[0:13] All right.

[0:24] Okay, going to call to order a meeting

[0:26] of the SRB for Monday

[0:28] May 18th at 4:30 p.m.

[0:32] Roll call.

[0:36] Chair Lindsey. Yes. Vice Chair Comer.

[0:38] Yes.

[0:39] Member Del Gavio. Yes. Member Middleman.

[0:42] Yes. Member Sullivan.

[0:44] Yes.

[0:45] Hey, gang's all here.

[0:48] Um, do we have any changes to the

[0:50] agenda? Uh, there are no changes to the

[0:52] agenda. You have one desk item of

[0:54] support for item number two on Espinoza

[0:58] and two desk items for item number three

[1:01] um, from the same neighbor um, just

[1:05] requesting some additional landscaping.

[1:07] That'll be noted in the staff report.

[1:09] And um, I'll just note that

[1:12] the with regarding to the chair and the

[1:14] vice chair vote the

[1:16] uh, we've discussed at the staff level.

[1:18] We're going to bring a consent item to

[1:20] the council. See if they'd like to waive

[1:22] that provision for this time. And then

[1:24] that's going to go to the next council

[1:25] meeting. After that decision, we'll

[1:27] bring it back to the SRB for vote.

[1:30] And item one, the minutes of May 4th

[1:33] have been pulled. Yes, so item one

[1:35] actually is that is a change to the

[1:37] agenda. Item one is not has not been

[1:39] provided yet. It's just the minutes. Um,

[1:41] so we'll provide that on your next

[1:43] agenda.

[1:44] Okay.

[1:46] With that, we'll just jump right into

[1:47] the public hearing and

[1:49] the first item being 885 Espinoza Road.

[1:59] So, in to recuse myself from 885

[2:01] Espinosa Road. Okay. I live within 1,000

[2:03] ft. Um not only do I use the road, I

[2:07] also participate in the road maintenance

[2:08] committee that maintains the road

[2:10] as well as drive through the

[2:12] intersection of

[2:14] Manzanita and Espinosa every day. So

[2:18] since I have a foreseeable conflict and

[2:20] bias, I'm going to step out of the room.

[2:24] So noted that uh member Middleman's

[2:27] recusing himself from this item and

[2:30] Julie, you'll notify him when we're

[2:31] finished.

[2:32] Right. Thank you.

[2:34] Um okay.

[2:36] All right.

[2:38] Hope you're all doing well. It's been a

[2:39] minute. Good to see everyone. Um so

[2:41] tonight I'm going to be giving an

[2:43] introduction to the project at 885

[2:45] Espinosa Road.

[2:46] The applicant has submitted formal

[2:48] design review plans for proposals to

[2:50] demolish an existing accessory structure

[2:53] and to construct a remodel and addition

[2:56] up to a complete demolition rebuild for

[2:57] an existing single-family residence and

[2:59] partial basement and an addition to an

[3:01] existing deck,

[3:03] rebuild of an existing carport and other

[3:05] site improvements. For a really brief

[3:08] bit of background, um the ASRB did hear

[3:11] this at CDR back in 2022 and at that

[3:14] time it was recommended that this

[3:16] project proceed to formal design review

[3:18] with the staff um addressing the ASRB's

[3:21] minimal comments regarding studying

[3:23] light emission.

[3:24] The project was deemed complete at a

[3:27] staff level at FDR in 2022, but the

[3:30] project did expire in December of 2024.

[3:34] In reviewing the plans that were

[3:36] submitted by the applicant, we found

[3:37] that this was a like-for-like submittal

[3:39] and that there were no substantial code

[3:41] changes since the time of the last

[3:43] application that would impact the

[3:45] project's compliance. Therefore, it was

[3:47] deemed okay to proceed directly to

[3:49] formal design review with ASRB given

[3:51] that the board had already analyzed

[3:53] conceptual design review at a public

[3:55] hearing.

[3:56] Um

[3:58] there are no uh sorry, there is one desk

[4:01] item for this, which was a letter from a

[4:03] neighbor expressing support in the

[4:05] project's design, and the project is

[4:08] categorically exempt from

[4:12] 885 Espinosa Road is in the SCP 10

[4:15] zoning district, and the property is

[4:16] approximately 3.26 acres in size. It's

[4:20] located on the west side of Espinosa

[4:21] Road, which is a private road off of

[4:23] Grandview Drive.

[4:25] The property has an existing residence

[4:26] with a partial basement and several

[4:28] accessory structures site. The property

[4:31] is characterized by steep slopes and

[4:33] includes mature oak, madrone, and

[4:35] redwood and bay trees throughout the

[4:36] property site. No tree removal is

[4:39] proposed in conjunction with the project

[4:40] at this time.

[4:43] The applicant has proposed an addition

[4:45] and remodel. Um we can see the areas of

[4:48] addition here in gray. Um remodel, we

[4:51] have dash in this carport here as well

[4:53] as some rebuilds on the dining terrace

[4:55] and addition on the deck.

[4:57] Um

[4:58] the scope of work, uh as mentioned, will

[5:00] include an addition to the deck, which

[5:02] is kind of dash back here in the back,

[5:04] relatively

[5:05] um minor upgrade improvements. Um as you

[5:09] can see on the site plan, this is

[5:10] relatively centrally located on the

[5:12] property. The

[5:14] proposed main resident additions will be

[5:15] on the western front facade and the

[5:18] eastern rear facade, and then that new

[5:21] deck addition will be on that rear

[5:22] facade as well.

[5:25] The uh proposed and existing elevations

[5:29] are shown here, so you can see the

[5:31] degree of modification that we're kind

[5:34] of looking at. There are some changes in

[5:36] roof lines, but generally same um form

[5:40] for the most part. Uh

[5:42] the roof lines will remain understated

[5:44] and simple in form, and are moderately

[5:46] sloped gable roof lines. The main

[5:48] residence is broken up into these

[5:50] segments of various heights helping to

[5:52] reduce the structure's massing. The main

[5:54] residence includes this at grade deck

[5:56] which we can see here on the back. Um

[5:59] that addition will take place there.

[6:01] Um and the rebuilt car carport roof line

[6:04] you can see on this elevation. Um

[6:07] rather than having a single mass now

[6:08] being broken into two masses which is

[6:11] helping to reduce that visual impact a

[6:12] little bit.

[6:14] And this uh rebuilt carport will

[6:16] continue to a join an existing driveway.

[6:18] There'll be some minor repaving but

[6:20] otherwise the routing

[6:22] will be relatively same.

[6:26] Uh materials for the proposed main

[6:27] residence and attached garage include

[6:29] composite shingle roofs, vertical

[6:31] stained um board and batten siding,

[6:34] stacked stone wainscots, and integral

[6:36] color plaster. The project color palette

[6:38] includes a variety of earth tone colors

[6:40] including shades of brown, gray, rusty,

[6:42] cream.

[6:43] And members of the team should be here

[6:46] uh

[6:47] to address any questions you may have

[6:49] about this design. The project team will

[6:52] provide a brief application I believe

[6:54] application presentation shortly I

[6:55] believe and the staff is happy to answer

[6:58] any questions you have for us if there

[7:00] are any that have popped up. All right,

[7:01] thank you.

[7:02] Um

[7:03] couple of questions. So uh given this is

[7:06] somewhat unique for us to do a

[7:08] re-formalization

[7:09] of a previously approved formal design

[7:11] review, can you offer any guidance to

[7:14] this board in terms of

[7:16] how the scope of our questioning?

[7:18] So it's technically a new project. The

[7:20] other project expired. Um so the board

[7:23] can provide any comments related to the

[7:25] design on this project. Um there is is

[7:29] formal design review. So what you have

[7:31] in the staff report are recommended

[7:33] conditions of approval. If the board

[7:35] finds that no changes are needed or no

[7:37] modifications to those conditions of

[7:40] approval are needed and can recommend

[7:42] approval of the project. That can be a

[7:44] motion. Um

[7:46] if there's any reasons for changes or

[7:49] modifications to the condition,

[7:51] the board can provide those

[7:52] recommendations.

[7:53] >> Okay.

[7:53] Um and we can still request uh applicant

[7:56] presentation. Yes. Yep.

[7:58] Um second question, I looking at uh

[8:01] staff report, there was feedback from

[8:03] the conceptual design review on interior

[8:05] and exterior lighting.

[8:07] Um but I couldn't find a lighting

[8:08] schedule in the package. So, hard to

[8:11] assess.

[8:14] Yeah, so um

[8:16] there is a lighting plan. In conjunction

[8:19] with this, we have it on paper and I can

[8:21] grab it for you guys if you want to

[8:23] evaluate that.

[8:24] >> Okay, we'll see if we get there, right?

[8:26] Yeah, it's like for like for what was

[8:27] proposed during the last round. Okay.

[8:30] Good. Any other questions?

[8:34] In both cases on the lighting, it was

[8:36] shielded.

[8:38] Do you know

[8:38] >> see I can show you real quick on the

[8:41] project plans.

[8:43] Anything of record that's been approved

[8:45] would but by definition meet our dark

[8:47] sky requirements and criteria for all

[8:49] lighting, right?

[8:50] Yeah.

[8:52] The yes, the lighting has to be uh

[8:54] shielded and all the faces up.

[8:56] >> This is what's being um says they're

[8:58] current exterior fixtures in conjunction

[9:01] with the structure as shown. Yeah, it's

[9:03] just that there was no

[9:05] placement or count, total count in terms

[9:07] of lighting, so where they're located.

[9:10] Oh.

[9:11] I didn't know.

[9:13] Yeah, um yeah, we can I I think it was

[9:14] provided by the applicant and just

[9:16] wasn't slip sheeted into

[9:18] and set. Typically it's like near doors

[9:20] and things like that. It wouldn't be

[9:22] throughout the facility or down the

[9:23] stairs and that sort of thing. Mhm.

[9:25] Yeah, um I have it

[9:27] um

[9:28] I believe that the applicant confirmed

[9:29] that it was like for like. I can pull it

[9:30] from the previous plan set um that they

[9:32] submitted in round one. I think that

[9:34] they had just forgotten to actually

[9:35] integrate the sheet in round two. Um,

[9:38] would that be something we're interested

[9:40] in looking at? Um, well, we'll see.

[9:41] where our questioning goes.

[9:45] And then, um, if you do look here on

[9:48] this front page, actually, on um,

[9:51] sheet A1, they have provided these

[9:53] sconce locations. It's just not

[9:56] incredibly big, um, compared Can you put

[9:59] that on the screen? Yeah, I'll put that

[10:05] If you see, uh, they do have the sconce

[10:08] locations kind of called out

[10:11] on this,

[10:12] um, initial site plan sheet.

[10:18] That's it. That's like the four of them.

[10:20] Nothing downstairs, nothing on the

[10:22] Uh, so, this carport one is on the lower

[10:24] level.

[10:29] Okay.

[10:30] Good.

[10:32] Any other questions for staff?

[10:36] Nothing. Okay. Uh, I mean, with that,

[10:37] we'll invite applicant to, uh,

[10:40] present if they choose.

[10:47] Squeeze rip. The Oh, there you go.

[10:50] Uh, good evening. My name is Gary Ahern.

[10:52] I am the project architect for 885

[10:54] Espinosa. I get the

[10:56] unusual thing about uh, making this

[10:58] presentation twice. Uh, as Jillian

[11:00] posted, um, we did go through in 2022,

[11:04] uh, was unanimously approved at that

[11:06] point.

[11:08] Um, with all the intentions, and then we

[11:10] had that little interesting hiccup in

[11:12] 22, um, and then combine that with the

[11:15] road washing out on 84,

[11:18] uh, the project sort of got put on hold.

[11:20] And, uh, life-changing, and then

[11:24] decided to pick it up again.

[11:26] Unfortunately, right after the timeline

[11:28] had expired, so that's why we're before,

[11:30] uh, you lovely people here today.

[11:32] Um, happy to answer any questions you

[11:34] might have. The one question about the

[11:36] lighting the lighting we have is is

[11:38] proposed as minimal. It's basically what

[11:40] code requires at each exterior door. We

[11:42] don't have a lot of We're not doing any

[11:43] building up lighting or anything

[11:45] artistic or anything like that.

[11:49] Okay.

[11:50] Any questions uh from members of the

[11:52] board for the app? No? No. No?

[11:56] Thank you.

[11:58] Wow, this one's going to be fast.

[12:00] Um

[12:02] Yeah, I mean I had

[12:04] So uh uh public comment. I always forget

[12:07] this one. Sorry.

[12:09] Uh is anyone online or in the room wish

[12:10] to make a comment on this project?

[12:12] For those online, please use the raise

[12:14] hand feature if you'd like to make a

[12:15] comment.

[12:21] There are no raised hands. No.

[12:23] So aside from the dust item, there was

[12:24] no other

[12:26] public comment.

[12:29] Um okay, put close public comment and go

[12:32] to board deliberation. Anyone wish to

[12:35] make a

[12:36] uh summary of

[12:39] anything regarding this project other

[12:41] than

[12:43] they've

[12:44] >> [laughter]

[12:45] >> Okay.

[12:47] Uh same.

[12:48] No, no, I think it's it's very

[12:50] attractive.

[12:51] It's a very attractive spot, sunny spot

[12:53] in the back, and I like the materials.

[12:56] Um it seems I mean it basically blends

[12:59] in the type of houses that we'd like

[13:01] built in Woodside.

[13:03] So uh no, I especially since it's

[13:05] already gone and been approved. I have

[13:08] no questions or concerns. Okay, good.

[13:11] Thank you.

[13:12] Um yeah, from my perspective

[13:15] I'll echo

[13:16] my share commerce's comments. I mean I

[13:18] think it was already

[13:20] heavily scrutinized. I think all the

[13:21] changes I think are are uh easily

[13:25] rationalized. Um

[13:26] I only comment about the lighting seeing

[13:28] just two fixtures on the rear of the

[13:30] structure. I think that's

[13:31] not an issue. So, yeah.

[13:34] Can we have a motion to approve?

[13:37] So moved.

[13:39] I'm not making the motion. I'm I'm I so

[13:42] moved to make the motion.

[13:42] >> Okay.

[13:43] >> [laughter]

[13:44] >> Just clarify in that motion that that

[13:46] would be to adopt all of the recommended

[13:48] conditions of approval as set forth.

[13:50] Correct.

[13:53] I second that motion.

[13:57] Chair Lindsey? Yes. Vice Chair Comrie?

[13:59] Yes. Member Dalgaav? Yes. Member

[14:01] Sullivan? Yes. And member Middleman is

[14:03] noted recused.

[14:05] Thank you.

[14:08] That was the fastest ever.

[14:10] >> you long to drive [snorts] down the

[14:11] hill.

[14:12] >> [laughter]

[14:15] » It is possible to be a champion.

[14:18] Two questions? I can do four.

[14:21] As a new grandmother, [clears throat]

[14:22] I was saying there's not enough light.

[14:24] That's what I was thinking.

[14:25] >> [laughter]

[14:26] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[14:29] How common How common is it that to have

[14:31] a project expire and have to come back?

[14:34] That's another one just recently

[14:36] occurred.

[14:38] Um It's about the economy.

[14:40] So, yeah, they get letters and they have

[14:42] 2 years in which they have to obtain

[14:44] building permits. There is a provision

[14:46] that they can apply for an extension

[14:48] before the expiration.

[14:50] And it's just unfortunate that they

[14:51] didn't

[14:53] apply for that in enough time.

[14:59] Okay. Moving on to item three.

[15:02] This is 170 Fox Hollow Road.

[15:12] Which we saw in November.

[15:16] Ooh.

[15:18] I'm flying.

[15:20] Yeah.

[15:20] A refreshed.

[15:22] All right.

[15:26] This uh presentation's going to include

[15:28] analysis of a formal design review uh to

[15:31] demolish an existing single-family

[15:32] dwelling, pool, and associated site

[15:35] improvements, and to construct a new

[15:37] single-family main residence with an

[15:39] attached garage and attached studio ADU,

[15:43] um two detached ADUs, a detached

[15:46] trellis, a pool, and associated site

[15:48] improvements on a lot located at 170 Fox

[15:51] Hollow Road.

[15:52] There are two desk items associated with

[15:55] this agenda item. Both of them are um

[15:57] from the same applicant's representative

[15:59] um who brought up some questions

[16:02] regarding increasing landscape screening

[16:05] along the shared property line with

[16:07] their respective client, as well as um

[16:10] potentially evaluating an option to

[16:12] increase the height of uh landscaping

[16:14] walls to further provide that shielding.

[16:21] Uh the subject property is 3.013 acres,

[16:24] and it's located at the end of Fox

[16:26] Hollow Road. The site is currently

[16:27] developed with the single-family main

[16:29] residence, a pool, and

[16:31] associated site improvements. Uh the

[16:33] site slopes upward from Fox Hollow and

[16:35] contains numerous significant trees

[16:37] around the peripheries of the project

[16:39] with a large portion of the trees

[16:41] concentrated on the east, south, and

[16:42] west sides of the existing main

[16:44] residence.

[16:46] >> [clears throat and cough]

[16:47] >> The applicant has proposed construction

[16:49] of a new single-family main residence

[16:50] sited in the approximate center of the

[16:52] property near the general location of

[16:54] the existing main residence.

[16:56] The proposed main residence will include

[16:58] an attached garage and an attached

[17:00] studio ADU, both of which are partially

[17:02] daylighted.

[17:05] The applicant has proposed two um two

[17:08] detached accessory dwelling units, a

[17:10] pool ADU and a guest ADU, one of which

[17:13] is located southwest of the proposed

[17:14] main residence and adjacent to the

[17:16] proposed auto court, which we see down

[17:19] on this lower portion of the slide. And

[17:22] the other of which is located northwest

[17:24] of the proposed main residence and

[17:26] adjacent to the pool and detached

[17:27] trellis. We have the pool in this dash

[17:30] line right here shows the location of

[17:33] that detached trellis.

[17:35] The applicant has proposed relocation of

[17:37] the existing driveway entrance that the

[17:39] driveway entrance is located on the

[17:41] northmost portion of the front property

[17:42] line that adjoins Fox Hollow Road.

[17:45] Previously, it was down on this lower

[17:46] segment, come up a little bit. And

[17:48] they've done the routing on the driveway

[17:50] in such a way that it's avoiding the

[17:52] existing on-site trees in which is the

[17:54] kind of a cluster of existing foliage

[17:56] right here along the frontage.

[18:01] The applicant proposes a main residence

[18:03] with both one-story and two-story

[18:05] elements and attached covered patio

[18:07] spaces adjoining the front and rear

[18:09] building facades.

[18:11] We can see that the residence contains

[18:13] medium to high pitched gable roofs

[18:15] connected by a series of breezeways. So,

[18:17] the building's kind of that L-shape. And

[18:20] the structure features a multitude of

[18:21] patios and decks as well as glazing

[18:23] oriented towards the outdoor living

[18:25] spaces.

[18:28] The proposed accessory dwelling units

[18:29] employ employ gable rooflines as well

[18:31] with medium pitches and they align

[18:34] closely with the style of the main home.

[18:36] The proposed guest ADU consists of a

[18:38] kitchen, living space, bedroom, and one

[18:40] and a full bathroom. And the proposed

[18:42] ADU pool consists of a kitchen, living

[18:45] space, bedroom, and two full bathrooms.

[18:48] The proposed main residence includes a

[18:50] mixed exterior color palette and

[18:52] materials palette consisting of

[18:54] weathered wood siding, rubble stone

[18:55] walls, standing seam metal roofs, patina

[18:57] steel doors and windows, metal railings,

[18:59] and metal cladding.

[19:01] You have some samples right there to

[19:04] everybody's left. That's 170 Fox

[19:06] Hollow's palette. So, you can get a

[19:08] little look at what they look like in

[19:10] person.

[19:11] The proposed color palette includes a

[19:13] variety of earth tone colors and shades

[19:15] of brown, mid tone, and sharp grays and

[19:17] black.

[19:18] The detached ADUs and are proposed to

[19:21] consist of a similar exterior material

[19:23] materials palette to the main residence

[19:25] including wood siding, steel doors and

[19:27] windows, stone veneer, and standing seam

[19:29] metal roofing. The proposed ADUs are in

[19:31] the same color palette as the main

[19:32] as well.

[19:35] On September 15th of last year, this

[19:37] board did see this for conceptual design

[19:40] review. At that time, you commended the

[19:42] applicant for their simple forms as well

[19:46] as their materials palette which you all

[19:48] believed was in strong alignment with

[19:50] the residential design guidelines.

[19:52] However, there were a couple matters

[19:54] that you wanted to see back here at the

[19:55] formal design review phase and which

[19:57] will be going over today. Um, the first

[19:59] request uh was that they contact

[20:02] surrounding neighbors and get some

[20:03] additional input um, and that any

[20:06] neighbor in output was integrated or

[20:10] considered in modifications to the

[20:12] design. Um, and the other request of

[20:15] that nature was that the story poles

[20:17] were erected for you as a board's

[20:19] review. Story poles were erected.

[20:21] Hopefully, everybody got a chance to go

[20:22] and see that. And I'll defer to the

[20:25] project team to give you guys a little

[20:26] bit more of an overview of what that

[20:28] neighborhood outreach looks like from

[20:29] their perspective. Um, from more plan

[20:32] based side, um, you also requested that

[20:35] they consider reducing the potential

[20:37] site grading by minimizing expansive lot

[20:39] areas and retaining more of the existing

[20:41] site topography as well as reducing the

[20:44] size of the proposed two-story tall

[20:46] window elements at the front and rear of

[20:48] the residence to break down light

[20:50] emission a little bit more.

[20:52] On this slide, we can see, um, the

[20:54] difference between what was proposed at

[20:56] conceptual design review and what's

[20:58] being proposed at formal design review

[21:00] relative to those two-story window

[21:02] elements. Um, the applicant has reduced

[21:04] the width of the two-story tall windows

[21:06] on the south wall from 18 ft wide to 8

[21:08] ft 4 in

[21:10] and on the north wall it's gone from 9

[21:12] ft 9 in original proposed to 7 ft

[21:15] 3 in wide.

[21:17] Let me know if you need a second longer

[21:18] to look at this, but it's also

[21:20] in the plans.

[21:22] As it pertains to the grading comments,

[21:28] we did receive a comprehensive grading

[21:29] plan in conjunction with the formal

[21:32] design review providing a little bit

[21:34] more detail on the actual conditions

[21:36] that are being proposed

[21:38] on the site. The applicant has pointed

[21:41] out that a large portion of the grading

[21:44] for expansive flat areas actually

[21:47] utilized existing flat portions of the

[21:49] property. So areas such as the lawn

[21:52] which were originally a bit of a concern

[21:54] from the board's perspective when you

[21:55] look at the grading plan, you can see

[21:56] that the grades are relatively

[21:59] identical, that there's been very little

[22:01] change in the topography and that it's

[22:03] relatively like for like for what they

[22:05] have out on site. They're kind of

[22:06] imploring those existing footprints to

[22:09] take advantage of that for those

[22:10] flattened areas of topography.

[22:13] In addition, they've postulated the

[22:16] house really close

[22:18] to the existing development footprints

[22:20] which helps minimize

[22:22] grading further relative site conditions

[22:25] and the majority of the site grading

[22:28] is in fact concentrated around the new

[22:30] driveway cuts and areas within and

[22:32] directly adjacent to the proposed site

[22:34] improvements.

[22:36] As it pertains to the comments, we

[22:40] ask that you analyze in a little bit of

[22:42] detail to see if they've sufficiently

[22:43] addressed your concerns relative to the

[22:46] site glazing as well as the site

[22:48] grading. As a quick reminder, they are

[22:50] seeking a grading exception for this,

[22:52] but that will be heard with the planning

[22:53] commission to determine if all findings

[22:56] necessary for granting of a grading

[22:57] exception have been met.

[23:00] Members of the project team are required

[23:03] um um

[23:04] are are here in person if you have any

[23:06] outstanding questions. I know we have a

[23:08] member of the architectural team um and

[23:10] we also have the project civil engineer

[23:11] in person. Um so they should be able to

[23:14] provide guidance on both the grading

[23:16] side as well as the architectural side

[23:18] angle. Um but we're happy to answer any

[23:20] questions from staff.

[23:23] Great. Thank you.

[23:25] Does anyone on the board have questions

[23:27] of the building?

[23:30] This is a question about

[23:32] Yes.

[23:37] Mhm.

[23:38] >> [clears throat]

[23:49] » Mhm.

[24:02] Yeah, I can show you the proximity on

[24:04] the actual um grading plans if that

[24:06] would be helpful and then um I think as

[24:09] it pertains to questions regarding their

[24:12] relocation, um I'd be happy to have the

[24:15] civil engineer engage on that uh during

[24:18] the applicant's presentation, but let me

[24:20] pull up the site plans for you to get a

[24:22] good look at where we're getting

[24:23] relocated here.

[24:29] Thanks for your patience. This is

[24:31] loading at its very own pace.

[25:00] » Um, so here we can see

[25:03] relatively

[25:04] uh

[25:05] close alignment between

[25:08] the existing driveway, which you see

[25:10] kind of grayed out down here. They kind

[25:12] of hit points of intersection through

[25:14] this main segment. Um, but we have the

[25:17] new driveway entrance cut over here. And

[25:20] if we um follow along, see that we're uh

[25:24] within the canopy of some of these

[25:26] existing significant trees, in which uh

[25:28] tree protection measures are typically

[25:30] required in conjunction with the um

[25:33] building permit submittals. So, we'll

[25:35] have some tree protection parameters uh

[25:37] integrated at that time. Um,

[25:40] but a lot of their routing is um

[25:43] trying to accommodate cuts around a

[25:45] relatively vegetated part of the

[25:47] property. And uh I think that their

[25:49] civil engineering team will be able to

[25:51] provide us with some guidance as to why

[25:53] they're doing routing in greater detail.

[25:58] What it

[25:59] seems to me from just looking at it that

[26:02] Oh, it seems to me that just looking at

[26:05] it that it was

[26:08] instead of avoiding all these trees, it

[26:10] was pretty much running up right up

[26:12] against them.

[26:14] Uh where the current driveway

[26:16] is, it was down there.

[26:18] Mhm.

[26:19] It's just

[26:20] strange.

[26:22] And I'm I'm thinking you also the main

[26:24] driveway and

[26:25] um one thing sides of the site wall also

[26:28] be on

[26:30] Yeah, so we had um variable site wall

[26:33] heights between 4 and 6 ft shown on the

[26:35] elevation drawings. So, let me pull that

[26:38] up for us real quick to look at.

[26:50] Yes, they're having a um

[26:52] variable height along the length of

[26:54] those landscaping walls. The retaining

[26:56] walls are defined on the grading plans

[26:58] with the landscape walls are between 4

[27:00] and 6 ft variably on the property, but

[27:03] we can most definitely define the exact

[27:05] height at that location if that is

[27:06] prudent.

[27:12] Relative to the code implications, kind

[27:15] of 4 to 6 ft height has relatively

[27:17] identical setback requirements and

[27:20] things of that nature um

[27:22] for our fencing and gate section. So,

[27:25] that shouldn't impact impact site

[27:27] compliance when it ranges between 4 and

[27:29] 6 ft.

[27:31] And would [clears throat] it would it

[27:32] assist the neighbors in trying to block

[27:34] out the car lights as they go around? I

[27:36] don't know exactly where the height

[27:37] variances are, but Mhm. Yeah, you could

[27:40] request that they specify it to that

[27:42] maximum 6 ft and then we'll just do the

[27:45] double check for compliance on that as

[27:47] well. Mhm. Would you mind going back to

[27:49] the windows show before and after

[27:53] normal?

[28:09] Here's the comparison point between what

[28:12] was proposed at the time of CDR and

[28:13] what's being proposed at the time of

[28:15] FDR. Um the

[28:18] windows that were kind of expressly

[28:19] pointed out by the board during CDR and

[28:21] FDR were this window right here and this

[28:24] window right here.

[28:25] These are corresponding reductions.

[28:39] Got it.

[28:45] I'm not seeing a difference on

[28:47] north elevation. Oh,

[28:49] am I missing it? Just the width of the

[28:51] window?

[28:53] The tall window is narrow.

[28:54] >> Dimension change is um

[28:57] a little harder to see relative to the

[28:59] scale. It's 9.9 to 7.3 difference. So,

[29:03] we have a couple feet of difference

[29:05] there, but

[29:05] >> see that one.

[29:07] I said it was a window.

[29:07] >> On elevation might not scale as easily

[29:11] visually. Got it.

[29:13] >> [clears throat]

[29:15] >> You're missing windows on the

[29:17] top and bottom on the south.

[29:19] Yes, on the south.

[29:22] And you have another one?

[29:24] Okay. Any other questions?

[29:26] I have a couple.

[29:28] I'm [clears throat] going back to the

[29:29] vegetation. Do we have objective

[29:30] standards around vegetation management

[29:32] and blocking

[29:34] light from one property to another?

[29:36] We have a component of the residential

[29:38] design guidelines that speaks to

[29:40] landscaping design. It generally

[29:43] discourages creating things such as like

[29:46] dense green walls along property lines

[29:48] given that it looks less natural, but

[29:51] Stacy can correct me if I'm wrong that

[29:53] typically

[29:55] screening via landscaping is a secondary

[29:57] effort for light emissions in the event

[29:59] that, you know,

[30:01] conditions change.

[30:02] Plants aren't permanent. Um

[30:05] so, they're they're not typically

[30:08] primary approach to reduce light

[30:10] emissions given that they are

[30:13] plants to use and can change through

[30:14] time.

[30:15] And that logically makes sense.

[30:18] And then

[30:20] do do we have a

[30:22] Since we brought up grading, um how much

[30:24] did they reduce the grading amount on

[30:26] the previous iteration of plans?

[30:29] Um

[30:30] off the top of my head, I don't recall

[30:31] if we had a comprehensive grading plan

[30:33] in conjunction with CDR because it's not

[30:36] a requirement. Um at the time of CDR,

[30:39] they had indicated to staff verbally

[30:41] that they were going to likely be

[30:43] pursuing a grading exception,

[30:45] um which was kind of our basis for that,

[30:47] but uh correct me if I'm wrong, project

[30:49] team, I don't believe that we had your

[30:51] comprehensive grading plan at that time.

[30:56] And one more question. Can you remind me

[30:57] on what the findings for a grading

[30:59] exception are?

[31:00] Yeah, I can pull up this for us.

[31:02] >> Or you can just give me the section

[31:03] number so I can look it up. Well,

[31:05] actually, I guess everybody would

[31:06] benefit.

[31:08] It's 151

[31:11] 22,

[31:12] I believe. Let me double-check that real

[31:14] quick.

[31:21] Yes, 151 22. Let me grab you the

[31:23] subsection.

[32:04] Here's the three findings associated

[32:06] with the grading exception.

[32:09] So, for your review, if you want to

[32:10] review that separately, it'll be 151 22,

[32:14] um subsection B6.

[32:17] Thank you.

[32:23] It's one other question. When they were

[32:24] doing the calculation of um

[32:27] hardscape, it included 1,300

[32:30] or of overall coverage, it included

[32:32] 1,300 ft of turf, and the turf is being

[32:35] removed, and that helps to reduce the

[32:37] number, and it seemed kind of like that.

[32:42] It's counted as hardscape as as overall

[32:44] coverage, I should say. Sorry. Yeah,

[32:45] artificial turf contributes towards our

[32:48] town's definition of paved area and

[32:49] surface coverage. If it's natural grass,

[32:52] it won't contribute towards that

[32:53] definition. Um only if it's artificial

[32:55] turf.

[32:58] Thank you.

[33:02] Any other questions?

[33:05] Um

[33:07] as it pertains to the desk item,

[33:08] commenting on uh

[33:10] vehicle headlights, could you identify

[33:12] on the plan roughly where

[33:15] you believe that area is to be? Yeah.

[33:19] Is this the parking area at the top of

[33:21] the up of the drive?

[33:34] Good question.

[33:48] My presumption, um based on the fact

[33:50] that they're speaking about retaining

[33:52] the existing tree in conjunction, would

[33:54] be this particular parking locality

[33:57] right here uh as this is an existing

[33:59] tree directly adjacent to those proposed

[34:01] parking spaces, and

[34:03] um

[34:04] so I believe that these are probably the

[34:05] three subject parking locations that

[34:07] they're looking at, but um likely these

[34:10] two are the most pressing given that

[34:11] they identified retention of that

[34:13] existing tree directly adjacent to the

[34:15] area.

[34:19] See it right here. These are the site

[34:21] landscaping walls.

[34:28] And can we see where the six oaks that

[34:30] are being removed are

[34:36] So, you can see um

[34:38] an assortment of the trees proposed for

[34:40] removal

[34:42] um marked in red X's throughout the

[34:45] site. So, we have

[34:47] um

[34:48] four tree removals right here.

[34:51] Um Japanese persimmon up here, and then

[34:54] we have a dish tree well up here um

[34:57] adjacent to the proposed pool. And then,

[35:00] thank you.

[35:03] Um but that's uh Oh, sorry. And here we

[35:06] are inside these uh proposed footprint

[35:08] of the main residence.

[35:11] And then, if we could go back one more

[35:13] time to the new driveway

[35:15] where the story poles are set up, it

[35:18] looks like it would go directly into

[35:20] those two beautiful trees that are

[35:21] there.

[35:22] Is that not the case? Because it sure

[35:25] looks like, unless it's going to take a

[35:27] drastic turn,

[35:30] I mean, maybe we can get to that with

[35:31] the guys. Thanks.

[35:33] >> [clears throat]

[35:45] » So, you can see here, this is one of the

[35:48] larger trees. There's this one here.

[35:49] Those are the probably two closest

[35:51] trees.

[35:53] And then, there's a couple that are over

[35:54] in this area.

[35:56] Um and so, they will have to have an

[35:58] arborist uh

[36:00] on site for the grading when they're

[36:02] under the drip line of the trees.

[36:04] Uh so, they ensure

[36:06] roots are hand cut when they're needed

[36:08] to be cut and certain uh

[36:11] certain requirements like that need to

[36:13] be followed. Um and then, yes, the

[36:15] applicant's team can probably best speak

[36:16] to

[36:17] the

[36:18] >> [clears throat]

[36:18] >> how they plan to protect those trees.

[36:22] And is there any potential when they're

[36:23] looking at running the new the that they

[36:25] could make it closer to the old one to

[36:27] avoid some of the soil removal and

[36:31] I mean something that they yes talked to

[36:33] the applicant about the decision they

[36:35] were probably trying to get a little bit

[36:36] further away from

[36:38] the

[36:39] property on this side um but the

[36:41] applicant can best speak to that.

[36:48] There's I mean there's another cluster

[36:49] here.

[36:51] Um

[36:53] so you'll see all these kind of

[36:55] you know these kind of outlines are

[36:58] where like the the rough kind of drip

[37:00] line is showing right? So they're kind

[37:02] of overlapping.

[37:04] From the

[37:05] >> Looks like the canopy of the first one

[37:06] would definitely be harmed by whatever's

[37:08] going to go on when they're trying to

[37:09] dig there.

[37:10] >> [clears throat]

[37:13] » Maybe we can save these questions for

[37:15] the applicant. Good idea.

[37:18] direct response

[37:19] Otherwise we're all assuming. Um

[37:23] Yeah, no no specific questions for me.

[37:26] Um if that's it.

[37:29] That was the staff presentation.

[37:31] Um

[37:35] So at this point we'd like to invite the

[37:36] applicant uh to make a presentation if

[37:38] you wish.

[37:42] Good afternoon. Ken Winstead. Oh this is

[37:45] tough.

[37:49] Uh I'm the architect for 170 Fox Hollow.

[37:52] Um

[37:54] I'll take your your your comments in

[37:57] order that I heard them. The first one

[37:58] is we did reach out to the neighbors.

[38:01] Sent them the plans. We only heard from

[38:03] the neighbors to the south.

[38:05] Um and their concerns were to reduce the

[38:07] size of that window facing south. So

[38:09] when you were looking at those

[38:10] elevations, the north window was kind of

[38:12] a a result proportionally for us for

[38:15] reducing the southern window. So the

[38:18] southern window did get reduced by half.

[38:21] And I believe that the neighbors are

[38:23] okay with that reduction.

[38:25] Um

[38:26] these neighbors also requested that we

[38:28] add some kind of screening for the

[38:29] headlights.

[38:31] And we are completely open to whatever

[38:33] the board recommends. We're looking at

[38:35] the the standards that are or the

[38:37] residential guidelines.

[38:39] Without the dense screening and and site

[38:41] walls um within the setback, we thought

[38:43] we would leave it to the owners to work

[38:45] it out between themselves.

[38:47] Um but looking for guidance from you on

[38:49] that.

[38:50] Um

[38:51] as far as the driveway goes,

[38:53] our our clients would the the the

[38:56] current gate is very close to the

[38:58] southern neighbor

[38:59] and it's a straight shot up to the

[39:01] driveway. And this is more just kind of

[39:03] this idea of a sinuous driveway going up

[39:05] to the arrival.

[39:07] Um our our clients love those oak trees,

[39:10] so they do not want to disturb them. And

[39:12] I think you're bringing up great points.

[39:13] They're not going to proceed with this

[39:15] if the arborist

[39:16] um can't support what we're doing.

[39:18] Um so this is really more of an

[39:20] aesthetic um driveway move so that

[39:22] they're not, you know, just straight up

[39:24] to the to the entry right when you're uh

[39:27] entering the gate.

[39:29] Um

[39:31] I reviewed the story poles uh

[39:34] I guess a couple weeks ago. We haven't

[39:35] heard any response from neighbors based

[39:37] on those story poles.

[39:39] And the I think the bigger comment about

[39:41] grading

[39:43] is we still have to go to planning

[39:45] commission. The the way I think of the

[39:47] grading on this property is is all of

[39:49] the natural topography is still the

[39:51] natural topography.

[39:53] Um the oak woodland to the east of the

[39:55] house is is the one that we really want

[39:58] to preserve and keep natural.

[40:00] We're we're building this house on the

[40:02] existing flat part of the site. We've

[40:04] moved the main part of the house a bit

[40:06] east and therefore we've kind of have

[40:09] the existing house as a pit because it's

[40:11] got a basement and we're trying to bring

[40:13] the grade up to the natural lawn that

[40:15] used to be there before this current

[40:17] house was built.

[40:18] So, I'd say the lion's share of the

[40:20] grading is because we're filling in that

[40:21] lawn. It's not like we're reshaping the

[40:23] topography. So,

[40:25] in the spirit of of of the the grading

[40:27] guidelines, I would think we're adhering

[40:29] to that because we're not changing the

[40:31] natural topography of the site.

[40:34] So, happy to answer questions.

[40:36] Thanks.

[40:38] Uh just have questions with the app.

[40:41] So, looking at that grading table, there

[40:42] was about 2,400 cubic yards labeled the

[40:45] basement. You're You're saying that

[40:47] that's for the sides of the basement and

[40:49] not to cut

[40:51] or expand the basement? Uh I you know,

[40:53] Jim Toby from Liam Brazeel is here to

[40:55] talk about all of the specifics on what

[40:57] It's It's kind of spread throughout the

[40:59] site, but to fill in that lawn area is

[41:03] where the lion's share of this grading

[41:05] is going. Kind of right where the You

[41:06] see where the existing house is dotted?

[41:09] That's a lot of that is being lifted up.

[41:13] So, it's not like we're reshaping the topography of the surrounding areas.

[41:18] Kind of creating this level courtyard.

[41:25] Given how much the house is moving east

[41:28] to a new structure, it's east. That's

[41:31] today there's a substantial dip for the

[41:34] drive that goes down.

[41:36] Um

[41:38] that's

[41:39] just a

[41:41] perception is there's a fair amount of

[41:43] fill that needs to go in there to

[41:45] Yeah, I guess my my my not my argument,

[41:48] but I I feel like in terms of altering

[41:51] the natural land forms, it's all of this

[41:53] is really happening in the level part of

[41:55] the site. That existing driveway

[41:57] wraps around the front of the house more

[41:59] or less where we're putting the new

[42:00] house.

[42:02] Right.

[42:06] So, did is are you interpreting then

[42:08] where that current drive dips down? Is

[42:10] that the new grade that

[42:12] >> Oh, sorry. You're talking about to go in

[42:13] the garage that

[42:14] >> That where where the curve

[42:15] >> Yeah, that is new. That is a new uh way

[42:18] for us to get to a below grade garage.

[42:20] So, there is some grading going on there

[42:22] for sure.

[42:23] So,

[42:24] yeah, on the absolute right there is a

[42:25] slope.

[42:27] Maybe Jim wants to sort of summarize

[42:30] like all of what's All the soil that's

[42:32] moving around. Sure. Clarifying question

[42:34] for Sage. Does the cut for basements

[42:37] count towards a grading total for a

[42:40] site?

[42:41] No, what you'll see is on page 12 of

[42:44] this staff report, there is a grading

[42:46] table and the areas in bold are what

[42:49] counts towards the grading exception.

[42:51] >> Thank you. Thank you for recalibrating

[42:53] what I should be concerned with.

[42:55] Yeah, so to give you guys a little

[42:56] summary here. Yes, there is a

[42:57] significant amount of grading that's

[42:59] being taken care of with the basement.

[43:01] Um all of that is for the most part

[43:03] being hauled away. Um the grading on

[43:05] site we're getting very close to

[43:07] balancing and that's typically what

[43:08] Woodside wants to see. Um we are over

[43:11] the 1,500 cubic yards, but that's mainly

[43:13] because we're doing cut plus fill.

[43:15] And um right now we're proposing about

[43:18] 1,360 yards of cut and about 1,200 of

[43:21] fill.

[43:22] So, we are getting close to to balancing

[43:24] on the site, but because of the

[43:25] topography and trying to keep the

[43:27] natural topography and the trees and

[43:29] everything, we're not going to we're we have a small amount of about,

[43:32] you know, 150, 160 yards that we're not

[43:35] anticipating balancing the site grading,

[43:38] which is the typical way Woodside wants

[43:39] to see it. Um but you could see here by

[43:42] looking at some of the dirt designs that

[43:44] we have, specifically even the driveway

[43:47] that's going down to the lower garage,

[43:48] that is literally a vertical wall that's

[43:50] not going to be the the little section

[43:52] that goes down to the lower section is

[43:54] being cut, but we're not proposing to do

[43:55] any grading around it. In other words,

[43:57] we're not grading down.

[43:59] It's literally just a way to get down

[44:00] below. It's not going to be filling or changing the contours around that

[44:04] area. So, as you're driving in and

[44:07] what's going on in front of the house is

[44:08] virtually the same as what's there now.

[44:10] We are doing some grading in the back

[44:11] with the back patio, but for the most

[44:13] part, everything in the front is kind of

[44:15] staying exactly the same as what we have

[44:17] right now.

[44:20] That's helpful.

[44:24] Sorry, what?

[44:26] It's really just the new cut for the

[44:27] driveway. Yeah, so the new driveway is

[44:29] going to be cutting down. You have to

[44:30] put a section in there of, you know, to

[44:33] get base rock down there and the new

[44:34] asphalt or whatever final material we

[44:37] end up putting on there. That takes a

[44:39] good section out of, you know, what we

[44:41] have to grade for to get this to work.

[44:43] So, that gets counted as that grading

[44:45] number even though the final grade is

[44:47] kind of the same as what it was before.

[44:49] We have to provide, you know, a section

[44:52] for that driveway to be at fire trucks

[44:53] and cars and delivery vehicles and

[44:55] everything up there.

[45:00] Okay.

[45:04] Any other questions for uh Mr. or the

[45:06] applicant?

[45:09] Okay. No.

[45:13] One question.

[45:15] The concern about

[45:17] the light on children from driving in

[45:20] and out,

[45:21] is that a existing concern with the way

[45:24] the property is currently?

[45:27] Or with the new development, is it would

[45:29] it become worse for the part Are you

[45:32] talking about the headlight issue?

[45:33] >> issue, is That is a new issue because

[45:35] the cars currently don't park directly

[45:38] at the property. The new arrangement of

[45:40] parking spaces is kind of directed

[45:43] specifically at a particular room that

[45:45] the neighbors have brought up. So, we're

[45:47] trying to shield that. It's not like we

[45:48] don't want to shield it. It's just

[45:50] looking for guidance. Can we hedge it?

[45:51] Can we put a wall?

[45:54] The finished grade of that area will be

[45:55] a basically identical

[45:57] >> identical.

[45:57] >> It is identical.

[45:58] >> Yeah. Oh, in theory today if a car were

[46:00] turning around on

[46:01] >> It would still happen the same

[46:03] condition. As Julian as Julian is

[46:05] showing you right here, you can see

[46:06] where the car comes in. We're

[46:08] maintaining the tree right there, but

[46:09] we're allowing parking on either side of

[46:11] it. That were if wall Yeah, cars are

[46:13] parking directly towards the neighbor

[46:15] right there. And so that's where we're

[46:16] posing a wall.

[46:23] And one last one, on the lighting plan,

[46:25] when looking at the H2 fixture, which

[46:27] looks to be a tree uplight potentially,

[46:29] and I can't differentiate the symbols on

[46:32] the plan. Are there a lot of them?

[46:37] No uplights. Uh they're

[46:39] It's your H2.

[46:42] H L D Well,

[46:45] Ah.

[46:47] Oh, it's just the way it's designed.

[46:49] Well, it's a tree light, basically,

[46:51] right?

[46:54] Yeah, in the actual lighting legend,

[46:56] they've specified that they're going to

[46:58] be mounted directly downlit, um and in

[47:02] earlier phases, I believe we actually

[47:05] discussed

[47:05] >> trellises and things like that, not to

[47:07] go up to trees.

[47:15] We should have flipped that picture

[47:16] over.

[47:25] Correct me if I'm wrong, but the

[47:26] residential guidelines specify no

[47:29] uplighting. Yeah, so we'd definitely

[47:30] make sure there's no uplighting,

[47:33] uh

[47:34] no uplighting, and then no uh lights in

[47:36] trees that are downlit. And then um with

[47:39] the up and seeing Yeah, so this is a

[47:40] spec sheet, and it's showing that it's

[47:42] on an angle, but those are uh these are

[47:46] intended for the trellis. So, it's

[47:47] pretty common that you have those in the

[47:49] trellis that can maneuver a little bit,

[47:51] but it's the specification cut sheet

[47:54] that kind of depicts it like this.

[47:57] Install the point down.

[47:59] Thank you.

[48:01] Good. Any other questions?

[48:04] Done.

[48:07] Okay.

[48:09] Um thank you. Thank you.

[48:11] Um

[48:13] So, with that, open up

[48:15] public hearing.

[48:17] Does anyone in the room or anyone online

[48:18] who wishes to make a comment on this

[48:20] project?

[48:21] As a reminder for those online, please

[48:23] use the raise hand feature if you'd like

[48:24] to make a comment.

[48:30] I see no one in the room. And there are

[48:32] no raised hands.

[48:34] Well, that close public comment um and

[48:36] open up to board deliberation.

[48:41] Who'd like to kick us off?

[48:45] Me? All right.

[48:48] Um

[48:50] Yeah, I mean, no significant changes uh

[48:52] design-wise from the material

[48:54] perspective or massing of that since the

[48:56] uh

[48:57] conceptual design review. Um with

[48:59] regards to feedback provided at CDR with

[49:02] regards to window sizes, I think it's um

[49:05] adequate, the change that's been made.

[49:07] Um I think any any reduction in that

[49:10] substantial glazing is an improvement.

[49:12] Um

[49:14] I think the

[49:17] very, very specific details and plan for

[49:20] grading for planning commission would be

[49:22] useful

[49:23] um to help um

[49:25] arrive at a conclusion and a finding. Um

[49:30] I think the other thing as it pertains

[49:32] to the desk item that came in about tree

[49:34] protection, I have just uh personal

[49:36] note, I think tree protection as

[49:39] specified for my own project was

[49:40] inadequate in scale and resulted in the

[49:42] loss of a

[49:44] coastal oak that was 150 years old. So,

[49:47] I echo the neighbor who's saying,

[49:49] "Please, please, please make sure your

[49:51] tree protection is above and beyond what

[49:53] the what is required.

[49:55] Um

[49:56] Other than that, no, I think um I think

[49:58] all my concerns from CDR have been met.

[50:03] Could we potentially put some sort of a

[50:04] tree grove in near to help the neighbor

[50:07] with the light and get that in the

[50:09] record, so to speak?

[50:14] Well, I mean, if that can be solved with

[50:15] a solid wall, I think

[50:19] I'm not sure.

[50:21] Okay. I thought I heard them say that

[50:23] they wanted to propose a wall.

[50:28] I I do find that um especially since

[50:31] you're not going to have much

[50:32] construction on the other 80 new lot

[50:34] property.

[50:35] That side of the property that

[50:37] you guys were able to work with the

[50:39] neighbors down instead of waiting till

[50:41] the thing

[50:42] um that gets stated. So, certainly, you

[50:44] know, you could pick whatever tree that

[50:46] you like, but you know, a few oaks and

[50:49] screen quite a bit, and if they were

[50:51] planted now, and then later,

[50:53] by the time you finish, they might not

[50:55] be able to see that much of the project.

[50:58] So, um so, at least along that left of

[51:01] the neighbor's fence,

[51:08] No questions or concerns for me. Okay.

[51:13] Just to reiterate

[51:15] that I feel um

[51:16] Oh, just to reiterate, I I I feel

[51:18] concerned about the trees on the new

[51:21] driveway. Um and that if the planning

[51:24] commission can take a very close look at

[51:26] that, because it it did seem like you

[51:29] had some drainage coming down with

[51:30] rocks. So, are you going to have to

[51:32] rework that to work the driveway in? I'm

[51:35] just not sure how that's all going to

[51:37] come together. Um

[51:40] that um just to have planning take an

[51:43] extra close look at protecting those

[51:45] trees.

[51:46] What specifically would planning

[51:48] commission

[51:50] take into consideration there

[51:52] with that feedback? We really rely on

[51:54] the arborist reports.

[51:56] Um they are the ones who would provide

[51:58] recommendations

[51:59] and those are what should be followed.

[52:08] So, this

[52:09] I'm confused.

[52:11] You have a desk on them saying that

[52:12] their auto court has a wall proposed,

[52:15] but the height wasn't specified. So, is

[52:17] there a wall or is there not a wall?

[52:19] There is a wall currently proposed. Um

[52:21] they've shown that their landscaping

[52:23] walls uh for their elevation that they

[52:26] provided for landscaping walls are

[52:28] ranging in elevation between 4 and 6 ft

[52:31] throughout the property. Um and they've

[52:33] specified the actual elevations of their

[52:38] retaining walls on property. Um however,

[52:41] they've put 4 to 6 ft um on the actual

[52:46] elevation drawing for those landscaping

[52:47] walls, which from a code implication is

[52:49] looked at kind of identically, but if

[52:51] you want us to call out point-on-point

[52:54] what that elevation is for that

[52:55] landscaping wall, even though

[52:57] um the code implications are the same, I

[53:00] just they probably just didn't want to

[53:01] congest plans if I presume, but um

[53:06] uh if you want like a specification of

[53:08] that exact height and location.

[53:10] And then we can

[53:12] uh if the board like can add a condition

[53:14] that just requires it to be 6 ft tall.

[53:17] That's good.

[53:22] Um yeah, 6 ft seems excessive for

[53:26] protecting against car headlights.

[53:27] >> It could be it could be lower. I guess

[53:29] you know, you could say 6 ft is the 6 ft

[53:31] is the maximum it could be by code.

[53:34] Okay.

[53:36] I think a 4 ft wall is fine.

[53:40] I'm going to be prescriptive. It looked

[53:41] like they were tapered. Mhm. Okay.

[53:46] All right. Uh Sage, have you uh So,

[53:49] yeah, so this is a formal design review.

[53:52] Um and so this is similar to the last

[53:54] item in which

[53:55] um

[53:56] this one though will be going to the

[53:57] planning commission for final action.

[53:59] So, there's a number of recommended

[54:01] conditions of approval.

[54:02] Um

[54:03] I haven't heard anything that would

[54:05] necessarily require a change in that uh

[54:07] with the last comments here

[54:10] noting that the wall between 4 and 6 ft

[54:12] should be sufficient, which is what

[54:13] they're noting on their plans. So, if

[54:16] the board is finds that no further

[54:18] changes are necessary, um there can be a

[54:22] motion to uh recommend approval of the

[54:24] project subject to the conditions of

[54:26] approval in the staff report.

[54:29] Just

[54:30] uh

[54:31] I'd like to hear an opinion from the

[54:33] board with regard to the changes in the

[54:34] window. That was the most significant

[54:36] change, so do you feel it's been

[54:38] satisfied, too?

[54:40] Yep. Yes, absolutely. Yeah.

[54:44] Okay.

[54:48] It was a cautious nod. So,

[54:50] >> [laughter]

[54:50] >> It's the cautious guy. The architect's

[54:52] smiling. Um

[54:54] good. So, um with that summary, [snorts]

[54:58] uh a motion to approve

[55:01] um

[55:02] satisfying all the previous

[55:04] >> [snorts]

[55:05] >> uh previously given feedback and that

[55:08] reinforcing points about the

[55:11] uh wall for

[55:12] protection against headlights car

[55:14] headlights in that parking area

[55:15] specifically.

[55:16] Um

[55:19] and then I guess next step is Arbor's

[55:21] report and then to the planning

[55:22] commission.

[55:24] Good. Sounds good.

[55:25] >> So, that's the motion.

[55:27] You make it.

[55:27] >> I guess I did.

[55:28] >> I second it.

[55:30] Chair Lindsey? Yes. Vice Chair Kamrar?

[55:33] Yes. Member DelGavio? Yes. Member

[55:35] Middleman? Yes. Member Sullivan? Yes.

[55:39] Thank you.

[55:51] Oh, okay.

[55:58] So, moving on to this is item four and

[56:02] member D'Amelio is recused. Are you

[56:05] going to return for

[56:09] No, it's okay. Early early information.

[56:15] » [laughter]

[56:17] » All right.

[56:18] Good night.

[56:19] >> Thank you, Pat.

[56:24] » [laughter]

[56:25] >> Uh so, item four, 115 Romero Road. Okay,

[56:29] this is the last time you have to hear

[56:30] me talk tonight.

[56:30] >> Gillian's up again.

[56:32] >> [laughter]

[56:33] >> All right. Um we're now going to review

[56:35] a quick conceptual design review

[56:37] application for proposal to partially

[56:39] demolish an existing residence and

[56:41] demolish an existing pool and to

[56:43] construct an addition to the

[56:45] single-family home including new

[56:47] trellises on the rear side, uh

[56:49] construction of two new accessory

[56:50] structures, relocation of a swimming

[56:53] pool and associated site improvements on

[56:55] a property located at 115 Romero Road.

[56:59] Um as of the start of this meeting,

[57:01] there are no desk items associated with

[57:03] this agenda item and we will determine

[57:05] if the project is exempt from or subject

[57:07] to CEQA during the formal design review

[57:09] phase of this project.

[57:12] Um [clears throat] the subject property

[57:13] is .93 acres and it's located on the

[57:16] corner of um Romero Road and Cañada

[57:19] Road. The site is currently developed as

[57:21] we can see here on the right side with a

[57:24] single-family residence, a pool, um a

[57:27] guest house, a driveway, sheds, and

[57:29] associated site improvements. The

[57:31] existing residence is located uh at the

[57:34] approximate center of the property with

[57:35] the existing pool site in northeast of

[57:37] the main residence.

[57:39] The site is minimally sloped with

[57:40] pockets of 35% slopes along the north

[57:43] side property line and throughout the

[57:45] southern half of the property.

[57:47] The site contains numerous significant

[57:49] trees on the peripheries of the

[57:50] property.

[57:52] The applicant has proposed a partial

[57:54] demolition, which we can see here

[57:57] little difficult to see on here, but

[57:58] it's x'd out elements

[58:01] on the areas adjacent to the main

[58:03] residence.

[58:05] They're pretty much getting a

[58:06] like-for-like rebuild right over them

[58:08] with a small addition,

[58:10] but

[58:11] this will continue to take place at the

[58:13] relative center of the property adjacent

[58:15] to that main home. And then in addition

[58:18] to those main residence additions, we

[58:21] have two new accessory structures, this

[58:25] new gym, which you see on the top of the

[58:26] plan set, as well as a new office

[58:29] structure, which we are seeing down

[58:31] closer to the bottom. The new swimming

[58:33] pool is in a close overlay net with the

[58:36] old swimming pool, and then it's a

[58:38] little bit hidden, but their new spa is

[58:40] right up here. And then they are all

[58:42] proposing relocation of an existing

[58:45] generator that exists on site.

[58:47] That's proposed right here adjacent to

[58:50] this new office space B.

[58:54] Um the project plans include removal of

[58:57] five trees within and directly adjacent

[59:00] to the

[59:01] was work. We can kind of see this

[59:03] cluster up here. Proposed removal as

[59:05] well as those directly adjacent to this

[59:08] new office structure. That's also

[59:10] proposed out. And the proposed project

[59:14] will retain the existing driveway

[59:17] entrance along Romero, and there's no

[59:19] modifications to the driveway proposed

[59:21] at this time.

[59:24] Um

[59:27] quite a few elevations here that we need

[59:29] to look at to see where these proposed

[59:31] uh additions are taking place. So, let

[59:32] me know if you need me to stop at any

[59:34] point. We can look at them in a little

[59:35] bit of greater detail, but I'll just

[59:37] kind of thumb through while we're going.

[59:39] Um the applicant has proposed one-story

[59:41] additions to the main residence along

[59:42] the front and rear building facades. The

[59:45] additions to the main residence are

[59:46] proposed to match the architectural

[59:47] character of the existing home using

[59:50] similar roof lines, colors, and

[59:52] materials, and that will generate

[59:54] minimal impact to the existing main

[59:56] residence's appearance. The home will

[59:58] maintain its existing medium-pitched

[1:00:00] gable roof lines, but will include a new

[1:00:03] trellis, [snorts]

[1:00:04] um which we can see here, uh as well as

[1:00:07] a new small cupola, which we can see

[1:00:10] here on this proposed elevation. It's

[1:00:12] going to bring the height up, but it's

[1:00:13] not going to be a little story.

[1:00:16] Um the proposed main residence um

[1:00:19] will continue to use the existing color

[1:00:21] materials palette, which includes stucco

[1:00:24] walls, clay tiles, uh stained wood

[1:00:26] windows and doors, copper gutters, and

[1:00:28] copper chimney caps. The existing main

[1:00:30] residence uses a color and materials

[1:00:32] palette including shades of white and

[1:00:34] brown.

[1:00:36] We have two new accessory structures, as

[1:00:38] I mentioned, in conjunction with this

[1:00:39] project, both of which employ gable roof

[1:00:41] lines with moderate pitches and uh

[1:00:43] simple understated forms. The proposed

[1:00:45] accessory structure materials include

[1:00:47] stone exterior walls,

[1:00:49] um

[1:00:50] and wood windows and doors, clay roof

[1:00:53] tiles, and copper gutters, very similar

[1:00:55] to the existing main residence with the

[1:00:56] exception of the finishes on um the

[1:00:59] walls, which are meant to distinguish it

[1:01:01] from the existing home.

[1:01:03] Prior to formal design review, the

[1:01:05] applicant shall clearly call out all of

[1:01:07] their selected colors in conjunction

[1:01:09] with the accessory uh dwelling, sorry,

[1:01:11] the accessory structures.

[1:01:14] Um relatively quick one here, but we do

[1:01:16] have the project architect in person. If

[1:01:19] you uh

[1:01:20] would like to inquire with any further

[1:01:21] details, but otherwise happy to provide

[1:01:23] some guidance from staff perspective if

[1:01:25] you have any additional questions.

[1:01:27] Thank you.

[1:01:29] Uh any questions with staff at this

[1:01:31] point? Feel like I just did an

[1:01:33] optometrist exam. Existing to the

[1:01:36] proposed house is mainly that

[1:01:38] the 10 ft addition on top of the move

[1:01:40] and a little bit more uh unchored on the

[1:01:43] side in the front. Yeah, so if you can

[1:01:46] see here we have um they're they're kind

[1:01:49] of sporadically spread throughout the

[1:01:51] house. Um everything in this darker gray

[1:01:55] color shows you an area in which an

[1:01:58] addition is taking place in uh

[1:02:00] conjunction with this proposed scope of

[1:02:02] work. So there's a quite a few of them,

[1:02:04] but they are all relatively small in

[1:02:07] size, so

[1:02:09] minimal visual impact, but um if you

[1:02:11] want to see any specific elevation, see

[1:02:13] kind of this modifications, happy to

[1:02:15] pull them up. You can see like for

[1:02:16] example, this area um it's just getting

[1:02:19] finished with a new wall. It's an

[1:02:20] existing covered patio. Um on the front

[1:02:23] here we have a small covered patio

[1:02:25] addition that we can see um this is

[1:02:27] coming out with a new trellis in the

[1:02:29] back. So all are relatively small in

[1:02:32] footprint. There's just quite a few of

[1:02:33] them.

[1:02:35] Thank you.

[1:02:38] Remind me again why set side setback is

[1:02:41] 21 ft?

[1:02:42] Oh, so that was um just a callout of the

[1:02:46] existing

[1:02:49] 8 ft

[1:02:50] setback right there. Um but the setback

[1:02:53] for structures under 17 ft in this

[1:02:56] particular zoning designation is uh 20.

[1:02:59] ft? Mhm.

[1:03:01] And they

[1:03:03] This is less

[1:03:04] >> kind of on this

[1:03:06] uh right here.

[1:03:10] This is less of a project question, more

[1:03:11] of a process question. What triggered

[1:03:13] this to come in front of us? Yeah, so

[1:03:15] this falls in the boundaries of a town

[1:03:18] designated scenic corridor

[1:03:20] given that it's a long Kinyon Road which

[1:03:23] is a town designated scenic road. So

[1:03:26] projects in excess of a thousand square

[1:03:28] feet cumulatively will go to ASRB in

[1:03:31] this particular scenic corridor's

[1:03:33] designation.

[1:03:38] Okay, any other questions?

[1:03:42] Nope.

[1:03:43] >> [clears throat]

[1:03:44] >> Yep. All right. That concludes uh staff

[1:03:47] presentation and invite the applicant

[1:03:51] make a presentation if you wish. Um I

[1:03:53] wasn't Or just ask answer questions.

[1:03:56] Yeah, if you have any specific questions

[1:03:58] I'd be happy to answer. Okay.

[1:04:01] But I think I think uh

[1:04:03] Jillian kind of laid out kind of the

[1:04:05] scope of work very well and so I have really nothing to add

[1:04:10] other than what she's presented.

[1:04:13] But happy to take any specific

[1:04:15] questions.

[1:04:16] I commend you for putting in the last

[1:04:18] floor tiles. I've never yet one of them

[1:04:20] involved in

[1:04:21] exceptionally well. You know about the

[1:04:23] Kinyon that have been double stewarded

[1:04:25] so we really appreciate that. So one

[1:04:27] question I've always had um

[1:04:30] I could pull it What How do you get up

[1:04:33] there? How do you clean the windows? How

[1:04:35] do you

[1:04:36] >> [laughter]

[1:04:37] >> Just I was I've been wondering cuz I've

[1:04:38] seen two or three lately

[1:04:40] and I'm

[1:04:41] >> You have staff. I I I know it's a design

[1:04:43] element but um

[1:04:45] is it usable for anything?

[1:04:47] Oh well, it's it's designed because the

[1:04:49] house is rather dark in that in that

[1:04:51] area of the house and the architecture

[1:04:53] just kind of needs a

[1:04:55] an exclamation point in it. Yeah. I've

[1:04:58] always wondered what's inside of that.

[1:05:00] Oh. Oh, how do you get up there? Oh, a

[1:05:02] ladder. Ladder so it's really a skylight

[1:05:05] in there.

[1:05:06] Yeah, it's a skylight in a in a Yes, in

[1:05:08] a vertical

[1:05:10] Mhm.

[1:05:13] design element.

[1:05:17] Good.

[1:05:19] Okay.

[1:05:21] Thank you.

[1:05:30] Yeah, so my only observation is well,

[1:05:32] thank you for installing story poles.

[1:05:34] Always immensely helpful in terms of

[1:05:37] appreciating the impact. Um not just for

[1:05:39] us, but of course people driving up and

[1:05:41] down the street. And as it relates to

[1:05:43] that, um one thing I noticed is that the

[1:05:45] office story poles of the roofline of

[1:05:47] the office are visible from the street.

[1:05:50] Um as you drive or walk down Romero.

[1:05:53] Um that's the one area I have some

[1:05:55] reservations about the impact that this

[1:05:58] is going to have

[1:05:59] um on the existing neighbors on that

[1:06:01] street as they uh

[1:06:03] progress up and down. Um

[1:06:06] I think

[1:06:07] I yes, the structure is allowed to go

[1:06:09] where it is, but I think anything that

[1:06:11] could be done with regard to fencing or

[1:06:14] plants uh that would might further

[1:06:15] screen that it would be useful. Um I'm

[1:06:18] not suggesting we revisit placement of

[1:06:20] that. Um the one thing I couldn't

[1:06:23] appreciate on site is given the

[1:06:25] elevation of the office, which looks to

[1:06:27] be about 4 ft above the rest of the

[1:06:29] grade, how Wait, I couldn't see from the

[1:06:32] renderings quite how that was going to

[1:06:33] be resolved.

[1:06:35] Um I don't know if Jillian has a good

[1:06:37] illustration to help me understand that.

[1:06:41] I'm not really sure I'm following your

[1:06:43] question. So the the office structure,

[1:06:46] the new office structure sits about 4 ft

[1:06:48] above the rest The grade there is about

[1:06:50] 4 ft above the rest of the grade.

[1:06:52] Yes. [clears throat] I just I don't know

[1:06:54] if you were planning on changing that in

[1:06:57] any way or you're just going to build on

[1:06:58] top of that. Well, I think the present

[1:07:01] level is between I think 109 and 110.

[1:07:05] Okay.

[1:07:06] >> But that that spans the the width of the

[1:07:09] office. And so we're going at 1 109.5.

[1:07:12] We just split the difference. Right. But

[1:07:14] that 109.5 is like relative to the grade

[1:07:17] of the rest of the house it's got to be

[1:07:19] 107 I'm guessing 106.5.

[1:07:22] I'm sorry I didn't hear that. So the the

[1:07:24] grade of the existing house Oh is that

[1:07:26] about 103 Oh okay. .5 And the the

[1:07:30] rationale the reason the client

[1:07:32] wanted because the view from up there

[1:07:34] you get to see all the hills. Okay. That

[1:07:36] was the rationale to put the office

[1:07:38] there. That's a good rationale. Yeah.

[1:07:52] No we haven't but we can certainly

[1:07:53] follow up this week and and gain any

[1:07:57] input that you would like. I wasn't

[1:07:59] aware that that was part of this process

[1:08:02] at this point but we certainly entertain

[1:08:05] or move forward with

[1:08:07] and get them involved.

[1:08:08] >> anytime you put up story polls you get

[1:08:10] unsolicited

[1:08:11] feedbacks.

[1:08:15] Sure.

[1:08:17] So I just want to reiterate it is not

[1:08:21] required to have neighborhood outreach.

[1:08:23] And so it's helpful but all property

[1:08:26] owners within 300 ft do get notified of

[1:08:28] the project of the hearing as well as

[1:08:30] the story poles are

[1:08:32] and but um yes we always encourage

[1:08:33] people to do neighborhood outreach.

[1:08:37] So should we Thank you for the move

[1:08:38] forward and notify the neighbors within

[1:08:40] the 300 ft radius and It's always nice

[1:08:43] to talk to the neighbors.

[1:08:44] Sure. Yeah at some point even my client

[1:08:47] was saying we've got to it would be nice

[1:08:49] to let everyone know um

[1:08:52] but at this point moving forward we can

[1:08:55] certainly do that easily.

[1:08:57] >> [clears throat]

[1:08:58] >> And then kind of get back to Julian

[1:08:59] about any feedback we do get. Okay.

[1:09:04] Um

[1:09:05] Yeah, but I mean from

[1:09:07] I mean yeah, I've no other questions um

[1:09:09] regarding

[1:09:11] the site designs.

[1:09:13] Just to clarify though, it's a

[1:09:14] suggestion, not a

[1:09:16] I'm sorry.

[1:09:17] >> Marine Outreach is a suggestion, not a

[1:09:18] requirement. Well, I think it's a Like

[1:09:21] you said, at some point we were going to

[1:09:22] do it, and maybe at this point it might

[1:09:24] make the process moving forward easier

[1:09:26] for everyone.

[1:09:30] Okay.

[1:09:31] Any other questions?

[1:09:34] Nope.

[1:09:35] No. No.

[1:09:37] Okay, with that I'll close uh up the

[1:09:38] presentation. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:09:41] Um see if there's any No one in the

[1:09:43] room, so is there anyone online

[1:09:46] from the public who wishes to make a

[1:09:47] comment on this project? We do have a

[1:09:49] raised hand from Van Jepson. I'm going

[1:09:51] to give you permission to talk.

[1:09:55] Uh good afternoon ASOB. This is Van

[1:09:57] Jepson. I live on

[1:09:59] La Questa Way. I'm a property owner

[1:10:01] within 300 ft. Can you hear me okay?

[1:10:04] Yep.

[1:10:05] Yeah, so the concept design review is

[1:10:08] fine by my eye. The only question I have

[1:10:11] is the generator, if there's an

[1:10:12] enclosure around the generator that

[1:10:15] would keep sound from, I'll say, coming

[1:10:17] my way. I'm just up the hill across from

[1:10:21] Marrow on La Questa, so

[1:10:24] Um that's the first question. I have a

[1:10:25] second question.

[1:10:28] So, um

[1:10:30] if I could ask another question

[1:10:31] regarding that generator, [snorts] so

[1:10:34] Uh there's a

[1:10:35] the generator kind of is bounded by the

[1:10:39] office, and then two walls on either

[1:10:41] side. So, there is one complete open

[1:10:43] side, but we could certainly of course

[1:10:46] enclose the entire structure. We were

[1:10:48] working off of the previous

[1:10:50] um design from the generator

[1:10:54] that was located there a couple of years

[1:10:56] ago. So, we were just mimicking what

[1:10:58] that present design is and that's how we

[1:11:00] came up with this one.

[1:11:01] >> Are you relocating the generator as part

[1:11:03] of this? Yes.

[1:11:04] >> Okay. Okay.

[1:11:05] >> Yes. So, which direction is it moving?

[1:11:07] Further?

[1:11:07] >> Right now at on the site plan, the the

[1:11:10] generator is in orange on your screen.

[1:11:13] Right now, the present generator is I

[1:11:15] think there's even a um

[1:11:18] uh it's right basically where it butts

[1:11:21] the new office.

[1:11:22] >> Yep. Yes. So, we're putting it it's in

[1:11:24] front of the office on this plan and

[1:11:26] we're relocating it to the rear of the

[1:11:29] office. Okay. Yep.

[1:11:32] All right. So, your first piece of

[1:11:34] unsolicited feedback is about

[1:11:37] Grace.

[1:11:37] >> Okay.

[1:11:38] >> [laughter]

[1:11:40] >> Is there another question for you guys?

[1:11:41] Yes, I do. Thank you. So, um I'm

[1:11:44] concerned about the construction vehicle

[1:11:47] parking.

[1:11:48] Romero is a very tight street. The

[1:11:51] question is it going to be on site? And

[1:11:53] here's why, cuz I live in La Questa and

[1:11:56] there's currently two construction

[1:11:59] projects in La Questa, 211 La Questa and

[1:12:02] 111 La Questa and there's about 30 cars

[1:12:04] and trucks on the daily basis that are

[1:12:07] parked along the

[1:12:08] road limiting to one lane and when they

[1:12:12] have deliveries, sheetrock or whatever

[1:12:14] stone,

[1:12:15] um there's no passage. Um and then

[1:12:18] sometimes I have to wait 5 minutes for

[1:12:20] that to occur. Now,

[1:12:21] um my question here is if it's not going

[1:12:24] to be on site and if it's not going to

[1:12:26] be on the I'll call it one lane Romero

[1:12:28] road, is it going to be on Cañada Lane?

[1:12:32] So, that lane goes between Romero and La

[1:12:35] Questa Way and that is also very narrow

[1:12:38] with curbs and there's really no place

[1:12:40] to park. I've seen construction vehicles

[1:12:43] parked there, but it makes

[1:12:46] um it very difficult for access. So,

[1:12:49] it's a question generally. Thank you.

[1:12:51] Sure. So, yes, we can speak to that. All

[1:12:54] construction staging and materials and

[1:12:57] parking are all supposed to be on site.

[1:12:59] That will be the same case with this

[1:13:01] project. Sometimes sites have

[1:13:03] constraints in which sometimes [snorts]

[1:13:05] people have to carpool into the site.

[1:13:07] So, and then regarding the existing

[1:13:09] conditions that you've raised,

[1:13:11] if there are those conditions, please

[1:13:13] contact the building department. They

[1:13:15] can go out there and remind the

[1:13:17] contractors that all of that parking is

[1:13:19] supposed to be on site. Okay, we'll do.

[1:13:21] Thank you.

[1:13:23] And a formal staging plan which requires

[1:13:26] Yeah, we we definitely require it with

[1:13:29] large projects. Sometimes with smaller

[1:13:31] projects, it's just conditioned.

[1:13:33] But yeah, we can definitely require it,

[1:13:34] especially when you get into tighter

[1:13:36] situations.

[1:13:37] Like for example, like the Glenns, it's

[1:13:39] very important that we see exactly what

[1:13:42] they're going to do on a tight site. So,

[1:13:44] it's easy enough for us to have a

[1:13:45] condition like that on this project.

[1:13:49] Mhm. Yeah, definitely. Yeah, no, they

[1:13:50] should not be blocking the trail.

[1:13:53] You know, anything like that on Cantera

[1:13:54] Road.

[1:13:55] Remind me, do we have

[1:13:57] objective standards on generator

[1:13:59] enclosures in the code? There are for

[1:14:03] those that require emergency generators

[1:14:06] exceptions. This does not.

[1:14:09] I see. So, if it needed an exception to

[1:14:11] go into the setback, that's where we

[1:14:13] have objective standards. But when it's

[1:14:14] not within the setback, there are no

[1:14:16] such standards. Understood.

[1:14:21] Okay.

[1:14:22] Any other public comment? There are no

[1:14:24] There are raised hands.

[1:14:25] Thank you.

[1:14:26] And all right, without a closed public

[1:14:28] comment and move to board

[1:14:32] deliberation. Anyone like to

[1:14:34] summarize their thoughts?

[1:14:39] Oh, I would like to given all the things we've mentioned

[1:14:44] just recently about staging, parking,

[1:14:46] and

[1:14:47] that

[1:14:49] we move this on to staff.

[1:14:54] Formal.

[1:14:57] Yeah. Yeah. I I'm I'm commend the

[1:14:59] applicant for

[1:15:01] making me have to look twice to

[1:15:03] understand what was going on with

[1:15:05] changing what was on site. It it's very

[1:15:07] elegant. I like new touches are nice.

[1:15:10] The accessory structures are well

[1:15:12] placed. I would encourage

[1:15:15] some kind of

[1:15:17] neighborly sound reduction on the

[1:15:18] generator despite not being required.

[1:15:21] Right?

[1:15:22] Um definitely not required

[1:15:24] recommendation.

[1:15:26] Yeah. I I have no problem moving this on

[1:15:28] to formal with staff.

[1:15:31] Uh yeah, no questions or comments. I

[1:15:32] agree. Okay.

[1:15:34] Yeah, I mean I echo the comments of my

[1:15:37] fellow members. So, we move to formal

[1:15:40] with staff.

[1:15:41] Um I think it's elegantly done. Well,

[1:15:43] like nice little details here and there

[1:15:45] in terms of expanding various

[1:15:47] structures.

[1:15:49] Um the only thing I'll I'll bring up is

[1:15:51] the again the

[1:15:53] uh placement of the office and right at

[1:15:56] the setback, which I think

[1:15:58] um I would anticipate there will be some

[1:16:00] unsolicited feedback from

[1:16:02] neighbors regarding that. So, anything

[1:16:04] that could be done to further screen

[1:16:06] that I think would be helpful. But

[1:16:08] beyond that I think

[1:16:09] that pretty much summarizes our motion.

[1:16:11] Um so, what I've heard is that

[1:16:13] the the applicant would be encouraged um

[1:16:16] to put some screening between the office

[1:16:17] and Romero Road as well as provide a

[1:16:20] neighborhood outreach and also

[1:16:22] encouraged to uh provide any sound

[1:16:25] attenuation that may be available for

[1:16:27] the generator.

[1:16:30] Yep.

[1:16:31] Do we have a second? Second here.

[1:16:35] Chair Lindsey. Yes. Vice Chair Kamran.

[1:16:37] Yes. Member Middleman.

[1:16:40] Yes. Member Sullivan. Yes.

[1:16:42] Great. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:16:51] Where's your wrap-up statement, Sage,

[1:16:53] where you say, "Uh, you'll get a letter

[1:16:54] in the mail and uh

[1:16:58] It's been a long day. Oh, I'm sorry.

[1:17:00] >> Long day, okay.

[1:17:02] So, with that, close of the public

[1:17:03] hearing, and then director's report.

[1:17:06] Um, I don't have anything further to

[1:17:08] report.

[1:17:10] Uh,

[1:17:10] just noting, uh, as I did at the

[1:17:12] beginning of the meeting, that we'll

[1:17:13] bring to, uh, the council just an item

[1:17:16] to look at for this particular round of

[1:17:19] chair and vice chair, uh, nominations

[1:17:22] and votes, um, that if the council would

[1:17:24] like to waive

[1:17:26] the charter requiring no more than two

[1:17:28] years within a four-year period. Yes.

[1:17:31] And assuming that's done at the next

[1:17:32] town council

[1:17:33] >> That's correct. It will It will

[1:17:34] definitely It's going to be on We're

[1:17:35] going to put it on the consent agenda

[1:17:37] for the next town council meeting, and

[1:17:38] should anyone want to pull it, we'll

[1:17:39] discuss Discuss it at that time. So,

[1:17:41] then then, uh, for us, the next ASRB

[1:17:43] >> That's correct. Yeah, we'll have that

[1:17:45] decision by then.

[1:17:46] And And you want to bring up something

[1:17:48] that concerns me. So, when I was looking

[1:17:50] at the projects that were on for today,

[1:17:53] I feel that two of the projects didn't

[1:17:55] need to come here.

[1:17:56] You know,

[1:17:58] I understand that, you know, 115 Romero

[1:18:00] is within

[1:18:02] the scenic corridor, but the

[1:18:04] It's the virtually going to be the same

[1:18:05] house at the end of the day.

[1:18:07] And with 885 Espinosa, from what I

[1:18:09] understand, it's the exact same project

[1:18:11] that was approved a couple years ago,

[1:18:13] and because of a life event,

[1:18:15] they had to spend thousands of dollars

[1:18:17] of put up story poles to come back to

[1:18:19] ASRB.

[1:18:21] So, I I just want to take a moment to

[1:18:23] reflect that maybe our code has some

[1:18:25] deficiencies that we should visit in

[1:18:26] terms of how we

[1:18:30] allow a project that's been delayed to

[1:18:32] move forward without incurring

[1:18:33] additional finances or financial costs,

[1:18:35] as well as

[1:18:37] Yes, it's a scenic corridor, but

[1:18:40] maybe we should have an initial

[1:18:41] threshold before

[1:18:45] All right.

[1:18:45] >> Oh, that's fine. The um

[1:18:48] Yeah, those are comments that town

[1:18:50] council can consider in making any code

[1:18:52] changes.

[1:18:53] Um with regards to expirations

[1:18:55] you know, at the staff level, we just

[1:18:57] have no authority. I'm not going to

[1:18:58] decide whether it's 2 weeks, 2 months,

[1:19:00] or 2 years. Um so, there's just there's

[1:19:03] a timeline and you know,

[1:19:06] starting talking about objective and

[1:19:07] subjective, we want to be very careful

[1:19:09] in making those kinds of decisions. They

[1:19:10] need to file for extension. Yeah, they

[1:19:12] just didn't and we can't keep track of

[1:19:14] everyone's projects for them. Um they um

[1:19:17] they have their own, you know, they're

[1:19:18] provided with that information when they

[1:19:20] get approved. Um and it's their

[1:19:22] responsibility to uh make sure they

[1:19:24] follow up on that stuff.

[1:19:27] Okay. But, I I do agree that if we

[1:19:29] didn't have to, you you know,

[1:19:31] those are they that's

[1:19:33] But, these are these are items

[1:19:35] definitely that, you know, at some point

[1:19:37] can be considered with the town council.

[1:19:38] I mean, there we I know there's been

[1:19:40] different times in the past that, you

[1:19:42] know, when we have the thousands uh

[1:19:44] square foot threshold for scenic

[1:19:46] corridors in Western Hills, whereas the

[1:19:49] rest of the town is a 2,000 square foot

[1:19:50] threshold. And there's been talk

[1:19:52] sometimes about just making them the

[1:19:54] same. Um and so, [clears throat] you

[1:19:56] know, that's definitely a discussion

[1:19:57] worth having.

[1:19:59] >> [snorts]

[1:20:01] >> All right.

[1:20:02] Thank you. That adjourn the meeting at

[1:20:04] 5:50 p.m.

Architectural and Site Review Board Regular Meeting - May 18, 2026

Transcript