Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves revised design for 21 Cambridge Way over neighbor objections
Summary
The Piedmont Planning Commission voted to approve a design-review application for a new two‑story-plus project at 21 Cambridge Way, finding it meets local design standards despite neighbors’ claims that the project is too large and will block views and privacy.
Get email alerts on the Residential Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Piedmont Planning Commission on Sept. 9 approved a design‑review application for 21 Cambridge Way, finding the revised plan meets the city’s design guidelines and applicable CEQA exemptions. The motion to approve cited CEQA guideline exemptions and the staff finding that the project’s scale, materials and articulation are compatible with neighborhood architecture; the commission adopted an additional condition to require frosted glazing on a left‑elevation door to enhance privacy.
Neighbors told the commission the changes were insufficient. David Howe, who lives adjacent to the site, said the revised drawings did not materially reduce bulk and raised possible hillside‑stability concerns: "I think this structure is too big, too bulky, and it's not suitable for the here," he said during public comment. Daniel Bornstein and Gloria Howe also described view loss, shadowing and privacy impacts and urged denial. Commissioners split over the balance between those impacts and code compliance; several members said the team’s modifications — reduced parapet height, stepped parapets and added articulation — reduced the structure’s visual massing and preserved light and privacy to a legally acceptable degree.
Staff noted the project requests no variances and complies with applicable sections of the municipal code and the city’s design guidelines. The final motion recorded that the project is categorically exempt under CEQA and approved the design with 21 conditions as amended. Roll‑call results in the transcript show the motion carried (majority yes, one recorded no vote).
