All right. Going to call to order the
meeting, first meeting of the year, the
ASRB on uh January the 12th at 4:30 p.m.
Have a roll call, please.
>> Chair Lindseay,
>> present.
>> Vice Chair Comra,
>> present.
>> Member Delgavio,
>> member Middleman,
>> present.
>> And member Sullivan,
>> present.
>> Excellent. Um, do we have any changes to
the agenda today? There are no changes
to the agenda and no desk items.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um at this time, we ask
anyone of the public who wishes to make
a comment on any topic not on tonight's
agenda, either in the room or online. I
see no one in the room.
>> We have no attendees online at the
moment.
>> Okay. Okay. We're going fast. Um consent
agenda. I believe we have one item. Uh
December 15th minutes.
>> Okay.
Um, does any member of the board have a
comment or pull that for comment?
Otherwise, we'll just approve the
consent agenda
as is. All right. Can I have a motion to
approve the consent? Oh,
>> second.
>> I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion
to approve the December 15th minutes.
>> Make a motion to second that.
>> Chair Lindseay.
>> Yes.
>> Vice Chair Comra.
>> Yes.
>> Member Delgavio.
>> Yes.
>> Member Middleman.
>> Yes. Member Sullivan.
>> Yes.
>> Wow. We are moving fast.
>> Love it.
>> Okay. Um on to the public hearing. We
have one item tonight. 45 Mission Trail.
Um
>> Sarah will give the presentation.
>> Sarah's presenting remotely.
>> Hi everyone. Um first off, I just want
to apologize. I'm not there with you
all. I'm a little under the weather. Um
so thanks for being flexible with me.
Um, can you guys all see my screen?
» Yes.
>> Okay. Okay, great. So, thank you. Um, I
will be introducing the project at 45
Mission Trail.
The project includes the demolition of
an existing single family main residence
as well as the guest house and pool and
the construction of a new single family
main residence, detached garage and
swimming pool. The property is um 1 acre
in size and it's in the SR zoning
district.
Um, it's located on the north side of
Mission Trail, which is a private road
that extends off of Kenyatta Road.
The property slopes uh gently from um
like west to east with an average
elevation change of about 12 ft. It's a
pretty um gradual slope.
Um, it is currently developed with a
single family main residence as well as
a guest house and a pool. Um, all of
which are proposed to be demolished.
And there is also an existing detached
garage um that's
um currently under review um building
permit review and it's proposed to be
demolished and a new ADU um is proposed
in that same location. So that's this
structure here.
Um so the that particular scope of work,
the ADU is not not necessarily part of
this discussion. It it's already under
review for building permits. Um the new
main residence is uh proposed here in
the approximate center of the property.
And this is a detached garage uh located
here. And then in kind of right here in
this center area is the proposed
swimming pool.
The existing driveway location onto the
property will remain. Um it will be
repaved and modified to extend um onto
the property to this detached garage.
And so it will include additional
parking areas and um this firetruck
turnaround.
Uh the height of the residence will be
approximately 17 1/2 ft tall at its
highest point. It is a singlestory
residence
and the materials include um standing
seam metal roofs uh vertical and
horizontal cement board siding as well
as wood sighting and then um aluminum
and clad oh sorry aluminum clad windows
and doors.
And as you can see, the color tone the
color palette will be muted earth tones
and shades of um like gray, beige,
brown.
Um I did receive um two neighbors
reached out um wanting to view the plans
and both of which were able to view the
plans. one of the neighbors was able to
um view them and indicated to the
applicant and as well as myself that
they were in support of the project.
And another neighbor um came in and
looked at the plans and was curious
about um landscape screening.
Um the applicant has installed story
pools in advance of the hearing. Um that
concludes my presentation and I'm happy
to answer any questions. Right.
Thank you, Sarah. Um, does anyone on the
board have questions of staff?
>> Sarah.
I have a question because of the
>> Oh, I have a
Okay. um as because the driveway is
extended all the way and back to the
garage and you have the pool area. Is
that in compliance with the paved uh
allowables?
>> Um yes, thank you. I didn't hear
everything that I I heard your question,
but maybe there was something said
before that, but um yes, their
preliminary calculations show that
they're comp they would be in compliance
with their maximum paved area, but it's
not something that we've completely
verified yet just because we don't ask
for all of those um details. But
preliminary calculations look like they
would um be in compliance and the code
would allow some um exclusion of that
driveway. Um, so but it's something we
would definitely check with a formal
designer view.
» Yeah. And just I know that the ADU is
separate. Um, but what's the square
footage of the week?
>> Well, I think it's about 1,200 square
feet.
Maybe I don't have the planet that plan
in front of me though. I was it just
looked larger than than
>> 1250 for 1250. Okay, that's that's my
>> for you.
>> Okay. Any other question?
>> Yes,
>> I have one. I think I read conflicting information
that it was a 4700ish square foot home
and that 4,000 was approved, but there's
some or uh in keeping with the code, but
then I thought I read someplace else
that we needed a And uh what am I
saying? An adjustment for that.
>> Um yeah, Sarah can better explain it,
but yeah, there's I'm assuming there's
the uh resident size exception. And
again, this is just a formula based
thing. So it depends on their lot size
and it just allows people to use more of
their allowable TFA. So I I believe
that's the case. Is that correct, Sarah?
>> It was 47ishund00 Sarah. That's
>> I believe so. Um I can look really
quickly.
>> I am. It's 4 4736
ft.
>> Yeah.
Um, sorry. I'm going to close that
really quick so I can look. Sorry, I'm
not used to doing this on the computer.
>> No worry.
>> Um, I believe.
>> Yeah. So,
sorry. I was just going to say I was
just looking at the property information
in the back on the last page and that
shows it's on page 12 of the staff
report and it shows that um with an
exception uh that they're allowed up to
4735
roughly square feet. Um and they're
showing to be just a bit under that and
the ADU or I'm sorry 800 square feet of
the ADU doesn't count towards the house
or the total floor area.
So that as part of their formal design
review, they would include the resident
size exception and that exception is
does not trigger any special review does
not trigger planning commission review.
>> It's a calculation.
>> It's just simply a a a calculation of
lot area.
» Any other questions?
Yep. I know at this time uh lighting
plan is not required but I thought I had
also read someplace that something was
included on the elevations but am I
mistaken in that
>> there's nothing included as far
>> yet on the other on the ADU but should I
say that's not
>> uh yeah there's nothing for lighting
sorry in uh in this submitt uh but in
the ADU there's reference to the
elevations maybe that's
>> or you know what there might actually be
lighting
on there on on the elevations, but I
don't think it's
the symbol. I think it's from the 80
when we were designing the whole
building, the whole site, it was
included, but we haven't put reference
and a lighting plan in for for this
building yet.
>> Yeah, you have pictures in the planet,
but you don't have a lighting plan.
>> No, no.
>> Yeah. And I'll just
>> I'll just add that on like the
elevations, you can kind of see like So,
these are lights, but we don't have any
more detail than that
>> at this time. Go. Thank you.
Now I see him.
>> Any other questions?
» Um, only question for me is having um
reviewed story poles on site. the north
west corner of the garage, the rear
right corner of the garage looked to be
I wasn't clear in my mind um whether it
was close to the setback on the setback
or whether it was um meeting this
small percentage rule.
>> Are you talking about this portion
maybe?
>> Yes. Yeah, I think um and maybe Dan can
clarify, but I believe that so this part
is like an overhang,
>> which um is allowed to extend into a
setback and this dash line is the
setback line. So
>> um
we'll have to double check and make sure
that that's meeting, you know, the
maximum out they can extend into that
setback. But um I think that's what
that's showing there.
>> You go six feet from a rear setback,
three feet into a side.
>> Yep. This is a side technically, but
yeah,
>> and the same thing applies on the other
buildings.
>> Yeah, for eaves or overhangs. Yes.
>> And the and you might see the ADU in a
setback, whereas those are up to 800
square feet can go into the setback.
» And then I did see the note in your
report about um plate height for the
garage needing to be reviewed before
formal.
Um yes, there there may have been I
think it was either a plate height or an
overall height that exceeded 17. So
something that they'll have to um adjust
because um you don't we don't want them
to exceed the height.
» Okay. All right. And no more questions?
Nope. Nope. All right. With that, we'll
move to um
I've lost my copy of the script, so I
coincident
presentation. Um
» uh we we don't have a other than what
we've heard. We don't have uh an
additional uh any additional materials
to present. Um other than to say we're
excited about the project. It's a uh
we've been working on it for quite a
while and um we're excited about the way
it kind of addresses the site issues and does something for their family that
they're pretty excited about. Um we've
looked at second floors and basements.
We've been all over the place with
everything and kind of settled on this
more uh simplified uh you know kind of
strip back approach that we're taking
here. Thank you. But I'm available for
questions. We're
>> all right. Well, let's let's move just
to that to see if there are any
questions from the board. So, um,
>> questions I had off. So, yeah, I'm just
clarifying the amount of windows.
There's a ton of windows and we all love
to have that much lighting and I was
kind of a little bit confused on the
orientation. So, they're going to face
up toward the Putin or they're going to
face down toward Mission.
>> So, the the great majority of the glass
is facing out of that courtyard. Uh the
buildings are or oriented due east west
and so uh this the south the the long
faces of the buildings are facing south
to take advantage of sun. Um and so yeah
most of the glass is facing onto that
little courtyard with smaller openings
facing away towards neighboring
properties.
>> Thank you.
>> And I'm I'm assuming because you have so
much sunlight there. Beautiful. Um there
you're you're doing the solar right on
the roof.
>> You know we haven't actually talked
about solar yet. So, I assume there
would be some involved. It's it's ample
uh access to it, but I would have to
talk to them about it. We haven't
actually gotten to that yet.
>> There's a certain building code
requirement for some minimal solar, so
they have to address that at the
building permit stage.
>> It's a perfect spot.
>> Yeah, it is. We've got a lot of access
other than the trees. It's a We've got a
lot of access.
>> Do encourage you to do a solar study. It
might change the sighting of the
building in terms of maximizing solar.
That's true. Um there's not much we can
do based on the setbacks and the trees
on the property lines. There's kind of
like no other way. We've we've really
focused on focusing it towards the
center of the site rather than uh you
know uh spreading things out or around
towards the property lines. So we kind
of locked into looking inwards on this.
Um but I think there's probably ample
access to to sun from the north side of
the site over the trees. I would think
we should do a study though. I agree.
Um, and I know that while the ADU is not
part of this review, um, assure me that
the style and material pallet and
everything between ADU and main house is
consistent.
>> It's the same thing. Yes.
» Um, yeah. Great. No other questions for
me.
>> Cool.
>> No.
>> Wow.
>> Good. Left the trees alone.
>> Thank you.
» Yeah. No,
>> I was almost there.
>> Public comments. Yes. So again, we at
this point we invite anyone in the
public in the room. No online.
>> No one online.
» Um which point we move to board more
board deliberation on this project.
Who'd like to kick us off?
I can I can the one thing and from going
with what some of your neighbors said
about um the screening um
>> the the the screening of the project
particularly because um the pool is out
front. I mean, I see why you did it like
that, but it would be helpful, I think,
um, we don't necessarily have to see the
landscape plans, but perhaps if you
could start particularly like along like
where the Putinham Putnham's property
are, grow some trees now, you know,
instead of waiting until the very end to
do the landscaping, you know, put some
oak so that or and do a nice screening
so that people when they're driving by,
they're not going to see the lawn and
the pool. I mean, hopefully they won't
be able to see any of that. So, I would
be interested in seeing just um a little
bit of a landscaping plan when the time
is right.
>> Right. Respond. Uh uh we are working on
developing a landscape plan with a
landscape architect. So, uh we would be
able to show you that. Um she we've got
an actually developed landscape plan. We
have to make a few changes for some
things we've done on site, but we can
show you something as soon as a couple
of weeks, I would imagine.
>> That's great. But I I would urge you if
you could plant some things sooner.
>> There are private there are privets in
existing um fruit trees and things.
We're not intending to uh to remove
those. I think they like some of those
things. And the privets tend to grow as
screening pretty well. So I think
there's a effort to kind of extend those
around a little bit further. Uh I think
in the effort for for both neighbors to give everybody a little bit of
privacy.
>> And correct me if I'm wrong, but in
addition to the gate, there's also an
opaque fence. Right.
>> There is the gate that we're proposing.
We're not proposing to change any of the
fences around.
>> No, but there's a there's a fence that
does go around the property with.
>> There's one on the Which side is that?
That's going to be the west side.
There's a a CMU wall. Uh so there's
actually a solid wall there for the that
the neighbor has. The rest of it is
mostly open open fencing. So there's no
uh nothing opaque.
>> Got it. Just when I was at the site, it
didn't seem like you would be able to
see the pool from the road.
>> Yeah, I think I think you you probably
could if there was no screening. Uh it is elevated a little bit. It's about
the center of the site. We're trying to
equal kind of uh minimize cut and fill
by kind of doing it all on site. Um but
there I think there is a chance that you
could see something coming around that
bend. So I think screening is is a good
idea.
>> I think
um you can correct me if I'm wrong. Is
the fence uh the gate is solid now? Is
it?
>> No, the gates open mesh
>> in the new plan, but in the existing one
it's a solid.
>> Yeah, the existing one. So that's that's
what I was getting at. So, so it's right
now you don't see as much into the site
where that won't
>> That's true. You actually can't see it
from Yeah. for the the existing site,
but you will because the fence will be
open or the gate will be open.
» No, I I commend you for having one story
with
a
Thank you.
>> No, it's what a beautiful piece of
>> It's a great little piece of property.
Yeah.
» For me? No.
>> No. I've been by the property and it
looks like a very suitable adaptation of
the use of it. Great plan.
» I concur.
Sure.
>> I do have a code question for Sage
though that came up to mind.
>> Um yeah, from my perspective I again I
mean I echo
I share's comments on on the simplicity
and modesty of the property.
We often are asked to review properties
that are much grander scale. Um
pallet color palette selection standing
seam metal roof. I think these are all
like nice choices relative to the
residential design design guidelines for
the town. Um
placement of the house on the property I
think is good. Um yeah. No, I think it's uh well considered for the
property. So I'm supportive.
Um with that we can put it to a vote. So
uh
>> I just I had a quick question for Sage.
If somebody has a nonforming gate that
might have been put in well before our
recent gate code, are they entitled to
replace it with a
>> replacing it? No, the code is
interesting with gates. It actually
specifically says that you have to when
you replace it essentially you have to
conform to the requirements of the
chapter. So it says something along
those lines. So sometimes people just
keep their solid gates but otherwise
when replacing it it should be
compliant. It's kind of unique compared
to say your building. Um if it's
non-conforming, you can replace that
where it is. So a little bit different
for gates.
>> And the new one will be six and a half,
not 8 ft.
>> Uh yeah, the six feet is maximum for G
gates and fences. And so so you'd have
to hold to the minimum and then you have
to be at least 40% open for a gate.
So, the property is um they installed
story poles. Um I didn't hear any
recommended changes for the project. Um
the ASRB, well, sorry, I should take
that back. Um the ASRB commended the
applicant uh for providing a one-story
design with a low building profile um
and using color and materials that are
consistent with the residential design
guidelines and surrounding area. Um
there is a recommendation uh for the
applicant to uh apply landscape
screening along the eastern property
line uh to help screen the pool from the
driveway on the adjacent the road
Mission Trail Road. Um, and with that
installed story polls. Uh, so if there
aren't any other comments, um, or if
there are any comments, please let me
know. Then otherwise, the ASRB can
decide if it should go to staff or
formal design review or come back to the
ASRB.
» Considering our consensus of quietness,
I would recommend a formal design with
staff.
>> Want to make that a motion?
due to the No, I'm not I motion to move
this project to formal staff.
>> I would second the motion.
>> Chair Lindseay,
>> yes.
>> Vice Chair Comra,
>> yes.
>> Member Delgavio,
>> yes.
>> Member Middleman,
>> yes.
>> And member Sullivan,
>> yes.
You'll receive a letter in the next day
or two outlining what just occurred for
and the next steps.
>> Thank you everyone.
>> Thank you.
>> Go home early.
>> Congratulations.
>> Thanks Sarah.
>> Good. All right. Closing the public
hearing and uh director's reports, two
of them.
>> Uh yes. Um I'll just kind of primarily
focus on December um given that that and
provides our housing numbers for the
year. Um, so not amazing, but definitely
not bad. Um, and so there's a total of
23 ADUs uh for permits issued in 2025.
11 for single family dwellings, which is
a little bit higher than usual. And the
23 ADUs is right up there with kind of
what we've been seeing over the last few
years. Um, and I'll just remind
everybody that the target ADU production
um, for this housing element cycle is 15
per year. So every year we've been doing
over 20. Um so that's good news just to
kind of see that some of our you know
changes to our codes obviously along
with state laws um have been helping uh
make it more flexible for people to uh
construct ADUs and um we're working with
the town attorney's office and we'll be
bringing back even further changes to
the ADU ordinance in the first quarter
of 2026 um just to ensure that we're
compliant with everything in state law
and um to provide probably even more
flexibility when appropriate.
» I have two questions.
>> Um
the first, if we project these numbers
out for the rest of the venus cycle,
where do where does it bring us with our
numbers?
>> I don't know off the top of my head, but
um it probably gets us pretty close um
to the numbers. I I I think you'd still
have some concern with hitting above
moderate um numbers. Um and then also
it's dependent on how HCD uh looks at
affordability for ADUs. Um every year
they're kind of continue to
talk about um not using the Abag study
which is what's been relied upon for
some jurisdictions in the past. It's a
formulaic way of distributing the ADU at
income levels. Um and so that's
something that we just need to keep eye
on every year. Uh but at the end of the
day, it's always important to remember
that it's not just the numbers that we
need to hit, but all the different goals
and strategies of the housing element
because they implement different housing
types. Um and so that's something that's
still very important. Um and uh so but
the above moderate numbers and single
family dwellings, you know, that's
something that we need to keep an eye on
as well. Um but uh at some point uh more
of the ADUs will be counting probably
towards above moderate. Anyway,
>> then my second question um in the last
housing element cycle we had to we were
told to bring that number down for the
year.
Is there in those discussions was there
appetite that if we showed that we could
beat a higher number that we could use
it in the next cycle or the latter half
of the cycle?
>> Yeah, we'll have to see what they do
next cycle. So what happened at the last
cycle was
there there was a lot there from my
recollection there was
concern that if you used more than the
four-year average the four years prior
to that housing element cycle then there
would probably be a much larger
potential that they would not allow you
to rely on that a bag study and income
distribution. Um so therefore the town
you know and it was a low average in particular it
was the first year of COVID was in that
cycle um whereas there was no exception
for that but we did see a drop in
production that year and so uh 15 units
was the average moving forward in the
next cycle if we're hitting 22 average
or something like that um we'll just
have to see what the regulations are and
the requirements are for the new housing
cycle. Um before I'd make any
assumptions.
>> And Sage, what's going on with the
Butler property?
>> Um the applicants just continuing to
kind of submit information.
Um the the next steps is, you know,
getting the application deemed complete.
Um the SQA work has been initiated
although cannot be completed until all
of the information submitted. Um the
town is working on a uh master sewer
study. Um and so that's looking at
capacity for the town center. Um and
this property would need to connect to
the town center assessment district. Uh
so it's likely that there is capacity.
It's something that's um
probably not an issue for this project,
but that it's something that they're
completing to have the hard evidence and
that's part of what this project needs
to understand if it can connect to
sewer. So part of the project is waiting
for the town study which would probably
be they're guessing March maybe April to
have that completed.
Do any of the new 2026 housing laws
apply to the Butler project or the other
high net projects in
>> they are we asking the questions right
now they're not proposing anything at
any restricted income level.
>> No I just remember that one of the law I
can't remember the details but it
alleviated some of the SQL requirements.
>> Uh something I'm I'm looking at those
new laws. Um there's about four of them
I think that are most in that are
something that we need to closely look
at a little bit further. Um so we'll be
double checking that. Um it's it's the
subdivision itself. Um it's not
necessarily
uh the development the development for
at least the multif family housing was
something contemplated with the housing
element um uh EIR whereas the proposed
subdivision and the additional single
family residences were not contemplated.
So some type of the consultants are
looking at what type of secret document
would come out of this whether it's some
type of addendum or you know uh maybe
not the need for a full-blown EI given
some reliance on a town's EIR study that
was already completed.
» Last but not least, how about that other
Putinham project that was
>> um so there's uh two kind of different
ones. There's the subdivision at 11:01
Kenyatta. Um so they are just satisfying
their conditions uh to get their permits
to construct the private road. Um so to
demolish what's out there and construct
the private road. That's actually
something that they need to do and
complete before the final map gets
recorded. So the tenative map has been
approved. They have this construction
permit there. They should be starting to
work on that in the spring and then um
sometime shortly after that uh
presumably it would go to council.
really just looks to make sure
that all the conditions are complied
with. So it's not rehashing the
discussion. It's really saying, "Hey,
you were supposed to do this. Did you do
it?" And if they did, then the final map
can be approved and recorded with the
county.
>> Is it determined that they're going to
build the all Putnhams are going to
>> They haven't submitted for any permits.
um you know depending who I believe
they're trying to sell it and so it just
I think depends on who whether that's
bought individually or someone buys the
whole thing. Um we just don't have any
of that firm information.
>> You said there was a second one.
>> Oh, sorry. They just had uh I it was
planning commission. Um there's parcels
up at the top at the end of Mission
Trail that back up to the I280 and that
project um there was a restrict when
that property was subdivided many years
ago. There was a 100 foot setback from
the freeway placed on those properties
and that coincided with an old code and
general plan requirement that required a
200t setback from the I280. So when they
did the map, they received a variance to
only do the 100 ft. That got recorded on
the property. Since then, the town has
taken that setback off of most of the
properties along the I280. It still is
along some of them like on more road,
some of the larger properties still have
that restriction. Um
>> 100 for 200
>> for 200. Um and uh but it does so that
no longer by code or general plan apply
to these properties. So, it's a matter
of getting that um easement restriction
abandoned by the town. So, the planning
commission looked at that and found it
the abandonment consistent with the
general plan and they're doing some
technical things. We'll go to the
council for the final decision on that.
you know how
» yeah it's it's what what you saw with
the size of the properties is that um it
created a very tiny building envelope
with the front and side setbacks. Uh so
then it probably would have triggered
them to push something into another
setback somewhere else. Uh and so given
that I think it provides a more
realistic flexibility and whoever
designs home out there will probably
their own accord try to stay as far away
from the freeway noise as possible.
So just just as a matter of process so I
understand what you said if the town
removes setback requirement
>> that it the required variances or I was
trying to follow it
>> each individual property that has to go
and get that vacated
>> they they this got recorded on the
parcel map
>> I see
>> and so that's what they're getting
vacated and so the code is already
changed but they still have this
restriction placed on these particular
property.
>> So if they wanted a bell,
>> I see.
>> So what they're doing is get rid of
getting rid of that recorded
restriction. Um and then from there they
just follow the code.
» That's so much fun at work.
» Thank you very much.
>> 5:00. Um, one thing I just want to
notice, I do want to um, just let
everyone know um, that the town is
accepting applications uh, for planning
commission districts one and three. Um,
I forget which one, one of the members
has moved out of the district, so that's
probably open. And then
>> the other the other member, I'm just not
sure if they're going to run again. But
in either case, anyone can apply. So
pass the word around. Um, if you know
anyone in districts one and three and
they're interested in um
I'd have to double check. I just I know
these districts can one
» or Yeah. So, yeah, we can just we can
double check. They can call the town. We
can double check.
>> There are maps posted online.
>> Yes, that as well. Yep.
>> Okay.