Planning Commission found that “1. The proposed design was not consistent with the City’s General Plan policies and Piedmont Design Guidelines. The following building features are not consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development including the scale, height and bulk of the expanded residence including the second story on a steep, sloping property, in reference to Design Guidelines 5.01.01 in minimizing the building bulk.” The Minutes of the August 12 meeting also state “5. The project is not consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, design and preservation element, including: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility).”
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 14
The revised design submitted for the September 9 meeting only had minor changes in architectural style to improve the cohesiveness of the design, there is no change in terms of the scale and massing. It is still the same envelope, the same massing and the same bulkiness. At the September 9 meeting, Commissioner Ortiz said that “the building massing technically hasn’t changed”, and Commissioner Jajodia said “do not see any major change in the massing”. However, even though admitting that there was no change in the revised plan, Commissioner Jajodia and Commissioner Ortiz changed their positions from the August 12 meeting and made the opposite conclusions. The Planning Commission at the September 9 meeting found the design is consistent with all the code above referenced. This cannot possibly be the case given the design did not materially change from August 12 to September 9, and more importantly did nothing to address Commissioners Jajodia and Ortiz’s comments. This finding is definitely not supported by evidence.
The proposed design clearly is not consistent with City of Piedmont Design Review Guidelines 3.03, 4.01, 5.01, 5.02 Design and Preservation Policy 28.1 and 28.02.
The Planning Commission’s approval decision was based on the findings which are not supported by evidence, completely disregarded the neighbors’ concerns and comments, and totally ignored the clear evidence. The design reviewing process is inconsistent, biased, unfair, misleading and doubtful.
2. The Planning Commission erred in not being consistent in applying the City Code As indicated by the Minutes of the August 12 meeting, Commissioner Jajodia moved to deny the design review permit application and seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. The motion did not pass since only four Commissioners were present and it was a tie. At the September 9 meeting, Commissioner Batra said that she could not support the project because of its substantial impact in terms of both light and privacy. Apparently, if Commissioner Batra was not excused from this agenda item at the August 12 meeting, the project would have been denied.
As pointed out by Commissioner Ortiz and Commissioner Jajodia at the September 9 meeting, there was no change at all in its massing and bulkness in the revised design.
Therefore, its inconsistency “with the original architecture and neighborhood development including the scale, height and bulk of the expanded residence including the second story on a steep, sloping property” remained the same as what was at the August 12 meeting. However, the Planning Commission at the September 9 meeting ironically found the design is consistent with all the code above referenced and approved the plan. There is absolutely no consistency in the Planning Commission’s findings.
There has been no code update between the two Planning Commission meetings, so how could the findings be different for the designs that are basically the same? Attachment B Agenda Report Page 15
3. The Planning Commission erred in not being compliant in the reviewing process The Planning Commission meeting is to review the design review application and ensure that it is consistent with the City Code and Policies. However, at both the August 12 meeting and September 9 meeting, some commissioners diverted away from examining the subject design. Much of the effort was focused on deflecting neighbor’s concerns instead and misleading the public to some other neighbor’s property issues instead of focusing on examining the subject design with code complaint.
As shown by the meeting Minutes, at the August 12 meeting, while we presented comments regarding the impact on our privacy, views and light, Commissioner Rowland asked questions about construction and site improvements on our own property. That information is not related to the review of the subject application at all. Inquiring information not relevant to the subject is not compliant with the reviewing process.
At the September 9 meeting, when Commissioner Rowland talked about our concern of direct/indirect light being blocked, Commissioner Rowland stated that we have plenty of light at 4:30 in the afternoon and that the impact on our direct light is not an issue since our house is equipped with a skylight. We repeatedly emphasized that the proposed design casts a big shadow on the entire east side of our house and blocks all sunlight in the morning. The argument that we have light for a specific sliver of time in the afternoon is not even relevant. The existence of our skylight does not eliminate the fact that the proposed design casts a big shadow on our house and blocks our direct light, and does not give the new project the rights to block our morning sunlight.
Commissioner Rowland also commented that two other houses on our block are very close to each other, hence the fact that the proposed oversized balcony right above our dining room window is not an issue. Again, whether the two other houses are very close to each other or not does not change the fact that the proposed design caused serious privacy concerns for the neighboring houses. Just because there are two houses being very close to each other, does it make it okay to build massive bulky houses to block neighbor’s light, views and privacy in the City of Piedmont? What is the purpose of Piedmont Design Guidelines 3.03? Commissioner Rowland further commented that the privacy issues are preexisted by living in an urban environment. Commissioner Rowland completely disregarded the fact that the proposed design increases 12 feet in height which drastically changed the preexisting condition, and the watchtower-like balconies violated the privacy rights of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street.
In the discussion of the design’s impact on the views of the neighboring houses, Commissioner Rowland only addressed the back neighbors’ comments since the back neighbors’ houses were further out and at a higher elevation. The applicants also spent much time at the September 9 meeting to downplay the back neighbors’ comments.
However, no Commissioners, neither the applicant, addressed the design’s significant impact to our topographic East Bay hill views from our family room and our patio.
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 16
Deliberately avoiding the most impacted area in the subject is not right for the review process.
As we stated in our comments to the Planning Commission before, we support 21 Cambridge Way to renovate the aged house, but they need to put the impacts on the neighboring houses into consideration. Just as Commissioner Batra pointed out, and even Commissioner Rowland agreed, they have many ways to achieve their renovation goal without impacting the neighbors.
But they picked the design that impacts the neighbors the most. They have a deep lot, they have many ways to expand further back and they do not need to triple the house size. In addition, having a bulky massive building on a steep sloping lot, next to the deep cut street on a moving hill, could have serious implications in the future that would impact the entire block.
Significantly blocking a neighbor's direct and indirect light can have devastating consequences.
Having to live in the darkness because your neighbor’s bulky building blocks all the direct and indirect light could cause health and psychological issues. One of our neighbors said that it is just like a cloudy day everyday in his house in the afternoon, ever since his westside neighbor raised their house by a few feet. Now 21 Cambridge Way is proposing to increase the house by 12 feet to block our only light source from the east side. Our house already has a light issue on the west side, since the westside neighbor’s house is at a substantially higher elevation. The proposed plan of 21 Cambridge Way will have a significant adverse effect on our quality of living and our property value. The impact is life changing and unimaginable! There is a path for compromise here, as 21 Cambridge Way can renovate their aged house and us as neighbors can still enjoy the natural light and privacy we enjoy today and have enjoyed for countless years. By going further into their deep lot, they can expand back and preserve the quaint, neighborly feel of Cambridge Way. There is no need for their watchtower-like balcony, peering into the lives of those around and shredding the veil of security and privacy that exists at home. There is no need to insensitively cast shadows on the neighbors when we can ensure everyone shares in the light and beautiful weather of the East Bay. There is a path forward, where everyone can win and the neighborhood becomes a better place, but that is not the path that will be ventured down with the current proposed renovation plan on 21 Cambridge Way.
We would like to invite all City Council members to visit our property (inside the house and outside the house) to see the truth of impacts and feel the magnitude of negative change to our lives and value of our property.
As the Appellant, we hereby reserve our rights under The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. We would like to request that our speaking time is not limited to 3 minutes and not limited to just once during the hearing.
We request the City Council to overrule the Planning Commission’s approval decision and request the design review application to be scaled back in size and remove the second story, in order to minimize the bulk and minimize the adverse impact on the neighboring properties. We Attachment B Agenda Report Page 17
are longtime citizens and voters of the City of Piedmont, we are looking for the City Council to protect our interest and protect the integrity of our community and our City.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Gloria and David Hou
19 Cambridge Way
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 18
Dear Commissioners and staff members,
We would like to share our comments about the revised plan and bring your attention to a few details. Evidently, the revised plan does not address the issues and concerns brought up by commissioners and neighbors at the last meeting. No meaningful changes were made to address the massing issue, absolutely nothing was changed to make the design fit the topography of the lot, and no adjustment was made to address the impact on the neighbors’ properties.
1. Building scale and massing
As the commissioners pointed out at the last meeting, the proposed plan is not consistent with City of Piedmont design review guidelines 5.01 and design and preservation policy 28.1. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed addition is not compatible with the steeply sloping lot. Per the policy, the design shall respect existing topography and follow the contours of the existing slope, and minimize the building bulk. To the contrary, the proposed design maximizes the building bulk with all its possibilities. No meaningful update has been made to improve that from the last meeting. Also I have to point out that the hill our properties are on has been moving downhill in the past decades. Such a bulky structure without integrating to the topography and existing slope could be a serious seismic/civil engineering concern. Design review should protect steep slopes and hillsides from inappropriate and unsuitable development in order to avoid exposures and risks from erosion and landslides, and other natural hazards.This is not just about being compliant with design guidelines, the current bulk design will worsen the exisitng hill movement issue and also present a greater danger from fires, since bulk structure like this on a steep hill always presents a great challenge in the event of fire. It could turn into a public safety issue that potentially has unimaginable consequences that no one wants to be held responsible for.
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 19
2. Significant views
Code section 3.03.01 calls to “make all reasonable efforts to avoid adverse impacts on significant views currently available to existing nearby residences”, and a significant view includes “long distance views of topographic … features”. The long distance east bay hills view is surely a significant view for our neighborhood. This view from our family/activity room will still be completely blocked by the revised plan.
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 20
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 21
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 22
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 23
3. Direct and indirect light
The proposed plan casts a big shadow on our east side for the entire morning, blocking direct light for all of our windows and doors. If this is not considered blocking direct light, what is this code’s requirement referring to? Currently we have direct light on our furniture, our floor and inside walls. It projects nice, bright and healthy sunlight into our house. The proposed revised plan will completely block that. Please see the pictures.
This does not follow the design guideline code 3.03.02.
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 24
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 25
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 26
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 27
4. visual and acoustical privacy
Code 3.03.02.1 calls for “the location of its exterior openings, the location of the exterior mounted appliance ventilation and exhaust ports should respect the visual and acoustical privacy of the residences located on contiguous properties, including their outdoor living areas or open spaces” Comments were made at the last meeting about privacy issues being existing already. But there were many facts missed/overlooked in that regard. We do not agree that city lots are narrow and closer, so, if you live in the city, you have to lose your privacy. A rural area with a few acres has no visual and acoustical privacy concerns, there is no need for code to Attachment B Agenda Report Page 28
protect privacy. Because city neighbors are closer, city code needed to protect the privacy rights. This is why code 3.03.02.1 is in piedmont city jurisdiction planning code and design gudieline. We also would like to point out, currently the two houses are at about the same height, but the proposed plan added a large second story balcony right in front of our dining room window. With the two massive watchtower-like balconies, it seems neighbors have nowhere/nothing to hide. Previously only one single elderly lady lived in that house, she nevers bothered to open her window shades, and she never had any visitors, we never had any privacy concerns. But the proposed plan changes the house to a five bed and five bath house which changes everything. Population surely will increase expoentially, and building massively enlarging, particularly height increase, surely dramatically increases the privacy concerns. The privacy status is dramatically changed from the existing mutual exposure. New privacy concerns arising from the proposed new design should not be disregarded.
The large second story balcony is oversized, without any consideration of privacy concerns of adjacent houses, the houses across the street and nearby houses. The second floor balcony should be deleted from the design.
The proposed walk path/stairs on the west side exterior at 7 feet height lacks consideration of neighbors’ privacy and natural terrain of the site. A walk path respecting the natural slope shall be seeked.
The place of the AC unit right next to our side door shows no consideration of acoustical privacy. The AC unit shall be relocated to the back of the house, further away from the neighbors’ houses.
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 29
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 30
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 31
5. Design compatibility
Design code 5.02.01.1 requires “prevents the new or expanded structure from overpowering or dominating the existing construction within the neighborhood” and Design code 5.02.02.1 calls for “With additions and remodels to existing structures, the scale and mass should be consistent with the architectural style, scale and mass of the existing building.” The house needs work, renovating this home will look better, make the street better, but it does not give them the right to build such a massive Attachment B Agenda Report Page 32
structure. Tripling the house size with a big massive building is not consistent with the neighborhood and the original house. The plan is not consistent with code 5.02.
The revised plan made minor adjustments but there is no change in its scale and bulkiness, only reducing a foot in height in a massive building has no real impact/meaningful changes. They added more windows on our side to worsen the privacy issue, while no effort was made to address the need to “minimize the building’s bulk”. No effort was made to address the commission’s comments of blocking direct and indirect light.
The proposed plan completely ignored its impact on the neighbors and its natural setting. The design tried to maximize its bulk, implementing the simplest massive design. If this type of design is approved, many more similar projects will come up. It will surely present great challenges to the city down on the road.
We are adamantly against the current expansion. We respectfully request the commission to deny the proposed plan.
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 33
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 34
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 35
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 36
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 37
From: Elena and Anish Amin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2024 2:23 PM
To: Joshua Muller
Subject: 21 cambridge way
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Hello,
Our concern with respect to the proposed plans is that another story added to this house, which is already perched above much of the street, would directly impact our privacy. It would have a direct view into our garden and living space.
In addition, we have concerns regarding parking for this enlarged property given that there is no garage or driveway for this property. Cambridge Way is very narrow and street parking is already very challenging. At present there are several large pickup trucks draped with tarps almost permanently parked outside this property. In addition, many residents already use cones to unofficially 'save' the parking spaces outside of their homes. Adding additional rooms and JADU would significantly increase the number of cars on the street and we would want to see how this will be addressed in the plans and/or by the city.
Thank you,
Anish and Elena Amin
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Attachment B Agenda Report Page 38
To the esteemed members of the planning commission:
The proposed expansion at 21 Cambridge Way fundamentally changes the entire property and adversely impacts the neighborhood. Today, it is a 979 sq ft house, and the proposed expansion would more than triple it to 3153 sq ft across three stories. To go from 979 sq ft to 3153 sq ft, not only is the new owner, Season Village LLC, of 21 Cambridge Way planning on raising the existing height of 23 feet to 35 feet, but also planning on adding an additional 24’x15’x24’ structure in the back and another 26'x8'x35' structure to the front at 35 feet in height. This enormous expansion on a 40 foot wide narrow lot poses a significant adverse effect on the quality of life to us (next door neighbor) at 19 Cambridge Way, which is on an even smaller and narrower lot that measures only 33 feet wide. As owners and residents of 19 Cambridge Way, we adamantly oppose this expansion. We are stunned by the enormity of the expansion and we are furious about Season Village, LLC’s complete disregard for the neighbors. Our previous neighbor of 20 years, Ms. Munro, would have never acted so callously toward her neighbors. If the expansion, against any semblance of reason, is built, our lives will take a significant turn for the worse. We will be subject to live in the shadows of this monstrous structure as the future residents of 21 Cambridge Way peer into our lives from above and eliminate not only our light but also our privacy.
Below are direct results of 21 Cambridge Way’s proposed plans, which will be elaborated on further below:
1. Blocks all east side direct and indirect light to 19 Cambridge Way
2. Blocks all east side and back views of 19 Cambridge Way
3. 19 Cambridge Way will lose all of its privacy along the entire east side (our main day time living area)
4. As a result of the above 3 points, the quality of living in 19 Cambridge Way will be completely deteriorated with constant pressure and discomfort, and significantly reduce its property value
5. 21 Cambridge Way currently has NO off-street parking. The proposed added bedrooms will add to the existing limited on-street parking needs, thus creating parking overload on the whole block and affect the entire neighborhood.
6. This massive expansion on a typical smaller frontage lot is incompatible with existing houses on the street and will disturb the neighborhood’s architectural harmony In summary, the proposed addition project completely disregards its impact on the adjacent neighbors, surrounding neighbors and the integrity and harmony of the neighborhood. Changing from a two bedroom one bathroom house to a five bedroom and five bathroom house on a narrow lot will seriously harm adjacent neighbors’ lives and adversely impact the entire neighborhood. We are unequivocally against this proposed project.
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 39
1. Blocks all east side direct and indirect light to 19 Cambridge Way The proposed expansion of 21 Cambridge Way includes an addition to the front of the house, an addition to the back of the house, 2 feet expansion into our side, and increasing the house height by 12 feet. This will completely block the morning sunlight of 19 Cambridge Way in our kitchen, breakfast nook and family room, and significantly impact the indirect light in our main activity area throughout the entire day.
The eastern sun is the only light source for the majority of 19 Cambridge Way. The proposed expansion will completely block the majority of sunlight sources, especially most of the important morning sunlight. That has a significant and unbearable impact on 19 Cambridge Way. This impact is perfectly illustrated by the story pole erected at 21 Cambridge Way. The proposed addition casts a complete shadow upon 19 Cambridge Way from the morning sun all the way to the middle of day. This will drastically change what has been our daily routine for nearly 20 years.
Photo of current sunlight in kitchen and breakfast nook, it will be all blocked! Attachment B Agenda Report Page 40
Photo - story pole shadow on our family room, kitchen, breakfast nook and dining room Attachment B Agenda Report Page 41
In addition to the direct sunlight hours, we always have plenty of natural light through our windows on the side next to 21 Cambridge Way. We can see the sky through our windows in our dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook and family room, and through the glass side door.
We have been enjoying the open and nonobstructed sunlight and views in our dining room for almost 20 years. The proposed front house addition is right by our dining room window, at 35 feet height. This will block the sunlight, natural light and views from our dining room.
Photo of the proposed front addition from our dining room window - block light to our dining room
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 42
Sunlight is currently shining through our kitchen window. Standing by the kitchen sink, we can currently look out into the blue sky. With the proposed 12 feet height increase, no sunlight can come through, our kitchen will be always gloomy because natural light is blocked. When we look out of the window, all we will see is their gigantic wall.
Photo through our kitchen window - block light to our kitchen Photo through our breakfast nook - block light to our breakfast nook Attachment B Agenda Report Page 43
We have a big window in our family room. We currently have plenty of direct sunlight and an open view through the window. Their proposed rear addition, expanding 2 feet into our side, and increasing the height by 12 feet will completely take away all of our direct sunlight, natural light, view, and open air. Everything listed above will be blocked. We would live in darkness.
Photo of the rear addition from our family room window - block light to our family room Photo of the expansion to our side from our family room window - block light to our family room Attachment B Agenda Report Page 44
Photo of the rear addition from our side door - block light through our side door Photo of the rear addition view from our back door entrance Attachment B Agenda Report Page 45
Our main activity area, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook, family room are all on the side next to 21 Cambridge Way. The proposed rear addition, the expansion to our side, and 12 feet height increase will completely block our direct sunlight and all the natural light. The blocking of sunlight and natural lights not only negatively impacts our enjoyment and activities in these areas, it also creates a serious psychological impact on us. Blocked sunlight, gloominess all day long and having a gigantic structure right in front of your face is simply psychologically suffocating.
2. Blocks all east side and back views of 19 Cambridge Way Due to the terrain, the back portion of our property is at a higher elevation and we have been enjoying the views through the windows and in our backyard. The proposed additions will significantly block our views from our dining room, family room and backyard.
Through our dining room window, we can currently see the blue sky and trees in the neighborhood. This will be blocked by their proposed front addition.
Photo of their front addition from our dining room window - block dining room view Through our family room window, we currently have open space and we can see blue sky and trees in the neighborhood. This will be completely blocked by their proposed rear addition and the added 12 feet on the second story.
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 46
Photo of the rear addition from our family room window - family room views will be blocked Attachment B Agenda Report Page 47
From our backyard, currently we can see quite far. We can see the trees and houses far away on the hills, and the entire Piedmont valley. With the proposed gigantic addition, our views will be blocked and all we will see is the wall and roof of the enormous structure.
Photo from our backyard - all views will be blocked
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 48
3. We, 19 Cambridge Way, will lose all of our privacy along the entire east side The proposed plan includes two huge front balconies, 7’x11’ and 12.5’x8.5’, and stairs extending towards the street that creates an oppressive towering structure. The second story balcony has a direct line of sight into our front living room and our dining room with only a few feet away/clearance; this is an absolute intrusion of our privacy. As indicated by the photos below, the second story balcony is clearly visible from our windows in the dining room, kitchen and living room. That means that people on the balcony can clearly see our activities in these areas.
Imagine having people sitting/standing over there looking down directly down on your dining table. Imagine strangers peering over your shoulder in the comfort of your own house. Our privacy is obliterated by the proposed front balcony.
In addition, this gigantic balcony in front of the house looks down into the sidewalk and looks down from more than 70 feet high into the neighbors’ private yards across the street, which will surely raise huge neighborhood privacy concerns.
Photo of the proposed balcony from our dining room window - they can directly look down to our dining table
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 49
Photo of the balcony from our kitchen window - look into our kitchen window Photo of the balcony from our living room window - look into our living room Attachment B Agenda Report Page 50
The proposed walk path/stairs on the west side exterior of 21 Cambridge Way are just a few feet away adjacent to 19 Cambridge Way and that creates serious privacy concerns. The west side walk path and stairs elevation is at about the same level as the front stair landing, which is almost 7 feet in height and almost at the same height as the bottom of the existing window, and it is taller than the current construction fence. This creates what feels like a long high rise balcony along 19 Cambridge way. Standing at any point of the almost 7 feet high balcony-like path, a person can not help but to look into our windows and doors on our house's entire side, so the entire side of our house is completely exposed. Currently, if people walk by in the current walk path, we only see the top of people’s heads from our windows. With the proposed plan, we will see people’s feet above our windows. This again is a huge intrusion into our privacy, creating a constant sense of exposure.
Photo of the west side with the stairs and walk path illustrated since it is not demonstrated in the story pole.
4. Significantly deteriorate the quality of living in 19 Cambridge Way and reduce its property value
The two houses have been in similar heights and we (along with the previous owner of 21 Cambridge Way) have enjoyed our nice small town living for many years. With the proposed addition on both the front and the rear, 2 feet expansion into our side, and a gigantic 12 feet increase in height, we now feel like living in a big city with skyscrapers right in front of your window blocking the sunlight, natural light, open air and more.
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 51
Our neighbor on the other side, 17 Cambridge Way, being a two-story house on higher terrain already contributes to us feeling oppressed from that side with no direct sunlight, natural light, or direct air flow. We can not have a similar structure on the 21 Cambridge Way side.
The 21 Cambridge Way proposed plan creates a massive 26’x57’x35’ building with new additions both in the front and in the back, which measures 35 feet high and blocks air circulation on the east side of 19 Cambridge Way. With 17 Cambridge Way being higher in elevation, direct air flow is limited on that side of the house. For 19 Cambridge Way, the side next to 21 Cambridge Way is the main source for fresh air and air circulation.
With the proposed 21 Cambridge Way addition, our house will be sandwiched by two big and tall houses. Our quality of life will be completely destroyed and our property value will surely decline.
5. Undue adverse impact on neighborhood vehicular congestion and parking Our block, Cambridge Way between Howard street and Grand Avenue, is very narrow with slope and curves. The houses in our block were built all in close distance and the population density and traffic density is very high, with almost all the garages being used as storage. The current on-street parking is very hard to find.
21 Cambridge Way has no existing off-street parking, and the proposed plan offers no improvement while tripling the living space. It is currently a two bedroom house, the proposed expansion into a five bedroom house will greatly increase the number of people and vehicles on the block, creating more traffic on a narrow, curvy and slopey street, and put enormous added load on an already limited on-street parking situation. Existing tensions for street parking will only worsen. We have many seniors on our block. It will be very frustrating when the on-street Attachment B Agenda Report Page 52
parking space in front of their house is occupied and they have to carry their grocery bags from half a block away.
6. Severely disturb the neighborhood harmony
The physical limitation of both the lot and the entire block is not suitable for the large-scale development that is proposed at 21 Cambridge Way. Our street is very narrow, winding with steep terrain on the odd numbered side of the street. Almost all the houses in our block were originally built as two bedroom one bath houses. Even with some more recent renovations, most of the houses are still 2 to 3 bedrooms under 2000 sq ft. The proposed 21 Cambridge Way expansion will be over 3000 sq ft, with five bedroom suites. The structure mass is excessive and severely disturbs the neighborhood harmony.
21 Cambridge Way DR findings state no impact to the neighbors and no blocked views from the neighbors. It is completely untrue and just pure nonsense. How was this conclusion reached without even talking to the next door neighbors. Common sense says, this gigantic expansion will create a huge negative impact. Seeing the story pole, everyone has said “No city will allow something like this”. At best, these claims by 21 Cambridge Way are complete negligence; at worst, they are fabricated to ignore the true ramifications on neighbors and the street as a whole.
We, the directly impacted neighbor, was never contacted by the new owner of 21 Cambridge Way for our concerns or anything. No construction management plan was ever discussed; no noise and dust control implementation was broached. Not to mention concerns about the impact on our light, privacy and views by 21 Cambridge Way’s proposed plan.
Again, the proposed addition project completely disregards its impact on the adjacent neighbors, surrounding neighbors and the integrity and harmony of the neighborhood. The current proposed project will seriously harm adjacent neighbors’ lives and adversely impact the entire neighborhood. Our lives in particular would be permanently changed for the worse. We are unequivocally against this proposed project. The 21 Cambridge Way plan should be denied.
We are in favor of remodeling the existing house on 21 Cambridge Way, as it is indeed derelict and in need of work. However, any work taken should not under any circumstances make the lives of those who live next to 21 Cambridge Way worse. The new owner should consider all of the neighbors’ concerns in their new design.
We look to the planning commision to ensure what is fair and right for our neighborhood and thus the city. We are fully dependent on you to help us do what's right. We appreciate your time and effort in serving our community.
Best regards,
Gloria and David Hou
Owner of 19 Cambridge Way
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 53
From: carter shoop <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2024 2:02 PM
To: Joshua Muller
Cc: Emily Shoop
Subject: 21 Cambridge
Attachments: PXL_20240628_173936435.MP.jpg
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Hello,
I am writing about 21 Cambridge. I am concerned about how the second floor of the building will impact our view. Picture attached. It's not clear to us what the second floor structure will look like so we would like to review the application materials and voice our concern to the planning commission on July 8 (which I won't be able to attend virtually or in person unfortunately).
-Carter and Emily Shoop
38 Nace Ave, Piedmont
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Attachment B Agenda Report Page 54
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 55
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 56
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 57
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 58
Attachment B Agenda Report Page 59
21 CAMBRIDGE WAY, PIEDMONT PROPOSED ADDITION
Attachment C Agenda Report Page 60
PROJECT DATA ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 050-4551-023 ZONING: A LOT AREA: 6,352 SQ FT CONSTRUCTION TYPE: R-3 (SFD) OCCUPANCY TYPE: V-B NUMBER OF STORY: TWO BUILDING HEIGHT: 35' OFF-STREET PARKING: NONE FIRE SPRINKLER: NONE APPLICABLE CODES: CITY OF PIEDMONT MUNICIPAL CODES 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODES 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODES 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODES 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODES 2022 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODES 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODES CONTACT OWNERS: SEASON VILLAGE, LLC 2839 CHLOE COURT CASTRO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA DESIGNER: DEREK CHAU 2952 FLORIDA STREET OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94602 510-715-7260 [email protected] VICINITY MAP INDEX OF DRAWINGS SCOPE OF WORK (1) COMPLETE REMODELING OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SFD). (2) ADD 424 SQ FT TO MAIN LEVEL & 1250 SQ FT TO THE UPPER LEVEL TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING TO CREATE TWO NEW BEDROOMS, THREE NEW BATHROOMS AND A LAUNDRY ROOM. (3) CONVERT EXISTING BASEMENT INTO JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (JADU). JADU WILL CONSIST OF ONE BEDROOM, ONE BATHROOM, LAUNDRY CLOSET AND OPEN FLOOR PLAN. THIS WORK IS UNDER SEPARATED PERMIT APPLICATION. A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION SITE PLANS & SITE AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING BASEMENT & PROPOSED JADU PLANS EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL & UPPER LEVEL PLANS EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROOF PLANS PRIMARY DWELLING & JADU PROPOSED FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS PRIMARY DWELLING & JADU PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATIONS PRIMARY DWELLING & JADU PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONS A SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TAKEOFF B PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA TAKEOFF FRONT YARD FRONT YARD FRONT YARD LEFT SIDE YARD LEFT SIDE YARD REAR YARD 3,644 338 206 238 120 124 2,618 FRONT YARD STAIRS JADU PATH JADU PATH STEPS (BELOW 5' HT) LANDING LIGHT WELL LEFT YARD STEPS LEFT YARD PATH LEFT YARD PATH REAR YARD PATIO REAR YARD STEPS 1,191 158 172 18621 56573950 208 21331 FRONT YARD FRONT YARD SIDE YARD REAR YARD REAR YARD 736 3384274 3,239 FRONT YARD STAIRS RIGHT YARD PATH RIGHT YARD PATH ACCESS STAIRS LEFT YARD PATH LEFT YARD PATH REAR YARD PAVER REAR YARD PATH REAR YARD STEPS 15088 1184063 104409250 4,429 745 PRIMARY UPPER LEVEL ADDITION 1,250 1,4039724 PRIMARY DWELLING MAIN LEVEL ENTRY PORCH ENTRY ACCESS STEPS 1,524 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL DWELLING PRIMARY DWELLING FRONT ADDITION PRIMARY DWELLING LEFT ADDITION PRIMARY DWELLING REAR ADDITION 9795444 326 1,403 JADU 500 PRIMARY DWELLING MAIN LEVEL PRIMARY DWELLING UPPER LEVEL 1,403 1,250 2,653 42% 24% SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" 98134606836 PRIMARY DWELLING ENTRY PORCH ENTRY ACCESS STEPS WOOD DECK WOOD DECK 1,179 19% 12% 57% 70% NET FLOOR AREA NET HARDSCAPE 19% NET FLOOR AREA (E) DWELLING AREA UNPERMITTED BASEMENT DWELLING 979 435 PRIMARY MAIN LEVEL AREA LOT AREA 6,352 LOT AREA 6,352 NET FLOOR AREA 1,414 22% A-1 SHEET OF GENERAL INFORMATION & LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATION DIAGRAMS SHEET AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:
PROJECT AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO. DATE ISSUECOMMENT DESIGNED BY: DEREK CHAU 2952 FLORIDA STREET OAKLAND, CA 94602 (510) 715-7260 1 2024.06.04 PLANNING APPLICATION 1.1 2024.06.21 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.2 2024.07.01 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.3 2024.07.22 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.4 2024.08.26 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 8/26/2024 10:15:19 AM Attachment C Agenda Report Page 61
4.00' 3.04' 6.5' 6.8' 7.3'2.6' 2.3' 4.8' 5.2' 9.97' 9.98' 1 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" EXISTING SITE PLANCAMBRIDGE WAY (1) REMOVE ALL LANDSCAPE RETAINING WALLS IN BACKYARD. (2) SEE PROPOSED SITE PLANS FOR NEW SITE RETAINING WALLS AND STAIRS. (3) INSTALL 6' RED WOOD FENCE. ALONG JADU WALL.
27.00' 4.50' 3.04'
5.95' 33.41' 36.60'
38.65' 11.46' 14.54' 3.04' 2 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
63.28' PROPOSED SITE PLAN12.00'
14.25' 37.75' 9.98' 24'-0" 2.00'
55.00' 3.04' 5.00'
12.00'
CAMBRIDGE WAY9.98' 5.04'
31.43' 5.25'
23.08' 2.31' 4.67' 3.00' 12.25'
3.00' 13.75' 5.33' 2.31' 5.32'7.98' 3.83'
8.54' 7.64' 4.59'
88.68'
75.26'
89.13'
75.28'
18.87' 21.88' 14.25' MINI SPLIT AC 5.54' 4.53' 12.51' 9.47'
31.62'
36.68'
52.00' SITE PLANS NO. DATE ISSUECOMMENT DESIGNED BY: DEREK CHAU 2952 FLORIDA STREET OAKLAND, CA 94602 (510) 715-7260 1 2024.06.04 PLANNING APPLICATION 1.1 2024.06.21 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.2 2024.07.01 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.3 2024.07.22 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.4 2024.08.26 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS A-2AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:
PROJECT AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:PROJECT 8/26/2024 10:15:29 AM Attachment C Agenda Report Page 62
5'-0" 6'-0" 11'-0" BED RM 8'-0" BATH RM8'-0" CLST 8'-0" SITTING 8'-6" 19'-4" KITCHEN 8'-0"
9'-1112" W/D 8'-0"8'-0"
19'-0" PROPOSED JADU PLAN 2 14'-0" 26'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" CRAWL SPACE BED ROOM 7'-3" WORKSHOP 9'-6" FURNACE KITCHENETTE 6'-6" VARIED TO 5'-6" WH HALF BATH 2'-8"
3'-0" 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN
38'-134" 26'-0"
3'-112" UTILITY 10'-3" STORAGE AND UTILITY ROOM 5'-0" CRAWL SPACE LIGHT WELL (N) WALL ONE-HOUR RATED WALL: 5 8" TYPE X GYP BOARD 45-DB RATED SOUND WALL LEGENND UP UP
UP WINDOW NOTES: (1) WINDOWS ARE 1 3 8" SETBACK
12'-634" 20'-312" 2'-0"
36'-714" 26'-0" 16'-0" 8'-712"
16'-1012" 18'-6"
4'-8" 13'-612 11'-1" " 13'-612"
18'-9" 14'-3" 26'-0" 14'-0" NEW WINDOW SCHEDULE - JADU SIZE MATERIAL REMARK 1 LOCATION TYPE 23 40X40 EGRESS AREA (SQ FT) NEW DOOR SCHEDULE - JADU: SIZE REMARK A 30X70 LOCATION TYPE ENTRY IN-SWING MATERIAL
PRIMARY
DWELLING FIRE-RATED TEMPERED 20 MIN BED ROOM DINING 28X50 CLAD-WOOD RECESS (IN) 1 3 8" 1 3 JADU 8" DINING 1 3 8" B UTILITY 28X68 IN-SWING METAL 20 MIN DW FURNACE FURNACE CRAWL SPACE PLAN NOTES: (1) JADU ADDITION IS UNDER SEPARATED APPLICATION. FIBERGLASS CASEMENT PUSHOUT TEMPERED 12.68 28X50 FIBERGLASS CASEMENT PUSHOUT FIBERGLASS CASEMENT PUSHOUT 1 A2 EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR AREA PROPOSED JADU FLOOR AREA A-3AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:
PROJECT AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:PROJECT EXISTING BASEMENT & PROPOSED JADU PLANS NO. DATE ISSUECOMMENT DESIGNED BY: DEREK CHAU 2952 FLORIDA STREET OAKLAND, CA 94602 (510) 715-7260 1 2024.06.04 PLANNING APPLICATION 1.1 2024.06.21 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.2 2024.07.01 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.3 2024.07.22 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.4 2024.08.26 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 8/26/2024 10:15:33 AM Attachment C Agenda Report Page 63
11'-0" 14'-0" LIVING 8'-9" DINING 8'-9" BED RM #2 8'-9" KITCHEN 8'-9" BATH RM #1 8'-9" BED RM #1 8'-9" 11'-8" 7'-914" 2'-11" 12'-112" 13'-612 11'-1" "
9'-112" 11'-112" 16'-734" 13'-612 11'-1" " 26'-0"
38'-734"
36'-714" 26'-0" 7'-512" 3 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN DECK DW 324 5 B 1 A 12 1198710 EXISTING WINDOW SCHEDULESIZE MATERIAL 1 LOCATION TYPE PRIMARY DWELLING 234578 SINGLE HUNG SINGLE HUNG SINGLE HUNG WOOD 6 30X53 SINGLE HUNG MODEL BATH RM #1 BED RM #2 KITCHEN KITCHEN 9 SINGLE HUNG 12 SINGLE HUNG 30X20 SINGLE HUNG SINGLE HUNG SINGLE HUNG DINING DINING SEATING 30X30 46X50 BED RM #1 BED RM #1 BED RM #2 10 SEATING SINGLE HUNG 30X50 30X50 30X50 30X50 30X50 30X50 30X50 SINGLE HUNG 6 11 SEATING 30X50 SINGLE HUNG WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3'-0" 2'-0"PANTRY / WINE RACK 9'-0" DINING 9'-0" BATH RM #1 9'-0" BED RM #1 9'-0" 9'-0" 19'-0"30'-1012" 37'-3"6'-0" 11'-6" 14'-9" 11'-334 11'-3 " 34" 24'-0"
2'-1012"
55'-0"
6'-0" 8'-412" 5'-9" 18'-1012" CLST
12'-0" LOUNGE 9'-0" CLST SEATING 9'-0" CLST 9'-6" 5'-9" 2'-0" 9'-6" 11'-412"
2'-9" NEW WINDOW SCHEDULE - MAIN LEVEL SIZE MATERIAL REMARK 1 LOCATION TYPE PRIMARY DWELLING 234578 FIBERGLASS 6 TEMPERED 9 50X56 30X20 EGRESS AREA (SQ FT) NEW DOOR SCHEDULE - MAIN LEVEL: SIZE REMARK A 30X70 LOCATION TYPE ENTRY IN-SWING B SIDEYARD 30X70 C LOUNGE IN-SWING MATERIAL
PRIMARY
DWELLING FIRE-RATED 20 MIN 20 MIN 10 40X40 TEMPERED TEMPERED, OBSCURED TEMPERED TEMPERED BED RM #1 BED RM #1 BATH RM #1 KITCHEN SEATING AWNING 28X56 16.58 FIBERGLASS 9.42 FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS 80X70 BIFOLD IN-SWING FIBERGLASS TEMPERED 20 MIN RECESS (IN) 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PATIO DW DW ENTRY BALCONY LIGHT WELL MINI SPLIT AC 20X40 20X40 KITCHEN KITCHEN FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS 1 3 8" 1 3 8" (N) WALL ONE-HOUR RATED WALL: 5 8" TYPE X GYP BOARD 45-DB RATED SOUND WALL LEGENND 8'-3" 1098 6 A 53 C B UP 4 1 7 2 LEFT YARD PATH CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT SEATING FIBERGLASS CASEMENT PUSHOUT 1 3 SEATING FIBERGLASS 8" CASEMENT PUSHOUT LOUNGE 28X56 FIBERGLASS TEMPERED CASEMENT PUSHOUT 1 3 8" 50X56 50X56 50X56 TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA SHEET OF SHEET AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:
PROJECT AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO. DATE ISSUECOMMENT DESIGNED BY: DEREK CHAU 2952 FLORIDA STREET OAKLAND, CA 94602 (510) 715-7260 1 2024.06.04 PLANNING APPLICATION 1.1 2024.06.21 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.2 2024.07.01 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.3 2024.07.22 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.4 2024.08.26 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS A-4 EXISTING & PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLANS 8/26/2024 10:15:37 AM Attachment C Agenda Report Page 64
7 FIBERGLASS 69 EGRESS AREA (SQ FT) SIZE A 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" BATH RM #2 121315 BATH RM #3 BATH RM #2 30X20 50X59 TEMPERED, FROSTED OWNER'S SUITE OWNER'S SUITE 28X59 50X59 FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS PROPOSED UPPER LOWER PLAN - 1,178 SQ FT 5 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 10'-0" RETREAT 9'-0" BED RM #3 9'-0"
14'-9"
15'-6"
7'-0" LAUNDRY 9'-0" BED RM #2 9'-0"6'-6"
11'-6" OWNER'S SUITE 9'-0"2'-9"
37'-3"
8'-412" 2'-3"
6'-0" 5'-412" 24'-0"3'-0"
11'-6" 11'-334"11'-1012" 6'-3" 11'-0" 11'-334"
55'-0" OWNER'S SUITE BALCONY 12'-6" 2'-0" BATH #2 9'-0" WALK-IN CLST 9'-0" BATH #3 9'-0"9'-0" BATH #4 9'-0" NEW WINDOW SCHEDULE - UPPER LEVEL SIZE MATERIAL 1 LOCATION TYPE REMARK PRIMARY DWELLING 23458 50X59 NEW DOOR SCHEDULE - UPPER LEVEL: REMARK 60X70 LOCATION TYPE BALCONY OUT-SWING MATERIAL
PRIMARY
DWELLING FIRE-RATED 20 MIN 10 TEMPERED BED RM #2 30X20 AWNING 30X40 50X50 CLAD-WOOD FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS RECESS (IN) 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 11141716 LAUNDRY BED RM #3 AWNING TEMPERED FIBERGLASS OWNER'S SUITE 28X59 FIBERGLASS 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" 1 3 8" OWNER'S SUITE 18X18 FIBERGLASS OWNER'S SUITE 18X18 OWNER'S SUITE 18X18 FIXED STAIRS 18X18 FIXED STAIRS 18X18 FIXED STAIRS 18X18 FIBERGLASS FIXED FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS FIBERGLASS (N) WALL ONE-HOUR RATED WALL: 5 8" TYPE X GYP BOARD 45-DB RATED SOUND WALL LEGENND 1316 9 A 171514 121110 87654 DOWN 18 3 1 2 FIXED FIXED 10'-2" 1 3 BED RM #3 28X59 FIBERGLASS 8" 1 3 WALK-IN CLOSET 30X20 AWNING FIBERGLASS 8" 18 BED RM #2 1 3 30X59 FIBERGLASS 8" TEMPERED, FROSTED TEMPERED, FROSTED CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT CASEMENT PUSHOUT 16.58 16.58 9.42 9.42 TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED TEMPERED 9.42 9.42 16.58 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL PLAN A-5 SHEET OF SHEET AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:
PROJECT AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO. DATE ISSUECOMMENT DESIGNED BY: DEREK CHAU 2952 FLORIDA STREET OAKLAND, CA 94602 (510) 715-7260 1 2024.06.04 PLANNING APPLICATION 1.1 2024.06.21 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.2 2024.07.01 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.3 2024.07.22 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.4 2024.08.26 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 8/26/2024 10:15:47 AM Attachment C Agenda Report Page 65
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PRIMARY DWELLING ROOF PLAN 5 2% 2% 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 5% 5% 5% EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ROOF PLAN UPPER LEVEL ROOF OWNER'S SUITE BALCONY (E) FLAT ROOF (E) PITCH ROOF (E) ENTRY PORCH FLAT ROOF ENTRY CANOPY UPPER LEVEL CANOPY UPPER LEVEL CANOPY LOWER LEVEL CANOPY UPPER LEVEL CANOPY EXISTING & PROPOSED ROOF PLANS A-6 SHEET OF SHEET AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:
PROJECT AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO. DATE ISSUECOMMENT DESIGNED BY: DEREK CHAU 2952 FLORIDA STREET OAKLAND, CA 94602 (510) 715-7260 1 2024.06.04 PLANNING APPLICATION 1.1 2024.06.21 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.2 2024.07.01 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.3 2024.07.22 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.4 2024.08.26 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 8/26/2024 10:15:56 AM Attachment C Agenda Report Page 66
16'-634" 8'-9" 3'-534" TOR
3'-6" F.F. CLG CLG GRADE 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING PRIMARY RESIDENCE REAR ELEVATION 12 4 EL: 138' EL: 132' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 134' EL: 118' EL: 122' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 124' EL: 116' EL: 114' EL: 142' EL: 146' EL: 144' EL: 108' EL: 106' EL: 104'
AVERAGE
BUILDING
HEIGHT
14'-812"
18'-834"8'-9" 3'-534" TOR
5'-8"
23'-834" 8'-9" 3'-534" TOR CLG F.F. GRADE
9'-6" F.F. CLG CLG GRADE CLG T.O.S. 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING PRIMARY RESIDENCE FRONT ELEVATION 12 4 EL: 138' EL: 132' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 134' EL: 118' EL: 122' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 116' EL: 124' EL: 114' EL: 142' EL: 146' EL: 144' EL: 108' EL: 106' EL: 104'
AVERAGE
BUILDING
HEIGHT
21'-234"
29'-0"
8'-9" 9'-0" TOR6'-3"
33'-4"
8'-9" 9'-0" TOR CLG F.F.8'-6" F.F. CLG CLG LANDING CLG T.O.S. GRADE VARIED 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PRIMARY RESIDENCE FRONT ELEVATION T.O.S. 2'-8" F.F. CLG
2'-8" CLG F.F. EL: 138' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 132' EL: 118' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 134' EL: 122' EL: 116' EL: 124' EL: 114' EL: 146' EL: 142' EL: 144' EL: 108' EL: 106' EL: 104' 3'-6"
3'-6"
AVERAGE
BUILDING
HEIGHT
31'-2" 2'-0"
25'-434" TOR
2'-734"
22'-5" CLG F.F. TOR CLG GRADE F.F. CLG PATIO 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PRIMARY RESIDENCE REAR ELEVATION 8'-9" 9'-0"
8'-9" 9'-0"
5'-0"
GRADE
VARIES CLG F.F.
2'-8"
2'-8" CLG F.F. EL: 138' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 132' EL: 118' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 134' EL: 122' EL: 116' EL: 124' EL: 114' EL: 146' EL: 142' EL: 144' EL: 108' EL: 106' EL: 104'
AVERAGE
BUILDING
HEIGHT
22'-5" SHEET OF SHEET AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:
PROJECT AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO. DATE ISSUECOMMENT DESIGNED BY: DEREK CHAU 2952 FLORIDA STREET OAKLAND, CA 94602 (510) 715-7260 1 2024.06.04 PLANNING APPLICATION 1.1 2024.06.21 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.2 2024.07.01 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.3 2024.07.22 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.4 2024.08.26 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS A-7 FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS 8/26/2024 10:15:57 AM Attachment C Agenda Report Page 67
23'-712" 8'-9" 3'-512" TOR
10'-7" F.F. CLG CLG GRADE 5 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE RIGHT ELEVATION EL: 138' EL: 132' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 134' EL: 118' EL: 122' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 116' EL: 124' EL: 114' EL: 138' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 132' EL: 118' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 134' EL: 122' EL: 116' EL: 124' EL: 114' EL: 142' EL: 146' EL: 144' EL: 146' EL: 142' EL: 144'
AVERAGE
BUILDING
HEIGHT
20'-712"
22'-5"
9'-0" 8'-9" CLG TOR PATIO F.F.
9'-0" 8'-9"
33'-4" TOR F.F. CLG CLG GRADE
2'-1" F.F. 6 PROPOSED PRIMARY RESIDENCE RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4'-0"
3'-1134"
2'-8" F.F. CLG EL: 138' EL: 132' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 134' EL: 118' EL: 122' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 124' EL: 116' EL: 114' EL: 138' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 132' EL: 118' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 134' EL: 122' EL: 116' EL: 124' EL: 114' EL: 142' EL: 146' EL: 144' EL: 146' EL: 142' EL: 144' EL: 108' EL: 106' EL: 108' EL: 106' EL: 104' EL: 104' 2'-8" CLG F.F.
8'-6"
AVERAGE
BUILDING
HEIGHT
29'-1014"
3'-1034" SHEET OF SHEET AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:
PROJECT AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO. DATE ISSUECOMMENT DESIGNED BY: DEREK CHAU 2952 FLORIDA STREET OAKLAND, CA 94602 (510) 715-7260 1 2024.06.04 PLANNING APPLICATION 1.1 2024.06.21 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.2 2024.07.01 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.3 2024.07.22 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.4 2024.08.26 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS A-8 RIGHT ELEVATIONS 8/26/2024 10:16:03 AM Attachment C Agenda Report Page 68
19'-2
3 4
" 8'-9" 3'-5
3 4
" TOR CLG F.F.6'-2" GRADE CLG EL: 138' EL: 132' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 134' EL: 118' EL: 122' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 116' EL: 124' EL: 114' EL: 138' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 132' EL: 118' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 134' EL: 122' EL: 116' EL: 124' EL: 114' EL: 142' EL: 146' EL: 144' EL: 146' EL: 142' EL: 144' 7 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE LEFT ELEVATION
AVERAGE
BUILDING
HEIGHT
15'-10
1 2
"
8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED PRIMARY RESIDENCE LEFT ELEVATION EL: 138' EL: 132' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 134' EL: 118' EL: 122' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 116' EL: 124' EL: 114' EL: 138' EL: 136' EL: 128' EL: 132' EL: 118' EL: 126' EL: 112' EL: 134' EL: 122' EL: 116' EL: 124' EL: 114' EL: 142' EL: 146' EL: 144' EL: 146' EL: 142' EL: 144' EL: 108' EL: 106' EL: 108' EL: 106' EL: 104' EL: 104' 9'-0"
22'-5"
8'-9" F.F. CLG TOR PATIO
5'-0"
6'-3" 9'-0"
29'-0"
8'-9" CLG TOR LANDING CLG CLG2'-8" F.F.
2'-8" F.F. CLG F.F.
AVERAGE
BUILDING
HEIGHT
24'-10" 8'-11" 2'-0" 3'-0" SHEET OF SHEET AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:
PROJECT AS NOTED DEREK CHAU SCALE: SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO. DATE ISSUECOMMENT DESIGNED BY: DEREK CHAU 2952 FLORIDA STREET OAKLAND, CA 94602 (510) 715-7260 1 2024.06.04 PLANNING APPLICATION 1.1 2024.06.21 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.2 2024.07.01 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.3 2024.07.22 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1.4 2024.08.26 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS A-9 LEFT ELEVATIONS 8/26/2024 10:16:06 AM Attachment C Agenda Report Page 69
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT STANDARDS
(To be completed by the applicant.)
The hearing body (the Planning Commission or City Council) may not approve a design review permit unless the design of the project conforms to all the standards listed below (§17.66.060).
Please describe how the proposed project meets the standards for approving a design review permit:
A. The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines.
The proposed project at 21 Cambridge Way has been meticulously designed to align with the City's General Plan and the Piedmont Design Guidelines, ensuring a harmonious integration with the neighborhood’s existing and future development. The exterior design features a balanced aesthetic with proportional height and bulk that complements the surrounding structures. The façade includes strategic breaks and openings, providing visual interest and reducing massing, which is in line with the Piedmont Design Guidelines Section 2.3. The roof’s line and pitch are thoughtfully chosen to echo the neighborhood’s architectural rhythm, as recommended in Guideline 3.1. High-quality materials that blend with the local palate have been selected, ensuring durability and visual coherence. Additionally, the placement of structures on the parcel maximizes usability while maintaining open spaces. All mechanical and electrical equipment will be concealed in accordance with Section 4.2 of the Guidelines, preserving the project's aesthetic appeal and minimizing visual clutter.
B. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties’ existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light.
Careful consideration has been given to the impact on neighboring properties at 21 Cambridge Way to ensure their existing views, privacy, and light access remain largely unaffected. The design maintains a respectful distance from property lines and neighboring windows, following the setbacks specified in the General Plan. The height and bulk of the project have been adjusted to avoid obstructing significant views from adjacent properties. Privacy is enhanced through strategic window placements and the use of frosted or obscure glass where necessary.
The project is designed to minimize shadow casting on neighboring properties, ensuring that access to both direct and indirect light is preserved, in alignment with the Piedmont Design Guidelines’ principles on light and privacy.
Attachment C Agenda Report Page 70
C. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety.
Although there is no garage at 21 Cambridge Way, the proposed design prioritizes both pedestrian and vehicular safety, adhering to the safety standards outlined in the City’s General Plan. The layout includes clearly defined pedestrian pathways that are separated from vehicular areas, reducing potential conflicts and enhancing safety. The parking areas are designed with adequate space for vehicle maneuvering, minimizing the risk of accidents. Sightlines for drivers exiting the property are unobstructed, ensuring clear visibility of oncoming traffic and pedestrians. The project also incorporates adequate lighting for walkways and parking areas, enhancing nighttime safety for all users. Traffic calming measures and signage will be implemented as necessary to further ensure a safe environment for pedestrians and vehicles alike.
Attachment C Agenda Report Page 71
DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS:
3.03 SITE DEVELOPMENT
3.03.01 SIGNIFICANT VIEWS
3.03.01.1 The siting and construction of a new or modified existing structure, including its site plantings at mature growth, should make all reasonable efforts to avoid adverse impacts on significant views currently available to existing nearby residences.
3.03.02 VISUAL AND ACOUSTICAL PRIVACY; ACCESS TO DIRECT OR INDIRECT LIGHT
3.03.02.1 The siting of a new or modified existing structure, the location of its exterior openings, and the location of exterior mounted appliance ventilation and exhaust ports should respect the visual and acoustical privacy of the residences located on contiguous properties, including their outdoor living areas or open spaces.
3.03.02.2 The siting of a structure and its landscaping should clearly differentiate between the public right-of-way and the private space of the structure, giving the appearance that its occupants control their private space.
3.03.02.3 The siting of a structure and the openings into its rooms should discourage visual access by persons driving by in automobiles or walking along the sidewalk, yet allow for the view of the streetscape and the neighborhood by its occupants, allowing for “eyes on the street.”
3.03.02.4 The entryway to the new residence should be obvious and observable from the street.
3.05 COMPATIBILITY WITH THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
3.05.01 SETBACKS FROM THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
3.05.01.1 In addition to the Building Location Design Standards outlined in Section 3.06, building front setbacks from the street right-of-way should reflect the prevailing pattern found along other adjacent lots fronting the same side of the street.
3.08 RETAINING WALLS
3.08.01 NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
3.08.01.1 The design of new retaining walls that are visible from the street should be consistent with the scale and proportion of existing retaining walls on contiguous parcels, except when they exceed the recommended maximum heights outlined in these guidelines and standards.
3.08.01.2 The design of new retaining walls that are visible from the street, as well as those that are close to side and rear property lines should be no more than four feet, unless physical limitations on the site prevent this from occurring. If the change in grade is greater than four feet, a series of retaining walls, interspersed by planting areas in a stepped or terraced fashion should be constructed to create a less visually-prominent monolithic appearance.
3.08.02 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY
3.08.02.1 Retaining walls should be constructed in stepped or terraced fashion with the maximum height for any single wall no more than four feet, unless physical limitations on the site or structural engineering conditions do not make terracing feasible. Any retaining wall in excess of six feet should be avoided whenever possible. The height of a retaining wall shall be measured from whichever of the following is lower:
A. The finished grade surface of the ground, or
Attachment D Agenda Report Page 72
B. The natural surface of the ground.
The surface of the ground for measurement purposes shall be determined by the specific plane of the proposed retaining wall.
3.08.02.2 The design of a retaining wall should be compatible with the architectural style of the residence which it serves and should provide visual variety and interest through the use of form, texture, detailing and planting. When a retaining wall contains an entry stairway to the residence, the design of the wall should give visual prominence and attention to the entryway. When a retaining wall is adjacent to a garage, the two should have a unified design. While a retaining wall should be well-designed and visually interesting, it should not call attention to itself, but instead should focus and direct attention to the residence.
3.08.02.3 Where a single large retaining wall is used, its design should incorporate a planting strip and irrigation system at its toe strip to allow for the planting of screening vegetation, or planting strip with irrigation system should be incorporated at the top of the wall. Ideally, both toe and top planting strips should be provided.
3.08.02.4 The design of stepped or terraced retaining walls should incorporate planting strips to allow for the planting of screening vegetation at each level. A toe planting strip is preferred because the vegetation it supports is generally a more effective visual screen than overhanging vegetation.
3.08.02.5 Stepped retaining walls should be consistent and should not result in significant alterations to the natural topography. The example shown at right violates this principle and detracts from the views from the street right-of-way.
3.08.02.6 A retaining wall should avoid the creation of a tunnel effect which may result when a high retaining wall is built along one side of a narrow street and residences are built close to curb on the other side of the street.
3.09 FENCES AND WALLS
3.09.01 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONTIGUOUS PARCEL COMPATIBILITY
3.09.01.1 The design of fences or walls should be consistent with the character of existing fences or walls in the neighborhood and on contiguous parcels, except when they exceed the recommended maximum heights outlined in these guidelines and standards.
3.09.01.2 A fence or wall should minimize any adverse impacts on the neighborhood and on residences located on contiguous parcels. The quality of design reflected by the fence or wall should be directly related to its visual prominence.
3.09.02 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY
3.09.02.1 The design of a fence or wall should be compatible with the architectural style of the residence which it serves and should provide visual interest and variety. A fence or wall should be well-designed and visually interesting. It should not call attention to itself, but instead should focus and direct attention to the residence.
3.09.02.2 When a fence or wall contains an entry to the residence, its design should give visual prominence to the residence and direct attention to the entry.
3.09.02.3 Fences or walls in front yards are to be avoided except in rare circumstances. However, if a residence is located on a corner or through lot, a fence or wall greater than four feet in height should be permitted to enclose the property’s private outdoor living area in the side or rear yard.
3.09.02.4 With the exception of corner lots, fences or walls greater than four feet in height should not be located between the sidewalk and a house.
3.09.03 CONTIGUOUS PARCELS AND ON-SITE SAFETY
3.09.03.1 A fence or wall located in a side yard should not obstruct emergency access between the Attachment D Agenda Report Page 73
street and the side and rear yards of a contiguous residence.
3.09.03.2 A fence or wall located in a side yard should not obstruct emergency access from the street, through the side yard, and into the rear yard of the residence. A gate located in a side yard fence or wall should be wide enough to accommodate an emergency stretcher. Its locking mechanism should be a type that can be unlocked or removed by police and fire department personnel in an emergency. A gate in a fence or wall located within side yards and permitting access to rear yards should be equipped with an adequate lock which can be unlocked or removed by police and fire department personnel in an emergency.
3.09.03.3 A fence or wall located adjacent to a driveway should not obstruct the view of a driver exiting a driveway.
3.09.03.4 A fence or wall located in the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to a street should not obstruct the view of the cross street for drivers approaching the cross street.
3.12 EXTERIOR LIGHTING
3.12.01 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONTIGUOUS PARCEL COMPATIBILITY
3.12.01.1 Limit the lighting of front yard landscape features, to respect the existing neighborhood character.
3.12.01.2 Use “Dark Sky Compliant” exterior light fixtures that are shielded and directed downwards to prevent light trespassing from a subject property to neighboring properties. The use of floodlights is discouraged.
3.12.02 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN, COMPATIBILITLY AND SAFETY
3.12.02.1 Complement the light fixture design with the architectural character and building elements being illuminated.
3.12.02.2 Conceal electrical boxes from public view. Conduits should not be exposed on exterior walls and should be embedded either in walls or landscaping.
3.12.02.3 Locate low level lighting to ensure entry paths, entry stairs and driveways, garage and building entries are adequately illuminated.
3.12.02.4 When used, provide motion sensors that are adjustable, to prevent them from rapidly flashing on and off when activated.
4.01 BUILDING STYLES
4.01.02 STYLISTIC CHANGES TO EXISTING STRUCTURES
4.01.02.1 Where there is a desire to change the existing building style, such changes should be applied to the entire exterior, and to accessory structures, and not only to the area where new construction is proposed.
4.02 BUILDING ELEMENTS
4.02.01 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN CONSISTENCY
4.02.01.1 Foundations: The appearance of the foundation of an addition should match the appearance of the foundation of an existing structure, so that it appears that the two are continuous.
This is especially important for those portions of the foundation which will be visible from the street and adjacent parcels.
4.02.01.2 Porches: The construction of additional porches or the reconstruction of an existing porch should match any porches which were original to the existing structure. Particular attention should be given to the porch roof, columns, balustrades and railings, which are usually the most Attachment D Agenda Report Page 74
visible elements of the porch. New elements should be compatible with the design of the existing elements. For new construction, the building elements of a porch should also be consistent with the overall building style. Elements which are inconsistent with the architectural style of the building should be avoided.
4.02.01.3 Decks and Balconies: Deck and balcony additions to existing structures, as well as decks and balconies that are part of new structures should be consistent with the architectural style of the building to which they are attached.
4.02.01.5 Stairs: Exterior stairs should be consistent with the architectural style of the structure, especially if they will be visible from the street. Consistency also applies to stair railings. If it is cost prohibitive to exactly replicate the original stair railings, the original design should be followed in simplified form.
4.02.01.6 Doors: Doors for new structures and additions, as well as new or replacement doors for existing structures, should be consistent with the architectural style of the building, while maintaining its security.
4.02.01.7 Exterior Wall Material: The material used on the exterior walls of an addition or remodeled portion of a structure should be consistent with the design integrity of the existing building. This may be achieved using different, yet compatible materials (above left), or by matching the materials of the existing structure (above right).
4.02.01.8 Ornamentation; Remodels/Additions: The ornamentation and the design details of the addition should be consistent with those of the existing structure. Conflicting or inappropriate ornamentation should be avoided.
4.02.01.10 Roof: Remodels/Additions: When a new roof is part of an addition or remodel, it should be consistent with the design integrity of the existing structure. The geometry of the new roof should relate to that of the existing roof. Individual design elements which need to be addressed include the type and pitch of the roof, cornices, gable-end finish, gutters, roof covering, and trim and molding. For example, an addition to a residence with a gable roof should extend the existing roof or match the pitch of the existing roof.
4.03 NEW REPLACEMENT AND NEW WINDOWS
4.03.04 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN COMPATIBILITY; WINDOWS IN NEW
CONSTRUCTION
4.03.04.1 The size, type, proportion, placement, details and materials of windows should be compatible with the overall building style. Window elements that should be addressed include the frame, the pattern of the lites defined by the muntins, and the trim used to surround the frame.
4.03.04.2 Windows should be used to modulate the building facade, to help diminish its mass and scale.
4.03.04.3 Windows should be recessed from the face of the building wall to create a distinct shadow line.
4.03.04.4 Creating a hierarchy of primary and secondary window sizes and types helps organize the character of the window design. By limiting the number of different window sizes and types, the overall rhythm of the building design is maintained, preventing the placement of windows from appearing arbitrary.
4.03.04.5 Reflective or opaque tinting of glazing is prohibited.
4.03.04.6 The provisions outlined in Piedmont Design Guidelines and Standards Sec. 4.03.03.6 for simulated divided-lite grilles also apply for new construction.
4.03.04.7 The use of non-traditional window materials and details that are incompatible with a Attachment D Agenda Report Page 75
building style, such as foam-based stucco trim on stucco walls, is prohibited.
4.04 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
4.04.01 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONTIGUOUS PARCEL COMPATIBILITY
4.04.01.1 Noise and odor generating equipment, such as water pumps, heat pumps, air conditioning condensers, kitchen hood exhaust fans, and pool equipment, should be located so that noise generation is within the maximum decibel limit regulated by the Piedmont Building Code.
4.04.01.2 To ensure neighborhood compatibility, mechanical equipment is prohibited within the setback area unless it is enclosed within an allowable site feature.
4.04.02 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN COMPATIBILITY
4.04.02.1 Site-and ground-mounted mechanical or electrical equipment should be screened using plant materials, fencing, walls, or other approved means to shield the equipment from view.
4.04.02.2 Roof mounted equipment greater than 12 inches above the roof line, except for roof exhaust vents, plumbing vents, and solar panels, should be screened from being viewed from the public right-of-way.
4.04.02.3 Utility connections should be located in a way that does not interfere with the design character of the buildings they serve. They should not be located in a street-facing manner.
4.04.02.4 Runs of all supply, exhaust and venting plumbing, conduits, and flues should be concealed within the walls of a building. If concealment is infeasible, the run should be minimized, discretely placed, and painted to match the adjacent wall.
4.04.02.5 Utility connections should be screened or painted to blend in with the exterior materials to which they are mounted.
4.05 GREEN BUILDING MEASURES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY FEATURES
4.05.03 ON-SITE BUILDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES
4.05.03.1 Consider using recycled materials or framing and finish materials with a high recycled content, when practical. This includes the use of concrete that incorporates recycled fly ash or slag instead of Portland cement.
4.05.03.2 Use sustainably harvested materials or rapidly renewable materials, such as those certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.
4.05.03.3 Consider using locally sourced materials when practical.
4.05.03.4 Encourage the use of passive solar principles, including the appropriate placement of windows along a building’s southern exposure and daylit interiors as much as possible.
5.01 BUILDING SCALE AND MASSING
5.01.01 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONTIGUOUS PARCEL COMPATIBILITY
5.01.01.1 On steeply sloping properties, it is important to minimize building bulk. This is accomplished by respecting existing topography and following the contours of the existing slope. “Stepping down” with the slope reduces the building’s effective visual bulk and avoids the appearance of an excessively large, bulky building.
5.01.01.2 A new or expanded structure should be physically integrated into the neighborhood, so it appears to residents and visitors that it properly belongs there. Maintaining compatibility with the scale and mass of the existing buildings on contiguous parcels prevents the new or expanded structure from overpowering or dominating the existing construction within the neighborhood.
5.01.02 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN COMPATIBILITY
Attachment D Agenda Report Page 76
5.01.02.1 With additions and remodels to existing structures, the scale and mass should be consistent with the architectural style, scale, and mass of the existing building.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES:
Design & Preservation Policy 28.1: Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility - Strengthen the defining qualities of Piedmont neighborhoods by relating the scale of new construction, additions, and alterations to existing homes and neighborhood context. Overpowering contrasts in scale and height on adjacent lots should be avoided.
Design & Preservation Policy 28.2: Style Compatibility - On blocks where one architectural style or design theme is predominant, require new construction and alterations that respect and are compatible with the prevailing style. On blocks where no particular style is predominant, new construction and alterations should be compatible with the style of homes nearby. This applies not only to the house as a whole but to building elements such as foundations, porches, exterior stairs, doors, exterior materials, ornamentation, roofs, and doors.
Design & Preservation Policy 28.3: Additions - Discourage residential additions which appear “tacked on” or which obstruct views from adjacent houses. The mass and scale of additions should not overpower the existing residence.
Design & Preservation Policy 28.4: Setback Consistency - Wherever possible, maintain the established setbacks along neighborhood streets by orienting new or remodeled buildings in a manner that is consistent with prevailing setbacks.
Design & Preservation Policy 28.5: Garages, Decks, and Porches -Encourage garages, decks, and porches to complement the architecture and design of the primary residence and adjacent residences. Garages should be visually integrated with the neighborhood and respect the amenities enjoyed by residences on contiguous parcels. New garages should be sited to minimize safety impacts and should not encourage parking that blocks all or part of a sidewalk.
Design & Preservation Policy 28.6: Exterior Materials - Encourage the use of exterior materials that are appropriate to the property, neighborhood and natural setting.
Design & Preservation Policy 28.8: Acoustical and Visual Privacy - Encourage the siting of windows, vents, exhaust ports, skylights, and other appurtenances in a way that respects the acoustical and visual privacy of adjacent residences and yards.
Design & Preservation Policy 29.1: Conserving Residential Yards - Recognize the importance of yards to the overall balance and composition of Piedmont neighborhoods. Avoid overbuilding or excessive coverage of yards with structures.
Design & Preservation Policy 29.5: Fence and Wall Design - Encourage fences and walls to be designed in a way that complements the architecture of adjoining residences. Adverse visual effects of fences and walls on adjacent properties should be minimized.
Design & Preservation Policy 29.6: Retaining Walls - Minimize the visual prominence of Attachment D Agenda Report Page 77
retaining walls by requiring construction in a stepped or terraced fashion where feasible.
Landscaping should be used as necessary to minimize the visual impact of larger walls.
Design & Preservation Policy 29.8: Exterior Lighting - Discourage excessive or overly bright exterior lighting and lighting which could interfere with motorist safety. Exterior yard lighting should be designed to avoid spillover on to adjacent properties.
Attachment D Agenda Report Page 78
City of Piedmont
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
DATE: September 9, 2024
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joshua Muller, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of an Application for DESIGN REVIEW for Proposed Construction at 21 Cambridge Way
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
DESIGN REVIEW DRPC2024-016
Linda Lau
21 Cambridge Way
The application requests a design review permit to expand and renovate the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; comprehensively changing the architectural style; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property.
NOTE: The submitted plans also depict, in part, a separate application to construct an attached basement junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU), which is not subject to the review of the Planning Commission (in accordance with state law governing the approval of ADUs and Division 17.38 of the City Code). The JADU application has been ministerially processed by staff under a separate application as is required under applicable law. JADUs meeting state law requirements are not subject to discretionary review or public hearing. The Planning Commission may not accept testimony nor comment on the accessory dwelling unit, including its exterior features.
APPLICATION HISTORY
On August 12, 2024, the Planning Commisison meeting considered the application for a design review permit to expand and renovate the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; comprehensively changing the architectural style; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property. The Commission passsed a motion to continue the consideration of this application to the September 9, 2024 regularly-scheduled Planning Commisison meeting so the applicant could address comments and concers brought up by commisisoners and members of the public. These comments included addressing the massing, especially the planar effect along the west and north (rear) facades, the design’s relationship to the Attachment E Agenda Report Page 79
Agenda Report Page 2
topography of the lot, and potential light and visual impacts on adjacent properties. Abridged draft meeting minutes are provided as Attachment A of this report.
CODE COMPLIANCE:
The residence is situated on a non-conforming lot in zone A. The lot contains approximately 6,352 square feet of area and 40 feet of frontage. The minimum lot area required in the City Code (section
17.20.040) is 8,000 square feet and the minimum lot frontage (section 17.20.040) is 60 feet.
Existing non-conforming.
The existing structure coverage is 19% and is proposed to increase to 24%. The maximum limit in the City Code (section 17.20.040) is 40%. Complies.
The existing landscape coverage is 70% and is proposed to decrease to 57%. The minimum limit in the City Code (17.20.040) is 30% Complies.
The existing building height (average) is 21 feet and 2 inches and is proposed to increase to 32 feet and 4 inches. The maximum limit in the City Code (section 17.20.040) is 35 feet. Complies.
The existing front yard setback is 35 feet and is proposed to decrease to 32 feet. The minimum required front yard setback in the City Code (section 17.20.040) is 20 feet. Complies.
The existing left side yard setback is 10 feet and is proposed to decrease to 8 feet. The minimum required side yard setback in the City Code (section 17.20.040) is 5 feet. Complies.
The existing rear yard setback is 88 feet 8 inches and is proposed to decrease to 75 feet 3 inches.
The minimum required rear yard setback in the City Code (section 17.20.040) is 5 feet. Complies.
The existing residence is greater than 800 square feet and has no covered non-tandem parking spaces of any size (existing non-conforming). The application proposes that the house remain greater than 800 square feet and provides no parking spaces of any size. Section 17.30.010.B.1 requires a minimum 2 off-street, covered, non-tandem parking spaces for a primary unit greater than 800 square feet in area. Existing non-conforming.
The existing floor area ratio is 22% and is proposed to increase to 42%. The limit in the City Code is 50% for a parcel which exceeds 5,000 square feet but is less than 10,000 square feet (section
17.20.040). Complies.
No changes are proposed that would affect the right-side yard setback.
DESIGN REVIEW:
The application proposes to expand, renovate and comprehensively change the architectural style of the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property.
On August 26, 2024, the applicant submitted revised plans to address the comments and concerns mentioned during the August 9, 2024 Planning Commission hearing. The revisions made are as follows:
Attachment E Agenda Report Page 80
Agenda Report Page 3
1. The addition of windows at the side yards in the bedrooms to reduce the massing along the side facades.
2. The addition of a new window in the walk-in closet in the owner's suite, with the intent to create symmetry in the pop-out the left elevation.
3. The conversion of proposed windows from hung to casement and awning.
4. Reduction of the roof parapet height from 3 feet 11 inches to 2 feet 8 inches.
5. The addition of awnings and canopies above exterior doors throughout the residence.
6. Changing the proposed guardrail material from metal to glass.
7. Changing the proposed rear patio door from a 6-foot 6-inch casement to an 8 foot bifold.
8. The additional of ledgestone veneer to the south, west, and north facades, and the addition of wpc wood paneling to the entry and primary bedroom decks.
The application materials presented to the Commission at the August 12, 2024 meeting can be found online via hyperlink.
Should the Commission wish to make the required design review findings to approve the project, the Commission is asked to:
A. Determine that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 (e), Existing Facilities because it is a minor change to an existing private residence which is less than 10,000 square feet and the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the area is which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, and Section 15303, Class 3 (e), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures because retaining walls are small accessory structures, and the project is consistent with General Plan policies and programs; and B. Take action on the design review permit, making the findings under Section 17.66.060; and C. Consider the following conditions of approval:
1. Approved Plan Set. The approved plans are those submitted on August 26, 2024, after notices to neighbors were mailed and the application was available for public review.
2. Window and Door Material. As specified in the plans, the building material for the new windows and doors shall be fiberglass-clad wood.
3. Window Color Scheme. All the windows on the house shall have a consistent color scheme.
4. Window Recess. All new windows shall be recessed 1-3 /8 inches from the exterior wall to the
face of window sash in order to maintain consistency with the original architecture, as required by the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards and Window Replacement Policy. Window details shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of building permit application.
5. Roof Color. The proposed flat roof shall be a non-reflective medium or dark color to minimize the visual impact on upslope properties.
6. Exterior Lighting. All new exterior light fixtures surface-mounted to walls and ceilings shall be downward directed with an opaque or translucent shade that completely covers the light bulb.
7. Sound. The proposed air conditioning unit shall meet the sound requirements of a maximum 50 decibels (dBA) at the nearest property line as proscribed in Building Code Section 8.02.020 Attachment E Agenda Report Page 81
Agenda Report Page 4
EE. Any modifications in order to meet the sound requirements including a sound barrier or an enclosure are subject to staff review and approval.
8. Contractor’s General Liability Insurance. To ensure that the contractor doing work in the City will be responsible for damages caused by the work to City property or to neighboring property, the Property Owner shall require all contractors performing work on the Project to maintain General Liability Insurance for protection from claims for damages because of bodily injury, including death, and claims for damages, other than to the contractor’s work itself, to property which may arise out of or result from the contractor’s operations. Such insurance shall be written for not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. The insurance shall include an endorsement requiring 10 days prior notice to the City if the insurance is to be cancelled or changed, and Property Owner shall immediately arrange for substitute insurance coverage. If the contractor’s insurance carrier states in writing that it is unable to provide the required endorsement, Property Owner shall be responsible for providing the City with the required notice if the insurance is to be cancelled or changed. Property Owner’s failure to provide such notice shall constitute grounds for revocation of the City’s design review approval and/or permit. If the Property Owner does not have a general contractor, the Property Owner shall maintain property insurance and coverage for contractors, which is substantially equivalent to the contractor's requirement of this section.
9. C&D Compliance. Compliance with Section 9.04 of the Municipal Code, which governs the recycling of construction and demolition debris, is required for all phases of this project.
10. Defense of Legal Challenges. The Property Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Property Owner’s project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Property Owner’s sole cost and expense. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Property Owner, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Property Owner is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Property Owner of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
11. Setback from Property Line Verification. Prior to frame inspection, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official written verification by a licensed land surveyor stating that the construction is located at the setback dimension from the west and east property lines as shown on the approved plans. The intent is to verify that the approved features are constructed at the approved dimension from the property line(s).
12. Building Height and Floor Level Verification. Prior to frame inspection, the applicant shall provide the Building Official written verification by a licensed land surveyor stating that the floor level(s) and roof of the new structure(s) are constructed at the approved height(s) above grade.
Attachment E Agenda Report Page 82
Agenda Report Page 5
13. Encroachment Permit. Before the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner shall apply for an encroachment permit to allow for the construction within the public right-of-way.
14. Final Landscape Plan. Before issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner shall submit for staff review and approval a Final Landscape Plan for the entire lot that shows trees proposed for retention. The final plan shall comply with City Code Division 17.34 and Section 17.33.30, and shall not propose plants near the driveway that could obscure visibility of pedestrians on the sidewalk or vehicles on the street from drivers backing out of the driveway. Upon the determination of the Director, minor differences in the number, size and/or species of vegetation between those shown on the approved landscape plan and those installed at the time of final inspection that do not involve an increase in hardscape or structure coverage may be subject to staff review and approval. Significant differences between the vegetation installed at the time of final inspection and vegetation shown on the approved landscape plan are subject to a design review permit.
15. City Attorney Cost Recovery. If there is a substantial additional commitment of City Attorney’s time required to accommodate the scope and nature of the Project, the Property Owner shall, at the time of the Building Permit Application, make a cash deposit with the City in the amount of $5,000 to be used to offset time and expenses of the City Attorney relating to the Project. If such cash deposit has been reduced to $2,500.00 or less at any time, the Director of Public Works may require the Property Owner to deposit additional funds to cover any further estimated additional City Attorney time and expenses. Any unused amounts shall be refunded to the Property Owner within 90 days after the Project has an approved Final Inspection by the Chief Building Official.
16. Site Safety Security. The City and the public have an interest in not having an unfinished project blighting the neighborhood and undermining property values. These public interests are primarily safety and aesthetics, and diminishment of property values. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Property Owner shall provide a specific cash deposit, letter of credit, bank guarantee, or other similar financial vehicle (“Site Safety Security”) in the amount of $50,000 to ensure that the Project site is not left in a dangerous or unfinished state. a. The Site Safety Security shall be in an amount to include three components:
i. safety, which means the cost to make the site and structure safe if construction should cease mid-way through the Project;
ii. aesthetics, which means an amount to install and maintain landscaping all around the Project to protect the immediate local views from neighbors and public property; and iii. staff and consultant time to evaluate and implement this condition.
If, as the Project proceeds, the expected cost of these components increases beyond the original estimate in the opinion of the Director of Planning & Building, the City may require the Property Owner to increase the amount of the Site Safety Security by the additional amount. The Property Owner shall provide City with written evidence of compliance within 15 working days after receiving written notice of the additional required amount. The City shall retain, at the Property Owner’s expense, an independent estimator to verify the total expected costs to complete the Project and any subsequent revisions. b. The form and amount of the Site Safety Security is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning & Building. Payment to City under the Site Safety Security shall be made payable upon demand by the City and prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, conditioned solely on the Director of Planning & Building’s certification on information and belief that all or any specified part of such Performance Security is due to the City. c. The Site Safety Security shall not be released until the Project has an approved Final Inspection by the Chief Building Official. However, if sufficient work has been completed Attachment E Agenda Report Page 83
Agenda Report Page 6
according to the benchmarks and construction values as established under the Construction Completion Schedule, the Site Safety Security may be reduced to the extent the Director of Public Works in his sole discretion determines is appropriate.
17. Construction Management Plan. The Property Owner shall develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall identify the point(s) for access to the property for construction and address noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking, debris removal, dust control, sanitary facilities, site safety security emergency access, and other potential construction impacts, as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the Project, including the construction route. The City Building Official has the authority to require modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary throughout the course of the Project and until the Final Inspection. a. Construction Site Control of Stormwater. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board requires all projects that disturb the site to comply with Provision C.6 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit in order to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants and other regulated materials during construction. As required by the Chief Building Official and prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall develop and submit a construction stormwater management plan as part of the Construction Management Plan to achieve timely and effective compliance with Provision C.6. Permit Provision C.6.c.ii provides sources for site specific, and seasonally- and phaseappropriate, effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) that may be incorporated into the stormwater management plan. Copies of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit are available from the Piedmont Public Works Department and on-line at cleanwaterprogram.org.
b. Renovation / New Construction. Pursuant to Section 17.50.020 of the Municipal Code, if for any reason more than 70% of the physical structure (as determined by the Building Official) is demolished or destroyed, the building shall conform to new building and planning Code requirements. If this occurs during demolition, all work must stop and a new hearing and public review by the Planning Commission is required. c. Neighboring Property Owner Permission. Should the execution of proposed work require excavation into a neighboring property or if access onto the neighboring property is necessary for construction, the applicant shall submit, prior to the issuance of Building Permit, a written statement from the neighboring property owner granting permission for access onto his/her property for the purpose of excavation and/or construction.
18. Construction Completion Schedule. Work on the Project, once begun, shall be promptly executed with continuous good faith and reasonable progress. Since timely completion of this Project is of the essence, the Applicant shall submit for approval a Construction Completion Schedule, which will specify, in detail, the duration and percentage of the project as a whole for each phase.
a. The Construction Completion Schedule with associated construction values for each benchmark shall set forth completion dates for the following benchmarks as needed: i) Completion of Excavation; ii) Completion of Retaining Walls; iii) Completion of Foundation; iv) Completion of Rough Framing; v) Completion of Electrical; vi) Completion of Plumbing; vii) Completion of Mechanical; viii) Completion of Fire Sprinklers; ix) Completion of Home; x) Completion of Hardscaping and Landscaping; and any further construction benchmarks and conditions of occupancy as may be determined by the Director of Planning and Building.
b. Before the Project begins, the Director of Planning and Building shall make a determination as to the reasonableness of the proposed completion dates applicable to the Project, and that determination shall constitute the Approved Construction Completion Attachment E Agenda Report Page 84
Agenda Report Page 7
Schedule and be binding on the Applicant. The City may, at the Applicant’s sole cost, engage the services of a consultant to review the proposed Construction Completion Schedule and, to the extent the period allocated for any work appears unjustifiable, recommend to the Director of Planning and Building a reasonable completion date for any benchmark.
c. In the event of a change in scope of the Project that would alter the benchmarks dates set forth in the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, or in the event the Applicant fails to meet a benchmark set forth in the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, the Applicant shall immediately submit a request to amend the Approved Construction Completion Schedule to the Director of Planning and Building. The request to amend shall be accompanied by a new proposed Construction Completion Schedule in compliance with subsection (a) of this condition of approval and the Director of Planning and Building shall evaluate the proposed amendments to the Approved Construction Completion Schedule in accordance with subsection (b) of this condition of approval. d. The failure of the Applicant to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, or any amendments to it approved in conformance with subsection (d) of this condition of approval, shall constitute a nuisance under the City of Piedmont City Code (“City Code”). The failure of the Applicant to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule may result in the City pursuing administrative citations pursuant to Chapter 1 of the City Code, nuisance abatement pursuant to Chapter 6 of the City Code, or any other remedy available to the City under the law. Additionally, if the Applicant fails to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, the Director of Planning and Building, at his or her sole discretion, may make a claim against the Property Owner’s Site Security, if one is required, in order to complete the benchmark. The Director of Planning and Building, at his or her sole discretion, may refer the application to the Planning Commission for public review and direction.
19. California’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: Property Owner shall comply with the requirements of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that went into effect December 1, 2015, by submitting the following required information to the Building Department:
a) Landscape Documentation Package that includes the following 6 items: i) Project Information; ii) Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet; iii) Soil Management Report; iv) Landscape Design Plan; v) Irrigation Design Plan; and vi) Grading Design Plan. The Landscape Documentation Package is subject to staff review and approval before the issuance of a building permit.
b) Once a building permit has been issued, the Property Owner shall submit a copy of the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet, to the local water purveyor, East Bay Municipal Utility District.
c) After completion of work, the Property Owner shall submit to the City and East Bay Municipal Utility District a Certificate of Completion, including an irrigation schedule, an irrigation maintenance schedule, and an irrigation audit report. The City may approve or deny the Certificate of Completion.
20. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), in the event that any historic or prehistoric subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant shall notify the City and consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist, as applicable, to assess the significance of the find. In the case of discovery of paleontological resources, the assessment Attachment E Agenda Report Page 85
Agenda Report Page 8
shall be done in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. If any find is determined to be significant, appropriate avoidance measures recommended by the consultant and approved by the City must be followed unless avoidance is determined unnecessary or infeasible by the City. Feasibility of avoidance shall be determined with consideration of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery, excavation) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while measures for the cultural resources are implemented. In the event of data recovery of archaeological resources, the project applicant shall submit an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) prepared by a qualified archaeologist for review and approval by the City. The ARDTP is required to identify how the proposed data recovery program would preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. The ARDTP shall identify the scientific/historic research questions applicable to the expected resource, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. The ARDTP shall include the analysis and specify the curation and storage methods. Data recovery, in general, shall be limited to the portions of the archaeological resource that could be impacted by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practicable. Because the intent of the ARDTP is to save as much of the archaeological resource as possible, including moving the resource, if feasible, preparation and implementation of the ARDTP would reduce the potential adverse impact to less than significant. The project applicant shall implement the ARDTP at his/her expense.
In the event of excavation of paleontological resources, the project applicant shall submit an excavation plan prepared by a qualified paleontologist to the City for review and approval. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by a qualified paleontologist, as appropriate, according to current professional standards and at the expense of the project applicant.
Design Review Guidelines and Standards which may be used for reference are listed beginning on page 9.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS:
To approve this application for design review, the Planning Commission must make findings that the application complies with the design review criteria under Section 17.66.060 as noted below. (A) The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines and Standards, in that: ____________________________________________ (B) The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties’ existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light, in that: _________________________________________ (C) The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety: in that: __________________________________________________________________________ The applicant’s proposed findings can be found in the response to findings form (separate).
Attachment E Agenda Report Page 86
Agenda Report Page 9
CLEANWATER CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed project will not create or replace more than 2,500 square feet of impervious surfaces.
Incorporation of site design measure(s) into the plans submitted for a building permit as required under Provision C.3.i of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit is not required.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:
No City Council action is required unless the decision of the Planning Commission is appealed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Abridged draft regular meeting minutes for the August 12, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting
Attachment E Agenda Report Page 87
Design Review Permit,
21 Cambridge Way
DRPC2024-016
(August 12, 2024)
The Property Owners are requesting permission to expand, renovate and comprehensively change the architectural style of the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property.
Public Testimony was received from:
Michael Bradley, representing the project team, stated the project has been designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood character and provide a tasteful stylistic update that is consistent with the design guidelines and minimizes impacts on adjacent properties.
Commissioner Rowland asked for clarification about the ceiling height and window and door sizes and locations, which Mr. Bradley provided.
Gloria Hou stated the redesign will have daily impacts on their property and is opposed to the project.
Davied Hou stated the project will have detrimental impacts on street parking, natural light, views, privacy, and their property value.
Commissioner Rowland asked for clarification about construction and site improvements on Mr. and Mrs. Hou’s property which Mr. Hou provided.
Ali Alex-Baler stated Mr. Hou’s property has illegal construction, and the project at 21 Cambridge will make the neighborhood nice again.
The Commissioners discussed details about the privacy, scale and massing, proportion, design, parking requirements, slope and neighborhood, light, privacy and views, architectural style, up-to-date improvements, urban environment with small lots, ability to integrate with the topography of the slope, reduce the bulk and relax the massing, and the balconies.
Resolution 016-DRFW-24
WHEREAS, the Property Owners are seeking to expand, renovate and comprehensively change the architectural style of the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property, which construction requires a design review permit; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans, and any and all testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such application and after visiting the subject property, the Piedmont Planning Commission finds that the project is not consistent with General Plan policies and programs; and
WHEREAS, regarding the design review permit, the Planning Commission finds that, as conditioned, the project is not consistent with General Plan policies and programs, and the proposal, as conditioned, does not conform to the criteria and standards of Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code as follows:
1. The proposed design was not consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines. The following building features are not consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development including the scale, height and bulk of the expanded residence including the second story on a steep, sloping property, in reference to Design Guideline 5.01.01 in minimizing the building bulk.
Attachment F Agenda Report Page 88
2. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties' existing views, privacy, but some affect to direct and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes, and the height of the new addition reduces direct and indirect light of the neighbors.
3. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the project scope proposes no changes to the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the public right-of-way.
4. The application does not comply with the following Design Review Guidelines and General Plan policies and programs: Building Design: General 4.01, and Building Design:
Single Family Residential 5.01.
5. The project is not consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), and Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility).
RESOLVED, that based on the findings and facts set forth heretofore, the Piedmont Planning Commission denies the design review permit applications for the construction at 21 Cambridge Way, Piedmont, California, in accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the City.
Moved by Jajodia, Seconded by Ortiz
Ayes: Jajodia, Ortiz
Noes: Rowland, Zucker
Absent: Batra
The motion failed to pass. Commissioner Zucker moved to continue the application to the September 9, 2024, regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Moved by Jajodia, Seconded by Rowland
Ayes: Jajodia, Ortiz, Rowland, Zucker
Noes: None
Absent: Batra
Design Review
Permit,
21 Cambridge Way,
DRPC2024-016
(September 9, 2024)
The Applicant is requesting permission to expand, renovate and comprehensively change the architectural style of the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property.
Public Testimony was received from:
Michael Bradley, representing the project team, stated the project has been designed to integrate with the existing neighborhood character and provide a tasteful stylistic update that is consistent with the design guidelines and minimizes impacts on adjacent properties. Based on Design Guideline 4.01, they have defined a direct architectural style, and the rear addition’s site topography. Based on Design Guideline 5.01, they have addressed the building scale and height, architectural features were added for a more ornate front elevation, and there is compatibility with the neighborhood and structures.
Derek Chau, Architect, stated that per Commissioner suggestions the backside of the retaining wall was raised and stamped, there is a canopy on the back elevation to break up the mass, the backyard was expanded, and the design is set into the hill. He discussed some of the neighbor’s concerns.
Attachment F Agenda Report Page 89
David and Gloria Hou, property owners at 19 Cambridge, stated the project, despite modifications since last month, is still too large and bulky for the neighborhood context, and would have significant view and privacy impacts on their residence.
Daniel Borenstein, property owner of 42 Nace, stated how the proposed construction is too big and bulky, and it does not conform with the neighborhood. He also stated that the project will be very impactful to the adjacent neighbors, especially at 19 Cambridge.
The Commissioners discussed details about the building massing and scale, privacy, views, light, and topography of the lot and street views. The Commissioners believed there was more cohesiveness, in the project’s design language vocabulary, and that the modifications made have addressed their concerns regarding neighboring properties’ access to light and privacy, the building massing, the lot’s topography and the façade design of the residence.
The Commission noted that Piedmont is an urban environment, and the design and scale of the project is appropriate for the neighborhood context. Commissioner Batra stated her concerns regarding privacy and view impacts on the neighboring property to the west.
Resolution 016-DRPC-24
WHEREAS, the Property Owners are seeking to expand, renovate, and comprehensively change the architectural style of the existing single-family residence by constructing front, rear and second-story additions; making window and door modifications throughout; making changes to exterior lighting; and making hardscape changes throughout the property, which construction requires a design review permit; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans, and any and all testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such application and after visiting the subject property, the Piedmont Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 (e), Existing Facilities, and Section 15303 Class 3 (e), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and the project was consistent with General Plan policies and programs; and
WHEREAS, regarding the design review permit, the Planning Commission finds that, as conditioned, the project is consistent with General Plan policies and programs, and the proposal, as conditioned conforms to the criteria and standards of Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code as follows:
1. The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines. The following building features are consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development including the scale, height and bulk of the expanded residence including the second story, the new architectural style is compatible with the neighborhood architecture, the wall material, the roof form, the roof material, the window and door material and fenestration pattern, the guardrail material, and the retaining wall and fencing material and design.
2. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties' existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate. The views are not significant views, the siting of the modified existing structure and the location of its exterior openings respects the visual and acoustical privacy of the residences located on contiguous properties. The topographical differences are appropriate to preserve privacy, views, and light.
3. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the new pathways, handrails and on-grade steps should improve on-site pedestrian safety, and Attachment F Agenda Report Page 90
the project scope proposes no changes to the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the public right-of-way.
4. The application complies with the following Design Review Guidelines and General Plan policies and programs: Site Design: 3.03, 3.05, 3.08, 2.09, 3.12, Building Design: General
4.01, 4.02, 4.03, 4.04, 4.05, and Building Design: Single Family Residential 5.01.
5. The project is consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.3 (Additions), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.4 (Setback Consistency), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.5 (Garages, Decks, and Porches), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.6 (Exterior Materials), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.8 (Acoustical and Visual Privacy), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.1 (Conserving Residential Yards), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.5 (Fence and Wall Design), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.6 (Retaining Walls), and Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.8 (Exterior Lighting).
RESOLVED, that based on the findings and facts set forth heretofore, the Piedmont Planning Commission approves the design review permit applications for the construction at 21 Cambridge Way, Piedmont, California, in accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the City, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved Plan Set. The approved plans are those submitted on August 26, 2024, after notices to neighbors were mailed and the application was available for public review.
2. Window and Door Material. As specified in the plans, the building material for the new windows and doors shall be fiberglass-clad wood.
3. Window Color Scheme. All the windows on the house shall have a consistent color scheme.
4. Window Recess. All new windows shall be recessed 1-
3 /8 inches from the exterior wall
to the face of window sash in order to maintain consistency with the original architecture, as required by the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards and Window Replacement Policy. Window details shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of building permit application.
5. Roof Color. The proposed flat roof shall be a non-reflective medium or dark color to minimize the visual impact on upslope properties.
6. Exterior Lighting. All new exterior light fixtures surface-mounted to walls and ceilings shall be downward directed with an opaque or translucent shade that completely covers the light bulb.
7. Sound. The proposed air conditioning unit shall meet the sound requirements of a maximum of 50 decibels (dBA) at the nearest property line as proscribed in Building Code Section 8.02.020 EE. Any modifications in order to meet the sound requirements including a sound barrier or an enclosure are subject to staff review and approval.
8. Contractor’s General Liability Insurance. To ensure that the contractor doing work in the City will be responsible for damages caused by the work to City property or to neighboring property, the Property Owner shall require all contractors performing work on the Project to maintain General Liability Insurance for protection from claims for damages because of bodily injury, including death, and claims for damages, other than to the contractor’s work itself, to property which may arise out of or result from the Attachment F Agenda Report Page 91
contractor’s operations. Such insurance shall be written for not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. The insurance shall include an endorsement requiring 10 days prior notice to the City if the insurance is to be cancelled or changed, and Property Owner shall immediately arrange for substitute insurance coverage. If the contractor’s insurance carrier states in writing that it is unable to provide the required endorsement, Property Owner shall be responsible for providing the City with the required notice if the insurance is to be cancelled or changed. Property Owner’s failure to provide such notice shall constitute grounds for revocation of the City’s design review approval and/or permit. If the Property Owner does not have a general contractor, the Property Owner shall maintain property insurance and coverage for contractors, which is substantially equivalent to the contractor's requirement of this section.
9. C&D Compliance. Compliance with Section 9.04 of the Municipal Code, which governs the recycling of construction and demolition debris, is required for all phases of this project.
10. Defense of Legal Challenges. The Property Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Property Owner’s project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Property Owner’s sole cost and expense.
This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Property Owner, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Property Owner is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Property Owner of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
11. Setback from Property Line Verification. Prior to frame inspection, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official written verification by a licensed land surveyor stating that the construction is located at the setback dimension from the west and east property lines as shown on the approved plans. The intent is to verify that the approved features are constructed at the approved dimension from the property line(s).
12. Building Height and Floor Level Verification. Prior to frame inspection, the applicant shall provide the Building Official written verification by a licensed land surveyor stating that the floor level(s) and roof of the new structure(s) are constructed at the approved height(s) above grade.
13. Encroachment Permit. Before the issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner shall apply for an encroachment permit to allow for the construction within the public right-of-way.
14. Final Landscape Plan. Before issuance of a building permit, the Property Owner shall submit for staff review and approval a Final Landscape Plan for the entire lot that shows trees proposed for retention. The final plan shall comply with City Code Division 17.34 and Section 17.33.30, and shall not propose plants near the driveway that could obscure Attachment F Agenda Report Page 92
visibility of pedestrians on the sidewalk or vehicles on the street from drivers backing out of the driveway. Upon the determination of the Director, minor differences in the number, size, and/or species of vegetation between those shown on the approved landscape plan and those installed at the time of final inspection that do not involve an increase in hardscape or structure coverage may be subject to staff review and approval.
Significant differences between the vegetation installed at the time of final inspection and vegetation shown on the approved landscape plan are subject to a design review permit.
15. City Attorney Cost Recovery. If there is a substantial additional commitment of City Attorney’s time required to accommodate the scope and nature of the Project, the Property Owner shall, at the time of the Building Permit Application, make a cash deposit with the City in the amount of $5,000 to be used to offset time and expenses of the City Attorney relating to the Project. If such cash deposit has been reduced to $2,500.00 or less at any time, the Director of Public Works may require the Property Owner to deposit additional funds to cover any further estimated additional City Attorney time and expenses. Any unused amounts shall be refunded to the Property Owner within 90 days after the Project has an approved Final Inspection by the Chief Building Official.
16. Site Safety Security. The City and the public have an interest in not having an unfinished project blighting the neighborhood and undermining property values. These public interests are primarily safety and aesthetics, and diminishment of property values.
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Property Owner shall provide a specific cash deposit, letter of credit, bank guarantee, or other similar financial vehicle (“Site Safety Security”) in the amount of $50,000 to ensure that the Project site is not left in a dangerous or unfinished state.
a. The Site Safety Security shall be in an amount to include three components:
i. safety, which means the cost to make the site and structure safe if construction should cease mid-way through the Project;
ii. aesthetics, which means an amount to install and maintain landscaping all around the Project to protect the immediate local views from neighbors and public property; and
iii. staff and consultant time to evaluate and implement this condition.
If, as the Project proceeds, the expected cost of these components increases beyond the original estimate in the opinion of the Director of Planning & Building, the City may require the Property Owner to increase the amount of the Site Safety Security by the additional amount. The Property Owner shall provide City with written evidence of compliance within 15 working days after receiving written notice of the additional required amount. The City shall retain, at the Property Owner’s expense, an independent estimator to verify the total expected costs to complete the Project and any subsequent revisions.
b. The form and amount of the Site Safety Security is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning & Building. Payment to City under the Site Safety Security shall be made payable upon demand by the City and prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, conditioned solely on the Director of Planning & Building’s certification on information and belief that all or any specified part of such Performance Security is due to the City.
c. The Site Safety Security shall not be released until the Project has an approved Final Inspection by the Chief Building Official. However, if sufficient work has been completed according to the benchmarks and construction values as established under the Construction Completion Schedule, the Site Safety Security may be reduced to the extent the Director of Public Works in his sole discretion determines is appropriate.
Attachment F Agenda Report Page 93
17. Construction Management Plan. The Property Owner shall develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall identify the point(s) for access to the property for construction and address noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking, debris removal, dust control, sanitary facilities, site safety security emergency access, and other potential construction impacts, as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the Project, including the construction route. The City Building Official has the authority to require modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary throughout the course of the Project and until the Final Inspection.
a. Construction Site Control of Stormwater. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board requires all projects that disturb the site to comply with Provision C.6 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit in order to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants and other regulated materials during construction. As required by the Chief Building Official and prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall develop and submit a construction stormwater management plan as part of the Construction Management Plan to achieve timely and effective compliance with Provision C.6. Permit Provision C.6.c.ii provides sources for site specific, and seasonally- and phase-appropriate, effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) that may be incorporated into the stormwater management plan. Copies of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit are available from the Piedmont Public Works Department and on-line at cleanwaterprogram.org.
b. Renovation / New Construction. Pursuant to Section 17.50.020 of the Municipal Code, if for any reason more than 70% of the physical structure (as determined by the Building Official) is demolished or destroyed, the building shall conform to new building and planning Code requirements. If this occurs during demolition, all work must stop and a new hearing and public review by the Planning Commission is required.
c. Neighboring Property Owner Permission. Should the execution of proposed work require excavation into a neighboring property or if access onto the neighboring property is necessary for construction, the applicant shall submit, prior to the issuance of Building Permit, a written statement from the neighboring property owner granting permission for access onto his/her property for the purpose of excavation and/or construction.
18. Construction Completion Schedule. Work on the Project, once begun, shall be promptly executed with continuous good faith and reasonable progress. Since timely completion of this Project is of the essence, the Applicant shall submit for approval a Construction Completion Schedule, which will specify, in detail, the duration and percentage of the project as a whole for each phase.
a. The Construction Completion Schedule with associated construction values for each benchmark shall set forth completion dates for the following benchmarks as needed: i) Completion of Excavation; ii) Completion of Retaining Walls; iii) Completion of Foundation; iv) Completion of Rough Framing; v) Completion of Electrical; vi) Completion of Plumbing; vii) Completion of Mechanical; viii) Completion of Fire Sprinklers; ix) Completion of Home; x) Completion of Hardscaping and Landscaping; and any further construction benchmarks and conditions of occupancy as may be determined by the Director of Planning and Building.
b. Before the Project begins, the Director of Planning and Building shall make a determination as to the reasonableness of the proposed completion dates applicable to the Project, and that determination shall constitute the Approved Construction Completion Schedule and be binding on the Applicant. The City may, at the Applicant’s sole cost, engage the services of a consultant to review the proposed Construction Completion Schedule and, to the extent the period allocated for any Attachment F Agenda Report Page 94
work appears unjustifiable, recommend to the Director of Planning and Building a reasonable completion date for any benchmark.
c. In the event of a change in scope of the Project that would alter the benchmarks dates set forth in the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, or in the event the Applicant fails to meet a benchmark set forth in the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, the Applicant shall immediately submit a request to amend the Approved Construction Completion Schedule to the Director of Planning and Building. The request to amend shall be accompanied by a new proposed Construction Completion Schedule in compliance with subsection (a) of this condition of approval and the Director of Planning and Building shall evaluate the proposed amendments to the Approved Construction Completion Schedule in accordance with subsection (b) of this condition of approval. d. The failure of the Applicant to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, or any amendments to it approved in conformance with subsection (d) of this condition of approval, shall constitute a nuisance under the City of Piedmont City Code (“City Code”). The failure of the Applicant to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule may result in the City pursuing administrative citations pursuant to Chapter 1 of the City Code, nuisance abatement pursuant to Chapter 6 of the City Code, or any other remedy available to the City under the law.
Additionally, if the Applicant fails to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, the Director of Planning and Building, at his or her sole discretion, may make a claim against the Property Owner’s Site Security, if one is required, in order to complete the benchmark. The Director of Planning and Building, at his or her sole discretion, may refer the application to the Planning Commission for public review and direction.
19. California’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: Property Owner shall comply with the requirements of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that went into effect December 1, 2015, by submitting the following required information to the Building Department:
a.) Landscape Documentation Package that includes the following 6 items: i) Project Information; ii) Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet; iii) Soil Management Report; iv) Landscape Design Plan; v) Irrigation Design Plan; and vi) Grading Design Plan. The Landscape Documentation Package is subject to staff review and approval before the issuance of a building permit.
b.) Once a building permit has been issued, the Property Owner shall submit a copy of the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet, to the local water purveyor, East Bay Municipal Utility District.
c.) After completion of work, the Property Owner shall submit to the City and East Bay Municipal Utility District a Certificate of Completion, including an irrigation schedule, an irrigation maintenance schedule, and an irrigation audit report. The City may approve or deny the Certificate of Completion.
20. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), in the event that any historic or prehistoric subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant shall notify the City and consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist, as applicable, to assess the significance of the find. In the case of discovery of paleontological resources, the assessment shall be done in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. If any find is determined to be significant, appropriate avoidance measures recommended by the consultant and approved by the City must be followed unless avoidance is determined unnecessary or infeasible by the City. Feasibility of avoidance shall be determined with consideration of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.
If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data Attachment F Agenda Report Page 95
recovery, excavation) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while measures for the cultural resources are implemented. In the event of data recovery of archaeological resources, the project applicant shall submit an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) prepared by a qualified archaeologist for review and approval by the City. The ARDTP is required to identify how the proposed data recovery program would preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. The ARDTP shall identify the scientific/historic research questions applicable to the expected resource, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. The ARDTP shall include the analysis and specify the curation and storage methods. Data recovery, in general, shall be limited to the portions of the archaeological resource that could be impacted by the proposed project.
Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practicable. Because the intent of the ARDTP is to save as much of the archaeological resource as possible, including moving the resource, if feasible, preparation and implementation of the ARDTP would reduce the potential adverse impact to less than significant. The project applicant shall implement the ARDTP at his/her expense.
In the event of excavation of paleontological resources, the project applicant shall submit an excavation plan prepared by a qualified paleontologist to the City for review and approval. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by a qualified paleontologist, as appropriate, according to current professional standards and at the expense of the project applicant.
21. Glass Door Frosting. The proposed door facing the west property line shall have frosted (translucent) glass to mitigate potential privacy impacts on neighboring properties.
Moved by Jajodia, Seconded by Zucker
Ayes: Jajodia, Ortiz, Rowland, Zucker
Noes: Batra
Absent: None
Attachment F Agenda Report Page 96
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
FOR
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
MEETING DATE:
APPLICATION TYPE:
APPLICATION #:
Linda Lau
21 Cambridge Way
August 12, 2024
Design Review
DRPC2024-016
Agenda #5
September 9, 2024
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 97
From: David <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 8:36 AM
To: Joshua Muller
Subject: Re: 21 Cambridge way info
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Hi, Josh;
Thank you for your help on related info!
I reviewed the updated plans. Virtually, no changes to reduce the mass, other than adding more windows on both sides and enlarging the windows and doors.
I would like to re-invite the commissioners to come to our property to view and feel the impacts and the real concerns. It seems that some commissioners might have missed or overlooked some key facts. The proposed plan blocks our views (long distance hill views, not just rooftop views as some commissioners said), blocks direct and indirect lights and raises serious privacy concerns. All the severe impacts and concerns against Piedmont design guidelines were not addressed in the last meeting. We sincerely hope that another site visit will help everyone to fully understand the impact and concerns Thank you very much!
david
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 10:16 AM Joshua Muller <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies, the plans are now uploaded. I hit send on the email while the file was being uploaded.
Best regards,
Joshua Muller (he/him)
Assistant Planner, City of Piedmont
Direct: (510) 420-3067 | Main: (510) 420-3050
From: David
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 10:08 AM
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 98
From: David <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2024 11:57 AM
To: Joshua Muller
Subject: Re: 21 Cambridge way info
Attachments: 21 Cambridge Way - Hou Family Objections - Sept. 9 meeting.pdf [EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Hi Josh,
Good to see you this morning at our house.
As discussed, attached are our comments for the revised plan.
Thank you and see you again later today!
David
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 10:21 AM Joshua Muller <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning David,
Thank you for your comments regarding the revised plans. I am confirming that I’ve received them and saved them as part of the public record for the application. I’ve also noted that you would like the Commissioners to visit your property again and will make sure they do on our site visits tomorrow (visits are scheduled to happen between 10-11am, 3-4pm, and 4-5pm).
Since the August meeting, no other neighbors have reached out to me regarding the application.
While I cannot display photographs digitally during the meeting, you can print out photos or other materials and I can pass them to the Commissioners while you are providing your comments.
Additionally, if you send me the photos as part of a public comment, I can include them as part of the comments that the Commissioners can review prior to the meeting. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or comments.
Best regards,
Joshua Muller (he/him)
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 99
Dear Commissioners and staff members,
We would like to share our comments about the revised plan and bring your attention to a few details. Evidently, the revised plan does not address the issues and concerns brought up by commissioners and neighbors at the last meeting. No meaningful changes were made to address the massing issue, absolutely nothing was changed to make the design fit the topography of the lot, and no adjustment was made to address the impact on the neighbors’ properties.
1. Building scale and massing
As the commissioners pointed out at the last meeting, the proposed plan is not consistent with City of Piedmont design review guidelines 5.01 and design and preservation policy 28.1. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed addition is not compatible with the steeply sloping lot. Per the policy, the design shall respect existing topography and follow the contours of the existing slope, and minimize the building bulk. To the contrary, the proposed design maximizes the building bulk with all its possibilities. No meaningful update has been made to improve that from the last meeting. Also I have to point out that the hill our properties are on has been moving downhill in the past decades. Such a bulky structure without integrating to the topography and existing slope could be a serious seismic/civil engineering concern. Design review should protect steep slopes and hillsides from inappropriate and unsuitable development in order to avoid exposures and risks from erosion and landslides, and other natural hazards.This is not just about being compliant with design guidelines, the current bulk design will worsen the exisitng hill movement issue and also present a greater danger from fires, since bulk structure like this on a steep hill always presents a great challenge in the event of fire. It could turn into a public safety issue that potentially has unimaginable consequences that no one wants to be held responsible for.
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 100
2. Significant views
Code section 3.03.01 calls to “make all reasonable efforts to avoid adverse impacts on significant views currently available to existing nearby residences”, and a significant view includes “long distance views of topographic … features”. The long distance east bay hills view is surely a significant view for our neighborhood. This view from our family/activity room will still be completely blocked by the revised plan.
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 101
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 102
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 103
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 104
3. Direct and indirect light
The proposed plan casts a big shadow on our east side for the entire morning, blocking direct light for all of our windows and doors. If this is not considered blocking direct light, what is this code’s requirement referring to? Currently we have direct light on our furniture, our floor and inside walls. It projects nice, bright and healthy sunlight into our house. The proposed revised plan will completely block that. Please see the pictures.
This does not follow the design guideline code 3.03.02.
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 105
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 106
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 107
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 108
4. visual and acoustical privacy
Code 3.03.02.1 calls for “the location of its exterior openings, the location of the exterior mounted appliance ventilation and exhaust ports should respect the visual and acoustical privacy of the residences located on contiguous properties, including their outdoor living areas or open spaces” Comments were made at the last meeting about privacy issues being existing already. But there were many facts missed/overlooked in that regard. We do not agree that city lots are narrow and closer, so, if you live in the city, you have to lose your privacy. A rural area with a few acres has no visual and acoustical privacy concerns, there is no need for code to Attachment G Agenda Report Page 109
protect privacy. Because city neighbors are closer, city code needed to protect the privacy rights. This is why code 3.03.02.1 is in piedmont city jurisdiction planning code and design gudieline. We also would like to point out, currently the two houses are at about the same height, but the proposed plan added a large second story balcony right in front of our dining room window. With the two massive watchtower-like balconies, it seems neighbors have nowhere/nothing to hide. Previously only one single elderly lady lived in that house, she nevers bothered to open her window shades, and she never had any visitors, we never had any privacy concerns. But the proposed plan changes the house to a five bed and five bath house which changes everything. Population surely will increase expoentially, and building massively enlarging, particularly height increase, surely dramatically increases the privacy concerns. The privacy status is dramatically changed from the existing mutual exposure. New privacy concerns arising from the proposed new design should not be disregarded.
The large second story balcony is oversized, without any consideration of privacy concerns of adjacent houses, the houses across the street and nearby houses. The second floor balcony should be deleted from the design.
The proposed walk path/stairs on the west side exterior at 7 feet height lacks consideration of neighbors’ privacy and natural terrain of the site. A walk path respecting the natural slope shall be seeked.
The place of the AC unit right next to our side door shows no consideration of acoustical privacy. The AC unit shall be relocated to the back of the house, further away from the neighbors’ houses.
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 110
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 111
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 112
5. Design compatibility
Design code 5.02.01.1 requires “prevents the new or expanded structure from overpowering or dominating the existing construction within the neighborhood” and Design code 5.02.02.1 calls for “With additions and remodels to existing structures, the scale and mass should be consistent with the architectural style, scale and mass of the existing building.” The house needs work, renovating this home will look better, make the street better, but it does not give them the right to build such a massive Attachment G Agenda Report Page 113
structure. Tripling the house size with a big massive building is not consistent with the neighborhood and the original house. The plan is not consistent with code 5.02.
The revised plan made minor adjustments but there is no change in its scale and bulkiness, only reducing a foot in height in a massive building has no real impact/meaningful changes. They added more windows on our side to worsen the privacy issue, while no effort was made to address the need to “minimize the building’s bulk”. No effort was made to address the commission’s comments of blocking direct and indirect light.
The proposed plan completely ignored its impact on the neighbors and its natural setting. The design tried to maximize its bulk, implementing the simplest massive design. If this type of design is approved, many more similar projects will come up. It will surely present great challenges to the city down on the road.
We are adamantly against the current expansion. We respectfully request the commission to deny the proposed plan.
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 114
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
FOR
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
MEETING DATE:
APPLICATION TYPE:
APPLICATION #:
Linda Lau
21 Cambridge Way
August 12, 2024
Design Review
DRPC2024-016
Agenda #5
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 115
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 116
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 117
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 118
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 119
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 120
From: Elena and Anish Amin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2024 2:23 PM
To: Joshua Muller
Subject: 21 cambridge way
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Hello,
Our concern with respect to the proposed plans is that another story added to this house, which is already perched above much of the street, would directly impact our privacy. It would have a direct view into our garden and living space.
In addition, we have concerns regarding parking for this enlarged property given that there is no garage or driveway for this property. Cambridge Way is very narrow and street parking is already very challenging. At present there are several large pickup trucks draped with tarps almost permanently parked outside this property. In addition, many residents already use cones to unofficially 'save' the parking spaces outside of their homes. Adding additional rooms and JADU would significantly increase the number of cars on the street and we would want to see how this will be addressed in the plans and/or by the city.
Thank you,
Anish and Elena Amin
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Attachment G Agenda Report Page 121
In the last few days, after trying to figure out exactly what the 21 Cambridge Way proposed plan is, we discovered that the current story pole at 21 Cambridge Way does not accurately represent the proposed plan. It misleads neighbors’ views and impairs viewers’ understanding of the impacts.
Per City of Piedmont Story Pole Policy, “Story poles shall be installed to define the outlines of the proposed construction in order to show the proposed height and mass of the construction.” The current story pole at 21 Cambridge Way missed some important components (west side walk path, balcony bottom/top and second story floor) and misrepresented others (east side wall). This current pole does not meet the requirements of City of Piedmont Story Pole Policy.
1. West side walk path and stairs not shown by the story pole. By carefully reading the proposed plan, the west side walk path and stairs elevation is at about the same level as the front stair landing, which is almost 7 feet in height and almost at the same height as the bottom of the existing window. This is a big increase from the existing ground level which certainly should have been shown by the story pole. Without visual indication, we did not realize its impact at all! With 21 Cambridge Way currently floor elevation being about 1.5 feet higher than 19 Cambridge way floor, the long walk path and stairs will be taller than the construction fence. Having a walk path 7 feet in height without being shown in the story pole is not acceptable!
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 122
2. Based on the proposed plan there is a balcony on the west side front bedroom on the second floor, but there are no accurate story pole components to indicate what it will really look like after it is finished, not sure where the bottom or top of the balcony is, since there is no accurate story pole components to consistently indicating the elevation of the second floor, no idea where exactly the second floor is, based on the current engineer certified story pole
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 123
The story pole has no clear indication of the second story floor.
3. East side wall front post is not at the correct location. The front post of the story pole on 25 Cambridge way side is supposed to be 2 feet inside of the existing building wall edge based on the design, but the current story pole post is clearly right on the edge of the existing wall. Since the back post location seems to be correct, the flag line representing the new wall connecting to the posts is not parallel and level. It kind of changes the elevation of the wall, neither really correctly represents the elevation of the roof also. It lines kind of angle from what I can tell.
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 124
To the esteemed members of the planning commission:
The proposed expansion at 21 Cambridge Way fundamentally changes the entire property and adversely impacts the neighborhood. Today, it is a 979 sq ft house, and the proposed expansion would more than triple it to 3153 sq ft across three stories. To go from 979 sq ft to 3153 sq ft, not only is the new owner, Season Village LLC, of 21 Cambridge Way planning on raising the existing height of 23 feet to 35 feet, but also planning on adding an additional 24’x15’x24’ structure in the back and another 26'x8'x35' structure to the front at 35 feet in height. This enormous expansion on a 40 foot wide narrow lot poses a significant adverse effect on the quality of life to us (next door neighbor) at 19 Cambridge Way, which is on an even smaller and narrower lot that measures only 33 feet wide. As owners and residents of 19 Cambridge Way, we adamantly oppose this expansion. We are stunned by the enormity of the expansion and we are furious about Season Village, LLC’s complete disregard for the neighbors. Our previous neighbor of 20 years, Ms. Munro, would have never acted so callously toward her neighbors. If the expansion, against any semblance of reason, is built, our lives will take a significant turn for the worse. We will be subject to live in the shadows of this monstrous structure as the future residents of 21 Cambridge Way peer into our lives from above and eliminate not only our light but also our privacy.
Below are direct results of 21 Cambridge Way’s proposed plans, which will be elaborated on further below:
1. Blocks all east side direct and indirect light to 19 Cambridge Way
2. Blocks all east side and back views of 19 Cambridge Way
3. 19 Cambridge Way will lose all of its privacy along the entire east side (our main day time living area)
4. As a result of the above 3 points, the quality of living in 19 Cambridge Way will be completely deteriorated with constant pressure and discomfort, and significantly reduce its property value
5. 21 Cambridge Way currently has NO off-street parking. The proposed added bedrooms will add to the existing limited on-street parking needs, thus creating parking overload on the whole block and affect the entire neighborhood.
6. This massive expansion on a typical smaller frontage lot is incompatible with existing houses on the street and will disturb the neighborhood’s architectural harmony In summary, the proposed addition project completely disregards its impact on the adjacent neighbors, surrounding neighbors and the integrity and harmony of the neighborhood. Changing from a two bedroom one bathroom house to a five bedroom and five bathroom house on a narrow lot will seriously harm adjacent neighbors’ lives and adversely impact the entire neighborhood. We are unequivocally against this proposed project.
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 125
1. Blocks all east side direct and indirect light to 19 Cambridge Way The proposed expansion of 21 Cambridge Way includes an addition to the front of the house, an addition to the back of the house, 2 feet expansion into our side, and increasing the house height by 12 feet. This will completely block the morning sunlight of 19 Cambridge Way in our kitchen, breakfast nook and family room, and significantly impact the indirect light in our main activity area throughout the entire day.
The eastern sun is the only light source for the majority of 19 Cambridge Way. The proposed expansion will completely block the majority of sunlight sources, especially most of the important morning sunlight. That has a significant and unbearable impact on 19 Cambridge Way. This impact is perfectly illustrated by the story pole erected at 21 Cambridge Way. The proposed addition casts a complete shadow upon 19 Cambridge Way from the morning sun all the way to the middle of day. This will drastically change what has been our daily routine for nearly 20 years.
Photo of current sunlight in kitchen and breakfast nook, it will be all blocked! Attachment G Agenda Report Page 126
Photo - story pole shadow on our family room, kitchen, breakfast nook and dining room Attachment G Agenda Report Page 127
In addition to the direct sunlight hours, we always have plenty of natural light through our windows on the side next to 21 Cambridge Way. We can see the sky through our windows in our dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook and family room, and through the glass side door.
We have been enjoying the open and nonobstructed sunlight and views in our dining room for almost 20 years. The proposed front house addition is right by our dining room window, at 35 feet height. This will block the sunlight, natural light and views from our dining room.
Photo of the proposed front addition from our dining room window - block light to our dining room
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 128
Sunlight is currently shining through our kitchen window. Standing by the kitchen sink, we can currently look out into the blue sky. With the proposed 12 feet height increase, no sunlight can come through, our kitchen will be always gloomy because natural light is blocked. When we look out of the window, all we will see is their gigantic wall.
Photo through our kitchen window - block light to our kitchen Photo through our breakfast nook - block light to our breakfast nook Attachment G Agenda Report Page 129
We have a big window in our family room. We currently have plenty of direct sunlight and an open view through the window. Their proposed rear addition, expanding 2 feet into our side, and increasing the height by 12 feet will completely take away all of our direct sunlight, natural light, view, and open air. Everything listed above will be blocked. We would live in darkness.
Photo of the rear addition from our family room window - block light to our family room Photo of the expansion to our side from our family room window - block light to our family room Attachment G Agenda Report Page 130
Photo of the rear addition from our side door - block light through our side door Photo of the rear addition view from our back door entrance Attachment G Agenda Report Page 131
Our main activity area, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook, family room are all on the side next to 21 Cambridge Way. The proposed rear addition, the expansion to our side, and 12 feet height increase will completely block our direct sunlight and all the natural light. The blocking of sunlight and natural lights not only negatively impacts our enjoyment and activities in these areas, it also creates a serious psychological impact on us. Blocked sunlight, gloominess all day long and having a gigantic structure right in front of your face is simply psychologically suffocating.
2. Blocks all east side and back views of 19 Cambridge Way Due to the terrain, the back portion of our property is at a higher elevation and we have been enjoying the views through the windows and in our backyard. The proposed additions will significantly block our views from our dining room, family room and backyard.
Through our dining room window, we can currently see the blue sky and trees in the neighborhood. This will be blocked by their proposed front addition.
Photo of their front addition from our dining room window - block dining room view Through our family room window, we currently have open space and we can see blue sky and trees in the neighborhood. This will be completely blocked by their proposed rear addition and the added 12 feet on the second story.
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 132
Photo of the rear addition from our family room window - family room views will be blocked Attachment G Agenda Report Page 133
From our backyard, currently we can see quite far. We can see the trees and houses far away on the hills, and the entire Piedmont valley. With the proposed gigantic addition, our views will be blocked and all we will see is the wall and roof of the enormous structure.
Photo from our backyard - all views will be blocked
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 134
3. We, 19 Cambridge Way, will lose all of our privacy along the entire east side The proposed plan includes two huge front balconies, 7’x11’ and 12.5’x8.5’, and stairs extending towards the street that creates an oppressive towering structure. The second story balcony has a direct line of sight into our front living room and our dining room with only a few feet away/clearance; this is an absolute intrusion of our privacy. As indicated by the photos below, the second story balcony is clearly visible from our windows in the dining room, kitchen and living room. That means that people on the balcony can clearly see our activities in these areas.
Imagine having people sitting/standing over there looking down directly down on your dining table. Imagine strangers peering over your shoulder in the comfort of your own house. Our privacy is obliterated by the proposed front balcony.
In addition, this gigantic balcony in front of the house looks down into the sidewalk and looks down from more than 70 feet high into the neighbors’ private yards across the street, which will surely raise huge neighborhood privacy concerns.
Photo of the proposed balcony from our dining room window - they can directly look down to our dining table
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 135
Photo of the balcony from our kitchen window - look into our kitchen window Photo of the balcony from our living room window - look into our living room Attachment G Agenda Report Page 136
The proposed walk path/stairs on the west side exterior of 21 Cambridge Way are just a few feet away adjacent to 19 Cambridge Way and that creates serious privacy concerns. The west side walk path and stairs elevation is at about the same level as the front stair landing, which is almost 7 feet in height and almost at the same height as the bottom of the existing window, and it is taller than the current construction fence. This creates what feels like a long high rise balcony along 19 Cambridge way. Standing at any point of the almost 7 feet high balcony-like path, a person can not help but to look into our windows and doors on our house's entire side, so the entire side of our house is completely exposed. Currently, if people walk by in the current walk path, we only see the top of people’s heads from our windows. With the proposed plan, we will see people’s feet above our windows. This again is a huge intrusion into our privacy, creating a constant sense of exposure.
Photo of the west side with the stairs and walk path illustrated since it is not demonstrated in the story pole.
4. Significantly deteriorate the quality of living in 19 Cambridge Way and reduce its property value
The two houses have been in similar heights and we (along with the previous owner of 21 Cambridge Way) have enjoyed our nice small town living for many years. With the proposed addition on both the front and the rear, 2 feet expansion into our side, and a gigantic 12 feet increase in height, we now feel like living in a big city with skyscrapers right in front of your window blocking the sunlight, natural light, open air and more.
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 137
Our neighbor on the other side, 17 Cambridge Way, being a two-story house on higher terrain already contributes to us feeling oppressed from that side with no direct sunlight, natural light, or direct air flow. We can not have a similar structure on the 21 Cambridge Way side.
The 21 Cambridge Way proposed plan creates a massive 26’x57’x35’ building with new additions both in the front and in the back, which measures 35 feet high and blocks air circulation on the east side of 19 Cambridge Way. With 17 Cambridge Way being higher in elevation, direct air flow is limited on that side of the house. For 19 Cambridge Way, the side next to 21 Cambridge Way is the main source for fresh air and air circulation.
With the proposed 21 Cambridge Way addition, our house will be sandwiched by two big and tall houses. Our quality of life will be completely destroyed and our property value will surely decline.
5. Undue adverse impact on neighborhood vehicular congestion and parking Our block, Cambridge Way between Howard street and Grand Avenue, is very narrow with slope and curves. The houses in our block were built all in close distance and the population density and traffic density is very high, with almost all the garages being used as storage. The current on-street parking is very hard to find.
21 Cambridge Way has no existing off-street parking, and the proposed plan offers no improvement while tripling the living space. It is currently a two bedroom house, the proposed expansion into a five bedroom house will greatly increase the number of people and vehicles on the block, creating more traffic on a narrow, curvy and slopey street, and put enormous added load on an already limited on-street parking situation. Existing tensions for street parking will only worsen. We have many seniors on our block. It will be very frustrating when the on-street Attachment G Agenda Report Page 138
parking space in front of their house is occupied and they have to carry their grocery bags from half a block away.
6. Severely disturb the neighborhood harmony
The physical limitation of both the lot and the entire block is not suitable for the large-scale development that is proposed at 21 Cambridge Way. Our street is very narrow, winding with steep terrain on the odd numbered side of the street. Almost all the houses in our block were originally built as two bedroom one bath houses. Even with some more recent renovations, most of the houses are still 2 to 3 bedrooms under 2000 sq ft. The proposed 21 Cambridge Way expansion will be over 3000 sq ft, with five bedroom suites. The structure mass is excessive and severely disturbs the neighborhood harmony.
21 Cambridge Way DR findings state no impact to the neighbors and no blocked views from the neighbors. It is completely untrue and just pure nonsense. How was this conclusion reached without even talking to the next door neighbors. Common sense says, this gigantic expansion will create a huge negative impact. Seeing the story pole, everyone has said “No city will allow something like this”. At best, these claims by 21 Cambridge Way are complete negligence; at worst, they are fabricated to ignore the true ramifications on neighbors and the street as a whole.
We, the directly impacted neighbor, was never contacted by the new owner of 21 Cambridge Way for our concerns or anything. No construction management plan was ever discussed; no noise and dust control implementation was broached. Not to mention concerns about the impact on our light, privacy and views by 21 Cambridge Way’s proposed plan.
Again, the proposed addition project completely disregards its impact on the adjacent neighbors, surrounding neighbors and the integrity and harmony of the neighborhood. The current proposed project will seriously harm adjacent neighbors’ lives and adversely impact the entire neighborhood. Our lives in particular would be permanently changed for the worse. We are unequivocally against this proposed project. The 21 Cambridge Way plan should be denied.
We are in favor of remodeling the existing house on 21 Cambridge Way, as it is indeed derelict and in need of work. However, any work taken should not under any circumstances make the lives of those who live next to 21 Cambridge Way worse. The new owner should consider all of the neighbors’ concerns in their new design.
We look to the planning commision to ensure what is fair and right for our neighborhood and thus the city. We are fully dependent on you to help us do what's right. We appreciate your time and effort in serving our community.
Best regards,
Gloria and David Hou
Owner of 19 Cambridge Way
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 139
From: carter shoop <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2024 2:02 PM
To: Joshua Muller
Cc: Emily Shoop
Subject: 21 Cambridge
Attachments: PXL_20240628_173936435.MP.jpg
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Hello,
I am writing about 21 Cambridge. I am concerned about how the second floor of the building will impact our view. Picture attached. It's not clear to us what the second floor structure will look like so we would like to review the application materials and voice our concern to the planning commission on July 8 (which I won't be able to attend virtually or in person unfortunately).
-Carter and Emily Shoop
38 Nace Ave, Piedmont
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Attachment G Agenda Report Page 140
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 141
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 142
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 143
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 144
Attachment G Agenda Report Page 145