All right.
Okay, going to call to order a meeting
of the SRB for Monday
May 18th at 4:30 p.m.
Roll call.
Chair Lindsey. Yes. Vice Chair Comer.
Yes.
Member Del Gavio. Yes. Member Middleman.
Yes. Member Sullivan.
Yes.
Hey, gang's all here.
Um, do we have any changes to the
agenda? Uh, there are no changes to the
agenda. You have one desk item of
support for item number two on Espinoza
and two desk items for item number three
um, from the same neighbor um, just
requesting some additional landscaping.
That'll be noted in the staff report.
And um, I'll just note that
the with regarding to the chair and the
vice chair vote the
uh, we've discussed at the staff level.
We're going to bring a consent item to
the council. See if they'd like to waive
that provision for this time. And then
that's going to go to the next council
meeting. After that decision, we'll
bring it back to the SRB for vote.
And item one, the minutes of May 4th
have been pulled. Yes, so item one
actually is that is a change to the
agenda. Item one is not has not been
provided yet. It's just the minutes. Um,
so we'll provide that on your next
agenda.
Okay.
With that, we'll just jump right into
the public hearing and
the first item being 885 Espinoza Road.
So, in to recuse myself from 885
Espinosa Road. Okay. I live within 1,000
ft. Um not only do I use the road, I
also participate in the road maintenance
committee that maintains the road
as well as drive through the
intersection of
Manzanita and Espinosa every day. So
since I have a foreseeable conflict and
bias, I'm going to step out of the room.
So noted that uh member Middleman's
recusing himself from this item and
Julie, you'll notify him when we're
finished.
Right. Thank you.
Um okay.
All right.
Hope you're all doing well. It's been a
minute. Good to see everyone. Um so
tonight I'm going to be giving an
introduction to the project at 885
Espinosa Road.
The applicant has submitted formal
design review plans for proposals to
demolish an existing accessory structure
and to construct a remodel and addition
up to a complete demolition rebuild for
an existing single-family residence and
partial basement and an addition to an
existing deck,
rebuild of an existing carport and other
site improvements. For a really brief
bit of background, um the ASRB did hear
this at CDR back in 2022 and at that
time it was recommended that this
project proceed to formal design review
with the staff um addressing the ASRB's
minimal comments regarding studying
light emission.
The project was deemed complete at a
staff level at FDR in 2022, but the
project did expire in December of 2024.
In reviewing the plans that were
submitted by the applicant, we found
that this was a like-for-like submittal
and that there were no substantial code
changes since the time of the last
application that would impact the
project's compliance. Therefore, it was
deemed okay to proceed directly to
formal design review with ASRB given
that the board had already analyzed
conceptual design review at a public
hearing.
Um
there are no uh sorry, there is one desk
item for this, which was a letter from a
neighbor expressing support in the
project's design, and the project is
categorically exempt from
885 Espinosa Road is in the SCP 10
zoning district, and the property is
approximately 3.26 acres in size. It's
located on the west side of Espinosa
Road, which is a private road off of
Grandview Drive.
The property has an existing residence
with a partial basement and several
accessory structures site. The property
is characterized by steep slopes and
includes mature oak, madrone, and
redwood and bay trees throughout the
property site. No tree removal is
proposed in conjunction with the project
at this time.
The applicant has proposed an addition
and remodel. Um we can see the areas of
addition here in gray. Um remodel, we
have dash in this carport here as well
as some rebuilds on the dining terrace
and addition on the deck.
Um
the scope of work, uh as mentioned, will
include an addition to the deck, which
is kind of dash back here in the back,
relatively
um minor upgrade improvements. Um as you
can see on the site plan, this is
relatively centrally located on the
property. The
proposed main resident additions will be
on the western front facade and the
eastern rear facade, and then that new
deck addition will be on that rear
facade as well.
The uh proposed and existing elevations
are shown here, so you can see the
degree of modification that we're kind
of looking at. There are some changes in
roof lines, but generally same um form
for the most part. Uh
the roof lines will remain understated
and simple in form, and are moderately
sloped gable roof lines. The main
residence is broken up into these
segments of various heights helping to
reduce the structure's massing. The main
residence includes this at grade deck
which we can see here on the back. Um
that addition will take place there.
Um and the rebuilt car carport roof line
you can see on this elevation. Um
rather than having a single mass now
being broken into two masses which is
helping to reduce that visual impact a
little bit.
And this uh rebuilt carport will
continue to a join an existing driveway.
There'll be some minor repaving but
otherwise the routing
will be relatively same.
Uh materials for the proposed main
residence and attached garage include
composite shingle roofs, vertical
stained um board and batten siding,
stacked stone wainscots, and integral
color plaster. The project color palette
includes a variety of earth tone colors
including shades of brown, gray, rusty,
cream.
And members of the team should be here
uh
to address any questions you may have
about this design. The project team will
provide a brief application I believe
application presentation shortly I
believe and the staff is happy to answer
any questions you have for us if there
are any that have popped up. All right,
thank you.
Um
couple of questions. So uh given this is
somewhat unique for us to do a
re-formalization
of a previously approved formal design
review, can you offer any guidance to
this board in terms of
how the scope of our questioning?
So it's technically a new project. The
other project expired. Um so the board
can provide any comments related to the
design on this project. Um there is is
formal design review. So what you have
in the staff report are recommended
conditions of approval. If the board
finds that no changes are needed or no
modifications to those conditions of
approval are needed and can recommend
approval of the project. That can be a
motion. Um
if there's any reasons for changes or
modifications to the condition,
the board can provide those
recommendations.
>> Okay.
Um and we can still request uh applicant
presentation. Yes. Yep.
Um second question, I looking at uh
staff report, there was feedback from
the conceptual design review on interior
and exterior lighting.
Um but I couldn't find a lighting
schedule in the package. So, hard to
assess.
Yeah, so um
there is a lighting plan. In conjunction
with this, we have it on paper and I can
grab it for you guys if you want to
evaluate that.
>> Okay, we'll see if we get there, right?
Yeah, it's like for like for what was
proposed during the last round. Okay.
Good. Any other questions?
In both cases on the lighting, it was
shielded.
Do you know
>> see I can show you real quick on the
project plans.
Anything of record that's been approved
would but by definition meet our dark
sky requirements and criteria for all
lighting, right?
Yeah.
The yes, the lighting has to be uh
shielded and all the faces up.
>> This is what's being um says they're
current exterior fixtures in conjunction
with the structure as shown. Yeah, it's
just that there was no
placement or count, total count in terms
of lighting, so where they're located.
Oh.
I didn't know.
Yeah, um yeah, we can I I think it was
provided by the applicant and just
wasn't slip sheeted into
and set. Typically it's like near doors
and things like that. It wouldn't be
throughout the facility or down the
stairs and that sort of thing. Mhm.
Yeah, um I have it
um
I believe that the applicant confirmed
that it was like for like. I can pull it
from the previous plan set um that they
submitted in round one. I think that
they had just forgotten to actually
integrate the sheet in round two. Um,
would that be something we're interested
in looking at? Um, well, we'll see.
where our questioning goes.
And then, um, if you do look here on
this front page, actually, on um,
sheet A1, they have provided these
sconce locations. It's just not
incredibly big, um, compared Can you put
that on the screen? Yeah, I'll put that
If you see, uh, they do have the sconce
locations kind of called out
on this,
um, initial site plan sheet.
That's it. That's like the four of them.
Nothing downstairs, nothing on the
Uh, so, this carport one is on the lower
level.
Okay.
Good.
Any other questions for staff?
Nothing. Okay. Uh, I mean, with that,
we'll invite applicant to, uh,
present if they choose.
Squeeze rip. The Oh, there you go.
Uh, good evening. My name is Gary Ahern.
I am the project architect for 885
Espinosa. I get the
unusual thing about uh, making this
presentation twice. Uh, as Jillian
posted, um, we did go through in 2022,
uh, was unanimously approved at that
point.
Um, with all the intentions, and then we
had that little interesting hiccup in
22, um, and then combine that with the
road washing out on 84,
uh, the project sort of got put on hold.
And, uh, life-changing, and then
decided to pick it up again.
Unfortunately, right after the timeline
had expired, so that's why we're before,
uh, you lovely people here today.
Um, happy to answer any questions you
might have. The one question about the
lighting the lighting we have is is
proposed as minimal. It's basically what
code requires at each exterior door. We
don't have a lot of We're not doing any
building up lighting or anything
artistic or anything like that.
Okay.
Any questions uh from members of the
board for the app? No? No. No?
Thank you.
Wow, this one's going to be fast.
Um
Yeah, I mean I had
So uh uh public comment. I always forget
this one. Sorry.
Uh is anyone online or in the room wish
to make a comment on this project?
For those online, please use the raise
hand feature if you'd like to make a
comment.
There are no raised hands. No.
So aside from the dust item, there was
no other
public comment.
Um okay, put close public comment and go
to board deliberation. Anyone wish to
make a
uh summary of
anything regarding this project other
than
they've
>> [laughter]
>> Okay.
Uh same.
No, no, I think it's it's very
attractive.
It's a very attractive spot, sunny spot
in the back, and I like the materials.
Um it seems I mean it basically blends
in the type of houses that we'd like
built in Woodside.
So uh no, I especially since it's
already gone and been approved. I have
no questions or concerns. Okay, good.
Thank you.
Um yeah, from my perspective
I'll echo
my share commerce's comments. I mean I
think it was already
heavily scrutinized. I think all the
changes I think are are uh easily
rationalized. Um
I only comment about the lighting seeing
just two fixtures on the rear of the
structure. I think that's
not an issue. So, yeah.
Can we have a motion to approve?
So moved.
I'm not making the motion. I'm I'm I so
moved to make the motion.
>> Okay.
>> [laughter]
>> Just clarify in that motion that that
would be to adopt all of the recommended
conditions of approval as set forth.
Correct.
I second that motion.
Chair Lindsey? Yes. Vice Chair Comrie?
Yes. Member Dalgaav? Yes. Member
Sullivan? Yes. And member Middleman is
noted recused.
Thank you.
That was the fastest ever.
>> you long to drive [snorts] down the
hill.
>> [laughter]
» It is possible to be a champion.
Two questions? I can do four.
As a new grandmother, [clears throat]
I was saying there's not enough light.
That's what I was thinking.
>> [laughter]
>> Yeah. Yeah.
How common How common is it that to have
a project expire and have to come back?
That's another one just recently
occurred.
Um It's about the economy.
So, yeah, they get letters and they have
2 years in which they have to obtain
building permits. There is a provision
that they can apply for an extension
before the expiration.
And it's just unfortunate that they
didn't
apply for that in enough time.
Okay. Moving on to item three.
This is 170 Fox Hollow Road.
Which we saw in November.
Ooh.
I'm flying.
Yeah.
A refreshed.
All right.
This uh presentation's going to include
analysis of a formal design review uh to
demolish an existing single-family
dwelling, pool, and associated site
improvements, and to construct a new
single-family main residence with an
attached garage and attached studio ADU,
um two detached ADUs, a detached
trellis, a pool, and associated site
improvements on a lot located at 170 Fox
Hollow Road.
There are two desk items associated with
this agenda item. Both of them are um
from the same applicant's representative
um who brought up some questions
regarding increasing landscape screening
along the shared property line with
their respective client, as well as um
potentially evaluating an option to
increase the height of uh landscaping
walls to further provide that shielding.
Uh the subject property is 3.013 acres,
and it's located at the end of Fox
Hollow Road. The site is currently
developed with the single-family main
residence, a pool, and
associated site improvements. Uh the
site slopes upward from Fox Hollow and
contains numerous significant trees
around the peripheries of the project
with a large portion of the trees
concentrated on the east, south, and
west sides of the existing main
residence.
>> [clears throat and cough]
>> The applicant has proposed construction
of a new single-family main residence
sited in the approximate center of the
property near the general location of
the existing main residence.
The proposed main residence will include
an attached garage and an attached
studio ADU, both of which are partially
daylighted.
The applicant has proposed two um two
detached accessory dwelling units, a
pool ADU and a guest ADU, one of which
is located southwest of the proposed
main residence and adjacent to the
proposed auto court, which we see down
on this lower portion of the slide. And
the other of which is located northwest
of the proposed main residence and
adjacent to the pool and detached
trellis. We have the pool in this dash
line right here shows the location of
that detached trellis.
The applicant has proposed relocation of
the existing driveway entrance that the
driveway entrance is located on the
northmost portion of the front property
line that adjoins Fox Hollow Road.
Previously, it was down on this lower
segment, come up a little bit. And
they've done the routing on the driveway
in such a way that it's avoiding the
existing on-site trees in which is the
kind of a cluster of existing foliage
right here along the frontage.
The applicant proposes a main residence
with both one-story and two-story
elements and attached covered patio
spaces adjoining the front and rear
building facades.
We can see that the residence contains
medium to high pitched gable roofs
connected by a series of breezeways. So,
the building's kind of that L-shape. And
the structure features a multitude of
patios and decks as well as glazing
oriented towards the outdoor living
spaces.
The proposed accessory dwelling units
employ employ gable rooflines as well
with medium pitches and they align
closely with the style of the main home.
The proposed guest ADU consists of a
kitchen, living space, bedroom, and one
and a full bathroom. And the proposed
ADU pool consists of a kitchen, living
space, bedroom, and two full bathrooms.
The proposed main residence includes a
mixed exterior color palette and
materials palette consisting of
weathered wood siding, rubble stone
walls, standing seam metal roofs, patina
steel doors and windows, metal railings,
and metal cladding.
You have some samples right there to
everybody's left. That's 170 Fox
Hollow's palette. So, you can get a
little look at what they look like in
person.
The proposed color palette includes a
variety of earth tone colors and shades
of brown, mid tone, and sharp grays and
black.
The detached ADUs and are proposed to
consist of a similar exterior material
materials palette to the main residence
including wood siding, steel doors and
windows, stone veneer, and standing seam
metal roofing. The proposed ADUs are in
the same color palette as the main
as well.
On September 15th of last year, this
board did see this for conceptual design
review. At that time, you commended the
applicant for their simple forms as well
as their materials palette which you all
believed was in strong alignment with
the residential design guidelines.
However, there were a couple matters
that you wanted to see back here at the
formal design review phase and which
will be going over today. Um, the first
request uh was that they contact
surrounding neighbors and get some
additional input um, and that any
neighbor in output was integrated or
considered in modifications to the
design. Um, and the other request of
that nature was that the story poles
were erected for you as a board's
review. Story poles were erected.
Hopefully, everybody got a chance to go
and see that. And I'll defer to the
project team to give you guys a little
bit more of an overview of what that
neighborhood outreach looks like from
their perspective. Um, from more plan
based side, um, you also requested that
they consider reducing the potential
site grading by minimizing expansive lot
areas and retaining more of the existing
site topography as well as reducing the
size of the proposed two-story tall
window elements at the front and rear of
the residence to break down light
emission a little bit more.
On this slide, we can see, um, the
difference between what was proposed at
conceptual design review and what's
being proposed at formal design review
relative to those two-story window
elements. Um, the applicant has reduced
the width of the two-story tall windows
on the south wall from 18 ft wide to 8
ft 4 in
and on the north wall it's gone from 9
ft 9 in original proposed to 7 ft
3 in wide.
Let me know if you need a second longer
to look at this, but it's also
in the plans.
As it pertains to the grading comments,
we did receive a comprehensive grading
plan in conjunction with the formal
design review providing a little bit
more detail on the actual conditions
that are being proposed
on the site. The applicant has pointed
out that a large portion of the grading
for expansive flat areas actually
utilized existing flat portions of the
property. So areas such as the lawn
which were originally a bit of a concern
from the board's perspective when you
look at the grading plan, you can see
that the grades are relatively
identical, that there's been very little
change in the topography and that it's
relatively like for like for what they
have out on site. They're kind of
imploring those existing footprints to
take advantage of that for those
flattened areas of topography.
In addition, they've postulated the
house really close
to the existing development footprints
which helps minimize
grading further relative site conditions
and the majority of the site grading
is in fact concentrated around the new
driveway cuts and areas within and
directly adjacent to the proposed site
improvements.
As it pertains to the comments, we
ask that you analyze in a little bit of
detail to see if they've sufficiently
addressed your concerns relative to the
site glazing as well as the site
grading. As a quick reminder, they are
seeking a grading exception for this,
but that will be heard with the planning
commission to determine if all findings
necessary for granting of a grading
exception have been met.
Members of the project team are required
um um
are are here in person if you have any
outstanding questions. I know we have a
member of the architectural team um and
we also have the project civil engineer
in person. Um so they should be able to
provide guidance on both the grading
side as well as the architectural side
angle. Um but we're happy to answer any
questions from staff.
Great. Thank you.
Does anyone on the board have questions
of the building?
This is a question about
Yes.
Mhm.
>> [clears throat]
» Mhm.
Yeah, I can show you the proximity on
the actual um grading plans if that
would be helpful and then um I think as
it pertains to questions regarding their
relocation, um I'd be happy to have the
civil engineer engage on that uh during
the applicant's presentation, but let me
pull up the site plans for you to get a
good look at where we're getting
relocated here.
Thanks for your patience. This is
loading at its very own pace.
» Um, so here we can see
relatively
uh
close alignment between
the existing driveway, which you see
kind of grayed out down here. They kind
of hit points of intersection through
this main segment. Um, but we have the
new driveway entrance cut over here. And
if we um follow along, see that we're uh
within the canopy of some of these
existing significant trees, in which uh
tree protection measures are typically
required in conjunction with the um
building permit submittals. So, we'll
have some tree protection parameters uh
integrated at that time. Um,
but a lot of their routing is um
trying to accommodate cuts around a
relatively vegetated part of the
property. And uh I think that their
civil engineering team will be able to
provide us with some guidance as to why
they're doing routing in greater detail.
What it
seems to me from just looking at it that
Oh, it seems to me that just looking at
it that it was
instead of avoiding all these trees, it
was pretty much running up right up
against them.
Uh where the current driveway
is, it was down there.
Mhm.
It's just
strange.
And I'm I'm thinking you also the main
driveway and
um one thing sides of the site wall also
be on
Yeah, so we had um variable site wall
heights between 4 and 6 ft shown on the
elevation drawings. So, let me pull that
up for us real quick to look at.
Yes, they're having a um
variable height along the length of
those landscaping walls. The retaining
walls are defined on the grading plans
with the landscape walls are between 4
and 6 ft variably on the property, but
we can most definitely define the exact
height at that location if that is
prudent.
Relative to the code implications, kind
of 4 to 6 ft height has relatively
identical setback requirements and
things of that nature um
for our fencing and gate section. So,
that shouldn't impact impact site
compliance when it ranges between 4 and
6 ft.
And would [clears throat] it would it
assist the neighbors in trying to block
out the car lights as they go around? I
don't know exactly where the height
variances are, but Mhm. Yeah, you could
request that they specify it to that
maximum 6 ft and then we'll just do the
double check for compliance on that as
well. Mhm. Would you mind going back to
the windows show before and after
normal?
Here's the comparison point between what
was proposed at the time of CDR and
what's being proposed at the time of
FDR. Um the
windows that were kind of expressly
pointed out by the board during CDR and
FDR were this window right here and this
window right here.
These are corresponding reductions.
Got it.
I'm not seeing a difference on
north elevation. Oh,
am I missing it? Just the width of the
window?
The tall window is narrow.
>> Dimension change is um
a little harder to see relative to the
scale. It's 9.9 to 7.3 difference. So,
we have a couple feet of difference
there, but
>> see that one.
I said it was a window.
>> On elevation might not scale as easily
visually. Got it.
>> [clears throat]
>> You're missing windows on the
top and bottom on the south.
Yes, on the south.
And you have another one?
Okay. Any other questions?
I have a couple.
I'm [clears throat] going back to the
vegetation. Do we have objective
standards around vegetation management
and blocking
light from one property to another?
We have a component of the residential
design guidelines that speaks to
landscaping design. It generally
discourages creating things such as like
dense green walls along property lines
given that it looks less natural, but
Stacy can correct me if I'm wrong that
typically
screening via landscaping is a secondary
effort for light emissions in the event
that, you know,
conditions change.
Plants aren't permanent. Um
so, they're they're not typically
primary approach to reduce light
emissions given that they are
plants to use and can change through
time.
And that logically makes sense.
And then
do do we have a
Since we brought up grading, um how much
did they reduce the grading amount on
the previous iteration of plans?
Um
off the top of my head, I don't recall
if we had a comprehensive grading plan
in conjunction with CDR because it's not
a requirement. Um at the time of CDR,
they had indicated to staff verbally
that they were going to likely be
pursuing a grading exception,
um which was kind of our basis for that,
but uh correct me if I'm wrong, project
team, I don't believe that we had your
comprehensive grading plan at that time.
And one more question. Can you remind me
on what the findings for a grading
exception are?
Yeah, I can pull up this for us.
>> Or you can just give me the section
number so I can look it up. Well,
actually, I guess everybody would
benefit.
It's 151
22,
I believe. Let me double-check that real
quick.
Yes, 151 22. Let me grab you the
subsection.
Here's the three findings associated
with the grading exception.
So, for your review, if you want to
review that separately, it'll be 151 22,
um subsection B6.
Thank you.
It's one other question. When they were
doing the calculation of um
hardscape, it included 1,300
or of overall coverage, it included
1,300 ft of turf, and the turf is being
removed, and that helps to reduce the
number, and it seemed kind of like that.
It's counted as hardscape as as overall
coverage, I should say. Sorry. Yeah,
artificial turf contributes towards our
town's definition of paved area and
surface coverage. If it's natural grass,
it won't contribute towards that
definition. Um only if it's artificial
turf.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Um
as it pertains to the desk item,
commenting on uh
vehicle headlights, could you identify
on the plan roughly where
you believe that area is to be? Yeah.
Is this the parking area at the top of
the up of the drive?
Good question.
My presumption, um based on the fact
that they're speaking about retaining
the existing tree in conjunction, would
be this particular parking locality
right here uh as this is an existing
tree directly adjacent to those proposed
parking spaces, and
um
so I believe that these are probably the
three subject parking locations that
they're looking at, but um likely these
two are the most pressing given that
they identified retention of that
existing tree directly adjacent to the
area.
See it right here. These are the site
landscaping walls.
And can we see where the six oaks that
are being removed are
So, you can see um
an assortment of the trees proposed for
removal
um marked in red X's throughout the
site. So, we have
um
four tree removals right here.
Um Japanese persimmon up here, and then
we have a dish tree well up here um
adjacent to the proposed pool. And then,
thank you.
Um but that's uh Oh, sorry. And here we
are inside these uh proposed footprint
of the main residence.
And then, if we could go back one more
time to the new driveway
where the story poles are set up, it
looks like it would go directly into
those two beautiful trees that are
there.
Is that not the case? Because it sure
looks like, unless it's going to take a
drastic turn,
I mean, maybe we can get to that with
the guys. Thanks.
>> [clears throat]
» So, you can see here, this is one of the
larger trees. There's this one here.
Those are the probably two closest
trees.
And then, there's a couple that are over
in this area.
Um and so, they will have to have an
arborist uh
on site for the grading when they're
under the drip line of the trees.
Uh so, they ensure
roots are hand cut when they're needed
to be cut and certain uh
certain requirements like that need to
be followed. Um and then, yes, the
applicant's team can probably best speak
to
the
>> [clears throat]
>> how they plan to protect those trees.
And is there any potential when they're
looking at running the new the that they
could make it closer to the old one to
avoid some of the soil removal and
I mean something that they yes talked to
the applicant about the decision they
were probably trying to get a little bit
further away from
the
property on this side um but the
applicant can best speak to that.
There's I mean there's another cluster
here.
Um
so you'll see all these kind of
you know these kind of outlines are
where like the the rough kind of drip
line is showing right? So they're kind
of overlapping.
From the
>> Looks like the canopy of the first one
would definitely be harmed by whatever's
going to go on when they're trying to
dig there.
>> [clears throat]
» Maybe we can save these questions for
the applicant. Good idea.
direct response
Otherwise we're all assuming. Um
Yeah, no no specific questions for me.
Um if that's it.
That was the staff presentation.
Um
So at this point we'd like to invite the
applicant uh to make a presentation if
you wish.
Good afternoon. Ken Winstead. Oh this is
tough.
Uh I'm the architect for 170 Fox Hollow.
Um
I'll take your your your comments in
order that I heard them. The first one
is we did reach out to the neighbors.
Sent them the plans. We only heard from
the neighbors to the south.
Um and their concerns were to reduce the
size of that window facing south. So
when you were looking at those
elevations, the north window was kind of
a a result proportionally for us for
reducing the southern window. So the
southern window did get reduced by half.
And I believe that the neighbors are
okay with that reduction.
Um
these neighbors also requested that we
add some kind of screening for the
headlights.
And we are completely open to whatever
the board recommends. We're looking at
the the standards that are or the
residential guidelines.
Without the dense screening and and site
walls um within the setback, we thought
we would leave it to the owners to work
it out between themselves.
Um but looking for guidance from you on
that.
Um
as far as the driveway goes,
our our clients would the the the
current gate is very close to the
southern neighbor
and it's a straight shot up to the
driveway. And this is more just kind of
this idea of a sinuous driveway going up
to the arrival.
Um our our clients love those oak trees,
so they do not want to disturb them. And
I think you're bringing up great points.
They're not going to proceed with this
if the arborist
um can't support what we're doing.
Um so this is really more of an
aesthetic um driveway move so that
they're not, you know, just straight up
to the to the entry right when you're uh
entering the gate.
Um
I reviewed the story poles uh
I guess a couple weeks ago. We haven't
heard any response from neighbors based
on those story poles.
And the I think the bigger comment about
grading
is we still have to go to planning
commission. The the way I think of the
grading on this property is is all of
the natural topography is still the
natural topography.
Um the oak woodland to the east of the
house is is the one that we really want
to preserve and keep natural.
We're we're building this house on the
existing flat part of the site. We've
moved the main part of the house a bit
east and therefore we've kind of have
the existing house as a pit because it's
got a basement and we're trying to bring
the grade up to the natural lawn that
used to be there before this current
house was built.
So, I'd say the lion's share of the
grading is because we're filling in that
lawn. It's not like we're reshaping the
topography. So,
in the spirit of of of the the grading
guidelines, I would think we're adhering
to that because we're not changing the
natural topography of the site.
So, happy to answer questions.
Thanks.
Uh just have questions with the app.
So, looking at that grading table, there
was about 2,400 cubic yards labeled the
basement. You're You're saying that
that's for the sides of the basement and
not to cut
or expand the basement? Uh I you know,
Jim Toby from Liam Brazeel is here to
talk about all of the specifics on what
It's It's kind of spread throughout the
site, but to fill in that lawn area is
where the lion's share of this grading
is going. Kind of right where the You
see where the existing house is dotted?
That's a lot of that is being lifted up.
So, it's not like we're reshaping the topography of the surrounding areas.
Kind of creating this level courtyard.
Given how much the house is moving east
to a new structure, it's east. That's
today there's a substantial dip for the
drive that goes down.
Um
that's
just a
perception is there's a fair amount of
fill that needs to go in there to
Yeah, I guess my my my not my argument,
but I I feel like in terms of altering
the natural land forms, it's all of this
is really happening in the level part of
the site. That existing driveway
wraps around the front of the house more
or less where we're putting the new
house.
Right.
So, did is are you interpreting then
where that current drive dips down? Is
that the new grade that
>> Oh, sorry. You're talking about to go in
the garage that
>> That where where the curve
>> Yeah, that is new. That is a new uh way
for us to get to a below grade garage.
So, there is some grading going on there
for sure.
So,
yeah, on the absolute right there is a
slope.
Maybe Jim wants to sort of summarize
like all of what's All the soil that's
moving around. Sure. Clarifying question
for Sage. Does the cut for basements
count towards a grading total for a
site?
No, what you'll see is on page 12 of
this staff report, there is a grading
table and the areas in bold are what
counts towards the grading exception.
>> Thank you. Thank you for recalibrating
what I should be concerned with.
Yeah, so to give you guys a little
summary here. Yes, there is a
significant amount of grading that's
being taken care of with the basement.
Um all of that is for the most part
being hauled away. Um the grading on
site we're getting very close to
balancing and that's typically what
Woodside wants to see. Um we are over
the 1,500 cubic yards, but that's mainly
because we're doing cut plus fill.
And um right now we're proposing about
1,360 yards of cut and about 1,200 of
fill.
So, we are getting close to to balancing
on the site, but because of the
topography and trying to keep the
natural topography and the trees and
everything, we're not going to we're we have a small amount of about,
you know, 150, 160 yards that we're not
anticipating balancing the site grading,
which is the typical way Woodside wants
to see it. Um but you could see here by
looking at some of the dirt designs that
we have, specifically even the driveway
that's going down to the lower garage,
that is literally a vertical wall that's
not going to be the the little section
that goes down to the lower section is
being cut, but we're not proposing to do
any grading around it. In other words,
we're not grading down.
It's literally just a way to get down
below. It's not going to be filling or changing the contours around that
area. So, as you're driving in and
what's going on in front of the house is
virtually the same as what's there now.
We are doing some grading in the back
with the back patio, but for the most
part, everything in the front is kind of
staying exactly the same as what we have
right now.
That's helpful.
Sorry, what?
It's really just the new cut for the
driveway. Yeah, so the new driveway is
going to be cutting down. You have to
put a section in there of, you know, to
get base rock down there and the new
asphalt or whatever final material we
end up putting on there. That takes a
good section out of, you know, what we
have to grade for to get this to work.
So, that gets counted as that grading
number even though the final grade is
kind of the same as what it was before.
We have to provide, you know, a section
for that driveway to be at fire trucks
and cars and delivery vehicles and
everything up there.
Okay.
Any other questions for uh Mr. or the
applicant?
Okay. No.
One question.
The concern about
the light on children from driving in
and out,
is that a existing concern with the way
the property is currently?
Or with the new development, is it would
it become worse for the part Are you
talking about the headlight issue?
>> issue, is That is a new issue because
the cars currently don't park directly
at the property. The new arrangement of
parking spaces is kind of directed
specifically at a particular room that
the neighbors have brought up. So, we're
trying to shield that. It's not like we
don't want to shield it. It's just
looking for guidance. Can we hedge it?
Can we put a wall?
The finished grade of that area will be
a basically identical
>> identical.
>> It is identical.
>> Yeah. Oh, in theory today if a car were
turning around on
>> It would still happen the same
condition. As Julian as Julian is
showing you right here, you can see
where the car comes in. We're
maintaining the tree right there, but
we're allowing parking on either side of
it. That were if wall Yeah, cars are
parking directly towards the neighbor
right there. And so that's where we're
posing a wall.
And one last one, on the lighting plan,
when looking at the H2 fixture, which
looks to be a tree uplight potentially,
and I can't differentiate the symbols on
the plan. Are there a lot of them?
No uplights. Uh they're
It's your H2.
H L D Well,
Ah.
Oh, it's just the way it's designed.
Well, it's a tree light, basically,
right?
Yeah, in the actual lighting legend,
they've specified that they're going to
be mounted directly downlit, um and in
earlier phases, I believe we actually
discussed
>> trellises and things like that, not to
go up to trees.
We should have flipped that picture
over.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the
residential guidelines specify no
uplighting. Yeah, so we'd definitely
make sure there's no uplighting,
uh
no uplighting, and then no uh lights in
trees that are downlit. And then um with
the up and seeing Yeah, so this is a
spec sheet, and it's showing that it's
on an angle, but those are uh these are
intended for the trellis. So, it's
pretty common that you have those in the
trellis that can maneuver a little bit,
but it's the specification cut sheet
that kind of depicts it like this.
Install the point down.
Thank you.
Good. Any other questions?
Done.
Okay.
Um thank you. Thank you.
Um
So, with that, open up
public hearing.
Does anyone in the room or anyone online
who wishes to make a comment on this
project?
As a reminder for those online, please
use the raise hand feature if you'd like
to make a comment.
I see no one in the room. And there are
no raised hands.
Well, that close public comment um and
open up to board deliberation.
Who'd like to kick us off?
Me? All right.
Um
Yeah, I mean, no significant changes uh
design-wise from the material
perspective or massing of that since the
uh
conceptual design review. Um with
regards to feedback provided at CDR with
regards to window sizes, I think it's um
adequate, the change that's been made.
Um I think any any reduction in that
substantial glazing is an improvement.
Um
I think the
very, very specific details and plan for
grading for planning commission would be
useful
um to help um
arrive at a conclusion and a finding. Um
I think the other thing as it pertains
to the desk item that came in about tree
protection, I have just uh personal
note, I think tree protection as
specified for my own project was
inadequate in scale and resulted in the
loss of a
coastal oak that was 150 years old. So,
I echo the neighbor who's saying,
"Please, please, please make sure your
tree protection is above and beyond what
the what is required.
Um
Other than that, no, I think um I think
all my concerns from CDR have been met.
Could we potentially put some sort of a
tree grove in near to help the neighbor
with the light and get that in the
record, so to speak?
Well, I mean, if that can be solved with
a solid wall, I think
I'm not sure.
Okay. I thought I heard them say that
they wanted to propose a wall.
I I do find that um especially since
you're not going to have much
construction on the other 80 new lot
property.
That side of the property that
you guys were able to work with the
neighbors down instead of waiting till
the thing
um that gets stated. So, certainly, you
know, you could pick whatever tree that
you like, but you know, a few oaks and
screen quite a bit, and if they were
planted now, and then later,
by the time you finish, they might not
be able to see that much of the project.
So, um so, at least along that left of
the neighbor's fence,
No questions or concerns for me. Okay.
Just to reiterate
that I feel um
Oh, just to reiterate, I I I feel
concerned about the trees on the new
driveway. Um and that if the planning
commission can take a very close look at
that, because it it did seem like you
had some drainage coming down with
rocks. So, are you going to have to
rework that to work the driveway in? I'm
just not sure how that's all going to
come together. Um
that um just to have planning take an
extra close look at protecting those
trees.
What specifically would planning
commission
take into consideration there
with that feedback? We really rely on
the arborist reports.
Um they are the ones who would provide
recommendations
and those are what should be followed.
So, this
I'm confused.
You have a desk on them saying that
their auto court has a wall proposed,
but the height wasn't specified. So, is
there a wall or is there not a wall?
There is a wall currently proposed. Um
they've shown that their landscaping
walls uh for their elevation that they
provided for landscaping walls are
ranging in elevation between 4 and 6 ft
throughout the property. Um and they've
specified the actual elevations of their
retaining walls on property. Um however,
they've put 4 to 6 ft um on the actual
elevation drawing for those landscaping
walls, which from a code implication is
looked at kind of identically, but if
you want us to call out point-on-point
what that elevation is for that
landscaping wall, even though
um the code implications are the same, I
just they probably just didn't want to
congest plans if I presume, but um
uh if you want like a specification of
that exact height and location.
And then we can
uh if the board like can add a condition
that just requires it to be 6 ft tall.
That's good.
Um yeah, 6 ft seems excessive for
protecting against car headlights.
>> It could be it could be lower. I guess
you know, you could say 6 ft is the 6 ft
is the maximum it could be by code.
Okay.
I think a 4 ft wall is fine.
I'm going to be prescriptive. It looked
like they were tapered. Mhm. Okay.
All right. Uh Sage, have you uh So,
yeah, so this is a formal design review.
Um and so this is similar to the last
item in which
um
this one though will be going to the
planning commission for final action.
So, there's a number of recommended
conditions of approval.
Um
I haven't heard anything that would
necessarily require a change in that uh
with the last comments here
noting that the wall between 4 and 6 ft
should be sufficient, which is what
they're noting on their plans. So, if
the board is finds that no further
changes are necessary, um there can be a
motion to uh recommend approval of the
project subject to the conditions of
approval in the staff report.
Just
uh
I'd like to hear an opinion from the
board with regard to the changes in the
window. That was the most significant
change, so do you feel it's been
satisfied, too?
Yep. Yes, absolutely. Yeah.
Okay.
It was a cautious nod. So,
>> [laughter]
>> It's the cautious guy. The architect's
smiling. Um
good. So, um with that summary, [snorts]
uh a motion to approve
um
satisfying all the previous
>> [snorts]
>> uh previously given feedback and that
reinforcing points about the
uh wall for
protection against headlights car
headlights in that parking area
specifically.
Um
and then I guess next step is Arbor's
report and then to the planning
commission.
Good. Sounds good.
>> So, that's the motion.
You make it.
>> I guess I did.
>> I second it.
Chair Lindsey? Yes. Vice Chair Kamrar?
Yes. Member DelGavio? Yes. Member
Middleman? Yes. Member Sullivan? Yes.
Thank you.
Oh, okay.
So, moving on to this is item four and
member D'Amelio is recused. Are you
going to return for
No, it's okay. Early early information.
» [laughter]
» All right.
Good night.
>> Thank you, Pat.
» [laughter]
>> Uh so, item four, 115 Romero Road. Okay,
this is the last time you have to hear
me talk tonight.
>> Gillian's up again.
>> [laughter]
>> All right. Um we're now going to review
a quick conceptual design review
application for proposal to partially
demolish an existing residence and
demolish an existing pool and to
construct an addition to the
single-family home including new
trellises on the rear side, uh
construction of two new accessory
structures, relocation of a swimming
pool and associated site improvements on
a property located at 115 Romero Road.
Um as of the start of this meeting,
there are no desk items associated with
this agenda item and we will determine
if the project is exempt from or subject
to CEQA during the formal design review
phase of this project.
Um [clears throat] the subject property
is .93 acres and it's located on the
corner of um Romero Road and Cañada
Road. The site is currently developed as
we can see here on the right side with a
single-family residence, a pool, um a
guest house, a driveway, sheds, and
associated site improvements. The
existing residence is located uh at the
approximate center of the property with
the existing pool site in northeast of
the main residence.
The site is minimally sloped with
pockets of 35% slopes along the north
side property line and throughout the
southern half of the property.
The site contains numerous significant
trees on the peripheries of the
property.
The applicant has proposed a partial
demolition, which we can see here
little difficult to see on here, but
it's x'd out elements
on the areas adjacent to the main
residence.
They're pretty much getting a
like-for-like rebuild right over them
with a small addition,
but
this will continue to take place at the
relative center of the property adjacent
to that main home. And then in addition
to those main residence additions, we
have two new accessory structures, this
new gym, which you see on the top of the
plan set, as well as a new office
structure, which we are seeing down
closer to the bottom. The new swimming
pool is in a close overlay net with the
old swimming pool, and then it's a
little bit hidden, but their new spa is
right up here. And then they are all
proposing relocation of an existing
generator that exists on site.
That's proposed right here adjacent to
this new office space B.
Um the project plans include removal of
five trees within and directly adjacent
to the
was work. We can kind of see this
cluster up here. Proposed removal as
well as those directly adjacent to this
new office structure. That's also
proposed out. And the proposed project
will retain the existing driveway
entrance along Romero, and there's no
modifications to the driveway proposed
at this time.
Um
quite a few elevations here that we need
to look at to see where these proposed
uh additions are taking place. So, let
me know if you need me to stop at any
point. We can look at them in a little
bit of greater detail, but I'll just
kind of thumb through while we're going.
Um the applicant has proposed one-story
additions to the main residence along
the front and rear building facades. The
additions to the main residence are
proposed to match the architectural
character of the existing home using
similar roof lines, colors, and
materials, and that will generate
minimal impact to the existing main
residence's appearance. The home will
maintain its existing medium-pitched
gable roof lines, but will include a new
trellis, [snorts]
um which we can see here, uh as well as
a new small cupola, which we can see
here on this proposed elevation. It's
going to bring the height up, but it's
not going to be a little story.
Um the proposed main residence um
will continue to use the existing color
materials palette, which includes stucco
walls, clay tiles, uh stained wood
windows and doors, copper gutters, and
copper chimney caps. The existing main
residence uses a color and materials
palette including shades of white and
brown.
We have two new accessory structures, as
I mentioned, in conjunction with this
project, both of which employ gable roof
lines with moderate pitches and uh
simple understated forms. The proposed
accessory structure materials include
stone exterior walls,
um
and wood windows and doors, clay roof
tiles, and copper gutters, very similar
to the existing main residence with the
exception of the finishes on um the
walls, which are meant to distinguish it
from the existing home.
Prior to formal design review, the
applicant shall clearly call out all of
their selected colors in conjunction
with the accessory uh dwelling, sorry,
the accessory structures.
Um relatively quick one here, but we do
have the project architect in person. If
you uh
would like to inquire with any further
details, but otherwise happy to provide
some guidance from staff perspective if
you have any additional questions.
Thank you.
Uh any questions with staff at this
point? Feel like I just did an
optometrist exam. Existing to the
proposed house is mainly that
the 10 ft addition on top of the move
and a little bit more uh unchored on the
side in the front. Yeah, so if you can
see here we have um they're they're kind
of sporadically spread throughout the
house. Um everything in this darker gray
color shows you an area in which an
addition is taking place in uh
conjunction with this proposed scope of
work. So there's a quite a few of them,
but they are all relatively small in
size, so
minimal visual impact, but um if you
want to see any specific elevation, see
kind of this modifications, happy to
pull them up. You can see like for
example, this area um it's just getting
finished with a new wall. It's an
existing covered patio. Um on the front
here we have a small covered patio
addition that we can see um this is
coming out with a new trellis in the
back. So all are relatively small in
footprint. There's just quite a few of
them.
Thank you.
Remind me again why set side setback is
21 ft?
Oh, so that was um just a callout of the
existing
8 ft
setback right there. Um but the setback
for structures under 17 ft in this
particular zoning designation is uh 20.
ft? Mhm.
And they
This is less
>> kind of on this
uh right here.
This is less of a project question, more
of a process question. What triggered
this to come in front of us? Yeah, so
this falls in the boundaries of a town
designated scenic corridor
given that it's a long Kinyon Road which
is a town designated scenic road. So
projects in excess of a thousand square
feet cumulatively will go to ASRB in
this particular scenic corridor's
designation.
Okay, any other questions?
Nope.
>> [clears throat]
>> Yep. All right. That concludes uh staff
presentation and invite the applicant
make a presentation if you wish. Um I
wasn't Or just ask answer questions.
Yeah, if you have any specific questions
I'd be happy to answer. Okay.
But I think I think uh
Jillian kind of laid out kind of the
scope of work very well and so I have really nothing to add
other than what she's presented.
But happy to take any specific
questions.
I commend you for putting in the last
floor tiles. I've never yet one of them
involved in
exceptionally well. You know about the
Kinyon that have been double stewarded
so we really appreciate that. So one
question I've always had um
I could pull it What How do you get up
there? How do you clean the windows? How
do you
>> [laughter]
>> Just I was I've been wondering cuz I've
seen two or three lately
and I'm
>> You have staff. I I I know it's a design
element but um
is it usable for anything?
Oh well, it's it's designed because the
house is rather dark in that in that
area of the house and the architecture
just kind of needs a
an exclamation point in it. Yeah. I've
always wondered what's inside of that.
Oh. Oh, how do you get up there? Oh, a
ladder. Ladder so it's really a skylight
in there.
Yeah, it's a skylight in a in a Yes, in
a vertical
Mhm.
design element.
Good.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yeah, so my only observation is well,
thank you for installing story poles.
Always immensely helpful in terms of
appreciating the impact. Um not just for
us, but of course people driving up and
down the street. And as it relates to
that, um one thing I noticed is that the
office story poles of the roofline of
the office are visible from the street.
Um as you drive or walk down Romero.
Um that's the one area I have some
reservations about the impact that this
is going to have
um on the existing neighbors on that
street as they uh
progress up and down. Um
I think
I yes, the structure is allowed to go
where it is, but I think anything that
could be done with regard to fencing or
plants uh that would might further
screen that it would be useful. Um I'm
not suggesting we revisit placement of
that. Um the one thing I couldn't
appreciate on site is given the
elevation of the office, which looks to
be about 4 ft above the rest of the
grade, how Wait, I couldn't see from the
renderings quite how that was going to
be resolved.
Um I don't know if Jillian has a good
illustration to help me understand that.
I'm not really sure I'm following your
question. So the the office structure,
the new office structure sits about 4 ft
above the rest The grade there is about
4 ft above the rest of the grade.
Yes. [clears throat] I just I don't know
if you were planning on changing that in
any way or you're just going to build on
top of that. Well, I think the present
level is between I think 109 and 110.
Okay.
>> But that that spans the the width of the
office. And so we're going at 1 109.5.
We just split the difference. Right. But
that 109.5 is like relative to the grade
of the rest of the house it's got to be
107 I'm guessing 106.5.
I'm sorry I didn't hear that. So the the
grade of the existing house Oh is that
about 103 Oh okay. .5 And the the
rationale the reason the client
wanted because the view from up there
you get to see all the hills. Okay. That
was the rationale to put the office
there. That's a good rationale. Yeah.
No we haven't but we can certainly
follow up this week and and gain any
input that you would like. I wasn't
aware that that was part of this process
at this point but we certainly entertain
or move forward with
and get them involved.
>> anytime you put up story polls you get
unsolicited
feedbacks.
Sure.
So I just want to reiterate it is not
required to have neighborhood outreach.
And so it's helpful but all property
owners within 300 ft do get notified of
the project of the hearing as well as
the story poles are
and but um yes we always encourage
people to do neighborhood outreach.
So should we Thank you for the move
forward and notify the neighbors within
the 300 ft radius and It's always nice
to talk to the neighbors.
Sure. Yeah at some point even my client
was saying we've got to it would be nice
to let everyone know um
but at this point moving forward we can
certainly do that easily.
>> [clears throat]
>> And then kind of get back to Julian
about any feedback we do get. Okay.
Um
Yeah, but I mean from
I mean yeah, I've no other questions um
regarding
the site designs.
Just to clarify though, it's a
suggestion, not a
I'm sorry.
>> Marine Outreach is a suggestion, not a
requirement. Well, I think it's a Like
you said, at some point we were going to
do it, and maybe at this point it might
make the process moving forward easier
for everyone.
Okay.
Any other questions?
Nope.
No. No.
Okay, with that I'll close uh up the
presentation. Thank you. Thank you.
Um see if there's any No one in the
room, so is there anyone online
from the public who wishes to make a
comment on this project? We do have a
raised hand from Van Jepson. I'm going
to give you permission to talk.
Uh good afternoon ASOB. This is Van
Jepson. I live on
La Questa Way. I'm a property owner
within 300 ft. Can you hear me okay?
Yep.
Yeah, so the concept design review is
fine by my eye. The only question I have
is the generator, if there's an
enclosure around the generator that
would keep sound from, I'll say, coming
my way. I'm just up the hill across from
Marrow on La Questa, so
Um that's the first question. I have a
second question.
So, um
if I could ask another question
regarding that generator, [snorts] so
Uh there's a
the generator kind of is bounded by the
office, and then two walls on either
side. So, there is one complete open
side, but we could certainly of course
enclose the entire structure. We were
working off of the previous
um design from the generator
that was located there a couple of years
ago. So, we were just mimicking what
that present design is and that's how we
came up with this one.
>> Are you relocating the generator as part
of this? Yes.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> Yes. So, which direction is it moving?
Further?
>> Right now at on the site plan, the the
generator is in orange on your screen.
Right now, the present generator is I
think there's even a um
uh it's right basically where it butts
the new office.
>> Yep. Yes. So, we're putting it it's in
front of the office on this plan and
we're relocating it to the rear of the
office. Okay. Yep.
All right. So, your first piece of
unsolicited feedback is about
Grace.
>> Okay.
>> [laughter]
>> Is there another question for you guys?
Yes, I do. Thank you. So, um I'm
concerned about the construction vehicle
parking.
Romero is a very tight street. The
question is it going to be on site? And
here's why, cuz I live in La Questa and
there's currently two construction
projects in La Questa, 211 La Questa and
111 La Questa and there's about 30 cars
and trucks on the daily basis that are
parked along the
road limiting to one lane and when they
have deliveries, sheetrock or whatever
stone,
um there's no passage. Um and then
sometimes I have to wait 5 minutes for
that to occur. Now,
um my question here is if it's not going
to be on site and if it's not going to
be on the I'll call it one lane Romero
road, is it going to be on Cañada Lane?
So, that lane goes between Romero and La
Questa Way and that is also very narrow
with curbs and there's really no place
to park. I've seen construction vehicles
parked there, but it makes
um it very difficult for access. So,
it's a question generally. Thank you.
Sure. So, yes, we can speak to that. All
construction staging and materials and
parking are all supposed to be on site.
That will be the same case with this
project. Sometimes sites have
constraints in which sometimes [snorts]
people have to carpool into the site.
So, and then regarding the existing
conditions that you've raised,
if there are those conditions, please
contact the building department. They
can go out there and remind the
contractors that all of that parking is
supposed to be on site. Okay, we'll do.
Thank you.
And a formal staging plan which requires
Yeah, we we definitely require it with
large projects. Sometimes with smaller
projects, it's just conditioned.
But yeah, we can definitely require it,
especially when you get into tighter
situations.
Like for example, like the Glenns, it's
very important that we see exactly what
they're going to do on a tight site. So,
it's easy enough for us to have a
condition like that on this project.
Mhm. Yeah, definitely. Yeah, no, they
should not be blocking the trail.
You know, anything like that on Cantera
Road.
Remind me, do we have
objective standards on generator
enclosures in the code? There are for
those that require emergency generators
exceptions. This does not.
I see. So, if it needed an exception to
go into the setback, that's where we
have objective standards. But when it's
not within the setback, there are no
such standards. Understood.
Okay.
Any other public comment? There are no
There are raised hands.
Thank you.
And all right, without a closed public
comment and move to board
deliberation. Anyone like to
summarize their thoughts?
Oh, I would like to given all the things we've mentioned
just recently about staging, parking,
and
that
we move this on to staff.
Formal.
Yeah. Yeah. I I'm I'm commend the
applicant for
making me have to look twice to
understand what was going on with
changing what was on site. It it's very
elegant. I like new touches are nice.
The accessory structures are well
placed. I would encourage
some kind of
neighborly sound reduction on the
generator despite not being required.
Right?
Um definitely not required
recommendation.
Yeah. I I have no problem moving this on
to formal with staff.
Uh yeah, no questions or comments. I
agree. Okay.
Yeah, I mean I echo the comments of my
fellow members. So, we move to formal
with staff.
Um I think it's elegantly done. Well,
like nice little details here and there
in terms of expanding various
structures.
Um the only thing I'll I'll bring up is
the again the
uh placement of the office and right at
the setback, which I think
um I would anticipate there will be some
unsolicited feedback from
neighbors regarding that. So, anything
that could be done to further screen
that I think would be helpful. But
beyond that I think
that pretty much summarizes our motion.
Um so, what I've heard is that
the the applicant would be encouraged um
to put some screening between the office
and Romero Road as well as provide a
neighborhood outreach and also
encouraged to uh provide any sound
attenuation that may be available for
the generator.
Yep.
Do we have a second? Second here.
Chair Lindsey. Yes. Vice Chair Kamran.
Yes. Member Middleman.
Yes. Member Sullivan. Yes.
Great. Thank you. Thank you.
Where's your wrap-up statement, Sage,
where you say, "Uh, you'll get a letter
in the mail and uh
It's been a long day. Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Long day, okay.
So, with that, close of the public
hearing, and then director's report.
Um, I don't have anything further to
report.
Uh,
just noting, uh, as I did at the
beginning of the meeting, that we'll
bring to, uh, the council just an item
to look at for this particular round of
chair and vice chair, uh, nominations
and votes, um, that if the council would
like to waive
the charter requiring no more than two
years within a four-year period. Yes.
And assuming that's done at the next
town council
>> That's correct. It will It will
definitely It's going to be on We're
going to put it on the consent agenda
for the next town council meeting, and
should anyone want to pull it, we'll
discuss Discuss it at that time. So,
then then, uh, for us, the next ASRB
>> That's correct. Yeah, we'll have that
decision by then.
And And you want to bring up something
that concerns me. So, when I was looking
at the projects that were on for today,
I feel that two of the projects didn't
need to come here.
You know,
I understand that, you know, 115 Romero
is within
the scenic corridor, but the
It's the virtually going to be the same
house at the end of the day.
And with 885 Espinosa, from what I
understand, it's the exact same project
that was approved a couple years ago,
and because of a life event,
they had to spend thousands of dollars
of put up story poles to come back to
ASRB.
So, I I just want to take a moment to
reflect that maybe our code has some
deficiencies that we should visit in
terms of how we
allow a project that's been delayed to
move forward without incurring
additional finances or financial costs,
as well as
Yes, it's a scenic corridor, but
maybe we should have an initial
threshold before
All right.
>> Oh, that's fine. The um
Yeah, those are comments that town
council can consider in making any code
changes.
Um with regards to expirations
you know, at the staff level, we just
have no authority. I'm not going to
decide whether it's 2 weeks, 2 months,
or 2 years. Um so, there's just there's
a timeline and you know,
starting talking about objective and
subjective, we want to be very careful
in making those kinds of decisions. They
need to file for extension. Yeah, they
just didn't and we can't keep track of
everyone's projects for them. Um they um
they have their own, you know, they're
provided with that information when they
get approved. Um and it's their
responsibility to uh make sure they
follow up on that stuff.
Okay. But, I I do agree that if we
didn't have to, you you know,
those are they that's
But, these are these are items
definitely that, you know, at some point
can be considered with the town council.
I mean, there we I know there's been
different times in the past that, you
know, when we have the thousands uh
square foot threshold for scenic
corridors in Western Hills, whereas the
rest of the town is a 2,000 square foot
threshold. And there's been talk
sometimes about just making them the
same. Um and so, [clears throat] you
know, that's definitely a discussion
worth having.
>> [snorts]
>> All right.
Thank you. That adjourn the meeting at
5:50 p.m.