[0:07] RB for Monday, July 27th at 4:36

[0:11] p.m.

[0:14] Um, we don't quite know what's happening

[0:16] with our our setup here with this.

[0:19] Normally would be projecting the camera

[0:21] in the room, but um not quite sure it's

[0:24] but we've verified that screen sharing

[0:26] works, so we're going to proceed with

[0:28] the

[0:30] Can I have roll call, please?

[0:34] >> Chair Lindsay,

[0:35] >> yes.

[0:36] >> Vice Chair Comra,

[0:37] >> member Delgavio,

[0:38] >> yes.

[0:39] >> Member Sullivan,

[0:40] >> present.

[0:40] >> And member Middleman is noted absent.

[0:43] >> You just a reminder for anyone attending

[0:46] in the room that uh there is a signup

[0:47] sheet and if before you leave tonight,

[0:49] if you could fill that out, uh we'd

[0:51] appreciate it just to have a record of

[0:53] attendance.

[0:54] Um any changes to the agenda tonight?

[0:59] >> There are no changes to the agenda.

[1:01] However, you do have multiple desk

[1:03] items. Um you have one desk item from um

[1:07] member Middleman. Uh just indicating

[1:09] that uh he'll have to miss some upcoming

[1:12] hearings and that um he's just asking in

[1:15] case someone want to consider him for

[1:17] vice chair to not he would not be able

[1:19] to serve as vice chair. Um the other

[1:21] items are related to uh project items

[1:25] number three, four and five and those

[1:27] will be addressed with the

[1:28] presentations. Okay. Thank you.

[1:32] Um at this point I'm just invite anyone

[1:36] in the room or online who wishes to make

[1:38] a statement or comment on anything not

[1:42] on tonight's agenda. You're welcome to

[1:44] do so. Now for those online just raise

[1:47] your hand and Julie will unmute unmute

[1:50] you.

[1:52] Hard to say unmute you.

[1:54] >> We have no raised hands.

[1:57] >> I see no one in the room. Um

[2:01] consent agenda. Was there anything in

[2:03] the consent agenda tonight? There was

[2:05] one item.

[2:05] >> Yes, there's um the minutes for June

[2:08] 15th. Anyone on the board have comment

[2:12] they wish to

[2:15] provide on those minutes. Otherwise, uh

[2:17] we'll just entertain a motion to approve

[2:19] them.

[2:22] » I did not make a motion. [laughter]

[2:24] >> I make the motion to approve.

[2:28] >> I would second that.

[2:31] >> Chair Lindseay.

[2:32] >> Yes.

[2:32] >> Vice Chair Comra.

[2:33] >> Member Delgavio.

[2:34] >> Yes.

[2:35] >> Member Sullivan.

[2:36] >> Yes. [snorts]

[2:38] Okay, with that we move on to the uh

[2:40] public hearing and the first item

[2:42] tonight is 445 Whiskey Hill Road.

[2:50] Sarah, I think it's you're up tonight.

[2:52] >> Yes, thank you. Let me pull up the

[2:55] plans.

[3:01] » Okay. Um, great. Thank you. And I will

[3:04] be introducing the project at

[3:06] >> Sorry. I'm sorry. Just before this item,

[3:08] we have to do the nomination of

[3:10] >> Oh, yes. I jumped over that one. All

[3:12] right. Sorry for that.

[3:15] >> Um the item specifically is the

[3:17] nomination for the role of vice chair.

[3:21] Uh in town council meeting in May, I

[3:24] believe it was. Um town council approved

[3:28] a resolution on the consent agenda to

[3:30] extend

[3:32] a period by two years which the current

[3:34] chair and vice chair could serve.

[3:37] Um given that I'd like to nominate the

[3:40] Christine Karma as to serve as vice

[3:44] chair

[3:45] um for the remainder of your current

[3:47] term.

[3:49] >> I would second that. If you didn't make

[3:51] a motion, I would

[3:52] >> I think that was

[3:56] >> Chair Lindsay.

[3:56] >> Yes.

[3:57] >> Vice Chair Comra.

[3:58] >> Yes. Unless

[4:01] [laughter]

[4:02] >> member Delgavio.

[4:03] >> Yes.

[4:03] >> And member Sullivan.

[4:04] >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

[4:07] >> Thank you.

[4:09] >> Okay. Sorry. Got that out of the way.

[4:11] Um, moving back to the first item, 445

[4:15] Whiskey Hill Road and Sarah's

[4:17] presentation.

[4:22] Okay.

[4:24] So, I will be introducing the project at

[4:26] 445 Whiskey Hill Road. The project

[4:30] includes the construction of a new

[4:32] fitness accessory structure, a detached

[4:35] accessory dwelling unit, an office

[4:38] accessory structure, as well as a lap

[4:41] pool and associated site improvements.

[4:45] The project is approximately 4 acres and

[4:48] it's in the RR zoning district. It's

[4:52] located on Whiskey Hill Road, which is a

[4:54] locally designated scenic road.

[4:58] Uh the site is currently developed with

[5:01] a single family main residence as well

[5:03] as a detached garage and a swimming

[5:06] pool. All of which are proposed to

[5:08] remain on site.

[5:11] The new structures are proposed in the

[5:14] southern portion of the property or like

[5:16] the rear of the property. So it's kind

[5:17] of in this general location.

[5:21] So [sighs] this I'll zoom in a little

[5:23] bit. This first structure is a um office

[5:27] slash lounge.

[5:29] This one in the middle is a fitness

[5:32] structure. And then this one is an ADU.

[5:36] And then the new swimming lap pool is

[5:38] this um

[5:41] here adjacent to these new structures.

[5:51] So, the structures will all have the

[5:53] same architectural style and form. Um,

[5:57] they'll all be less than 17 ft in

[5:59] height, which is the maximum allowed for

[6:01] accessory structures. The materials

[6:04] include wood sophet roofing and stucco

[6:09] exterior

[6:10] and the shades in shades of brown and

[6:12] beige.

[6:19] Um, and the applicant has installed

[6:22] story pools if you had a chance to go

[6:24] and take a look at them. Um, and the

[6:26] applicant is here as well for any

[6:29] additional comments. But that concludes

[6:30] my introduction and I'm happy to answer

[6:32] any questions.

[6:34] >> Thank you. Does anyone member of the

[6:35] board have questions of staff?

[6:38] >> Is that the color board down there?

[6:41] >> Yes. Sorry. And yes, at the end of your

[6:43] table there is the material board. Both

[6:46] of those boards are for this project.

[6:51] » Just had one question about the proposed

[6:54] pay.

[6:57] Is that flexible?

[6:59] >> Um

[7:01] it's a concept plan. So they are

[7:03] removing some of the existing paved area

[7:06] and kind of reworking it. So they are

[7:08] reducing the amount that's that exists

[7:10] today. Um,

[7:13] yeah.

[7:19] » Anyone else on the board questions? No.

[7:23] >> No. [clears throat]

[7:24] Wow. Great. Um, with that, we'll move

[7:29] directly to

[7:31] um the applicant's presentation if the

[7:33] applicant wishes to present.

[7:39] » Thank you, chair. I'm Eric Lungquist,

[7:41] land use planning and permitting

[7:42] consultant. Good to see you board. Thank

[7:44] you for your consideration of this

[7:45] conceptual review item. Thank you staff

[7:47] for the presentation. Just a little bit

[7:49] of administrative protocol. I was

[7:51] formerly with Brody Group, now with Lone

[7:53] Cypress Consulting. So you probably saw

[7:54] a letter from them, but now under Lone

[7:56] Cypress Consulting. As you can see from

[7:58] the information presented to you

[8:00] tonight, we took this a little bit uh

[8:01] further than what would normally be

[8:03] required for the concept review. We're

[8:05] hoping ultimately the board directs

[8:07] staff to consider administratively the

[8:09] final design review so we can move

[8:11] forward with construction more

[8:13] expeditiously. We do believe that the

[8:16] application meets all of the specific

[8:18] code criteria as well as the policies

[8:21] for the town of Woodside related to the

[8:23] residential design standards. I have a

[8:26] elaborate design team behind me. Um, so

[8:29] I just want you to know that they're

[8:31] available for um, any answers to any of

[8:34] the questions you may have. Jim Toby's

[8:36] here in the room with Lean Braze. We

[8:37] have individuals from Northworks, the

[8:39] architectural firm, and Hersh, the

[8:41] landscape architectural firm, is also

[8:43] here for any questions. So, I'll keep it

[8:45] pretty simple. Um, but again, we do ask

[8:48] for your consideration and direction to

[8:49] staff for consideration of the final

[8:52] design review board. And again, thank

[8:53] you for your time. Appreciate it. Any

[8:57] member of the board have questions of

[8:58] the

[8:59] >> applicant?

[9:03] Just have one question.

[9:09] » Oh yeah, I just have a question on

[9:10] neighbor outreach. Have you talked to

[9:12] the neighbors, showed them the plans?

[9:13] >> We have limited neighbors. Uh yeah, the

[9:16] Stamford's Equestrian Center surrounds

[9:18] most of the parcel and then um there's

[9:20] under common ownership most of the

[9:22] parcels uh nearby. So, we have spoken to

[9:25] the others that aren't associated with

[9:26] this property.

[9:28] >> Yeah.

[9:35] » Um we met on site and uh talked a little

[9:39] bit about briefly about um question I

[9:42] was going to ask which was that the

[9:43] these new structures depart somewhat

[9:46] style and architecture

[9:49] um from the existing home. I'm just

[9:52] wondering if you could speak to a little

[9:53] bit to that.

[9:55] >> Sure. I can briefly and I believe Molly

[9:57] with Northworks is also on the phone

[9:59] that can speak to the architectural, but

[10:00] we did we did study it. You you have the

[10:02] colors and materials boards here in

[10:04] front of you. What we're taking into

[10:06] account from the existing home and

[10:08] garage is the um the context of the the

[10:13] buildings, the stucco and the metal seam

[10:15] roof is drawing from the existing

[10:17] architecture. And then you know albeit

[10:20] there's slightly different vernacular

[10:22] and form we're drawing the two together

[10:25] by those features with landscaping and

[10:27] all of the landscaping hardscape. Um

[10:30] there is separation between the

[10:32] buildings um quite a bit actually that

[10:35] create further detraction from from the

[10:38] architectural compatibility. Um but I

[10:41] believe Molly is on the line to further

[10:42] explain the study that's been done with

[10:44] related to the architecture.

[10:46] >> So I'll let her speak. Molly's just been

[10:48] promoted to panelist, so she'll be

[10:50] jumping on in just a moment.

[10:58] » Molly, is there anything you'd like to

[11:00] add to what Eric has shared?

[11:04] >> Yes, just to echo what he said, uh the

[11:07] thought was to match the material. So

[11:10] even though the aesthetic might be

[11:11] differing slightly, overall we're

[11:13] feeling like it blends in well with the

[11:15] existing conditions. and then really

[11:18] melding that with the landscape as you

[11:20] sort of go down that site. The new

[11:22] buildings are about 11 ft in grade lower

[11:26] than the the main house there and then

[11:29] two additional feet lower as you

[11:30] continue down that site. So, we're

[11:32] really trying to keep a low profile

[11:34] there but yet, you know, match the same

[11:36] color as the Stuckco um as above. And

[11:40] again, it's about 200 ft away. So, um we

[11:44] felt like it was almost like a nice

[11:47] natur um you know element in nature and

[11:50] really trying to keep that within like

[11:52] the tree and the landscape

[11:55] >> and have you considered the stain grade

[11:57] wood plank in this area with the fire

[11:59] danger and that sort of thing and think

[12:01] it's the best case scenario to use that

[12:02] product?

[12:03] >> Yes, we we're we are suggesting uh um a

[12:07] product that would meet all the

[12:08] standards

[12:14] So on the materials board we have here

[12:15] in the room there's uh

[12:18] flagable flag stone where exactly is

[12:22] that applied?

[12:24] >> What what's the material?

[12:26] >> It is the

[12:33] » it's the upper right hand corner of the

[12:34] board. Yeah,

[12:39] » there's no signal on our end.

[12:42] >> I I mistook. It's paving stones, not

[12:45] flag.

[12:46] >> Okay.

[12:51] >> Um, any other questions from the board?

[12:56] >> Back to my original question about the

[12:59] proposed heating area. Um, are you

[13:03] flexible with reducing that guidelines?

[13:05] I realize you've reduced it from what

[13:07] was there existed, but it's still above

[13:10] what's allowed.

[13:12] >> Hi, Jim Toby Lean. I can address that.

[13:14] So, um, we actually worked closely with

[13:16] staff to find out what was the original

[13:18] pavement that's out there. Um, as you

[13:21] know, the town allows basically a

[13:23] grandfathering in of materials that are

[13:25] over the allowable limit as long as

[13:27] we're taking a 25% reduction in that

[13:30] allowable number. So, that number we

[13:32] worked closely with staff, figured out

[13:33] what we're going to count, not count,

[13:35] and that's how we ended up what we have.

[13:37] So, as far as we're concerned at the

[13:38] moment, and we'll obviously confirm that

[13:40] with staff and planning, but we feel

[13:41] like we're at that number that we that

[13:43] is allowable by staff.

[13:46] Cool.

[13:50] Um Jim, sorry while you're standing, um

[13:53] given the elevation of the proposed

[13:56] leech field, [clears throat] these new

[13:57] structures, you anticipate any

[13:59] challenges?

[14:01] >> We may have to do a little pumping, but

[14:02] that's allowed. We have a we have a

[14:05] brand new system going in the lawn area.

[14:06] So that's that's we've already thought

[14:08] that all the way through. We've actually

[14:09] gotten the plans, a preliminary stuff

[14:11] plan, so we should be just fine there.

[14:15] >> Okay, cool.

[14:17] Um yeah, I have no further questions.

[14:21] >> Or do I?

[14:22] >> Wow. Wow.

[14:24] >> Yeah.

[14:25] >> Wow.

[14:25] >> We studied this still in question.

[14:28] >> Um yeah, just so just to add to that for

[14:31] Sage's benefit, I mean I think you know

[14:33] with regards to the proposed material

[14:35] pallet not escape just open up for

[14:38] public if anyone else wants to speak.

[14:40] >> Oopsie.

[14:41] >> You know I'm rusty. Huh?

[14:42] >> We haven't had a meeting.

[14:46] Um yes. So wrapping up board to board

[14:49] questions. So we open this point we open

[14:51] up to uh the public for anyone who

[14:54] wishes to comment on this project.

[15:01] » For those online, please use a raise

[15:03] hand feature if you'd like to make a

[15:04] comment.

[15:08] » And there are no raised hands.

[15:09] >> Raised hands. And I see no one in the

[15:11] room standing up. So, thank you, Sage,

[15:14] for that reminder. Um, but I'll just

[15:16] I'll add a few more notes. I think, and

[15:19] I'm speaking on behalf of the board

[15:21] here, I think as it pertains to the

[15:22] materials pallet, I mean, we see

[15:25] um complete compliance with the

[15:27] residential guidelines, I think

[15:29] structures overall modest in scale. Um

[15:35] yeah, I think that's um I don't I don't

[15:37] see any issues as it pertains to the

[15:41] residential guidelines for this project.

[15:44] Um we appreciate story polls were

[15:47] erected. That certainly helps us um

[15:50] better understand the relationship of

[15:52] the structures to the site. Always a help.

[16:00] Are there any comments? If not, um

[16:03] didn't hear any recommendations. Uh so

[16:05] just to summarize that, um it was noted

[16:08] that the materials uh the selected

[16:10] materials are consistent with the

[16:11] residential design guidelines and that

[16:14] the proposed structures are modest in

[16:16] scale. Um and I did not hear any

[16:18] recommendations for revisions. Uh so

[16:21] with that um if there's a motion and

[16:24] then you can determine if uh because

[16:26] story polls have been installed it

[16:28] should come back to ASRB or should

[16:30] formal design review be completed with

[16:32] staff. I'll just take a poll of the

[16:35] board with regards to moving directly to

[16:37] staff.

[16:38] >> Yeah,

[16:38] >> lots of nods.

[16:40] >> Yeah, I think

[16:41] >> so. Yes, the motion is to move to

[16:43] formal. Is there a second to staff?

[16:47] to second the motion.

[16:50] >> Chair Lindseay,

[16:51] >> yes.

[16:51] >> Vice Chair Comra,

[16:53] >> member Delgavio,

[16:54] >> yes.

[16:54] >> Member Sullivan,

[16:55] >> yes.

[16:57] Good. Thank you.

[17:01] That was efficient.

[17:10] Did you want to wrap that up, Sage, with

[17:11] a comment about letter?

[17:14] >> Oh, yeah. just uh the uh uh letter will

[17:17] go out within the next day or two for

[17:19] all those that participated in the

[17:20] project. Um this decision is not

[17:22] appealable as it still has to complete

[17:24] the process with a formal design review.

[17:28] >> Good. Right. Moving on to the next

[17:30] items.

[17:32] Uh that would be item

[17:37] three, 192 Prospect Street.

[17:41] Jillian is presenting.

[17:47] » Hi [clears throat] everyone. I hope

[17:48] you're all having a wonderful start to

[17:50] your week. Um, this presentation is

[17:52] going to include a brief overview of the

[17:55] conceptual design review proposal uh to

[17:58] complete a remodel and addition with a

[18:00] basement to the existing main residence

[18:02] located at 192 Prospect Street, a

[18:05] renovation of the existing pool uh and

[18:08] associated site improvements. Please do

[18:11] note that the future formal design

[18:12] review application is also going to

[18:15] include a proposal to reszone this

[18:17] parcel from its existing RR rural

[18:20] residential zoning to residential R1

[18:23] zoning. We have received three desk

[18:26] items in conjunction with this proposal.

[18:29] uh all our letters of support from

[18:32] neighbors and uh associated community

[18:35] members who have expressed uh that they

[18:38] very much appreciate this design uh as

[18:40] it's been presented here today.

[18:44] Uh as a brief overview, the subject

[18:46] property is about49 acres total and it's

[18:49] located at the intersection of Prospect

[18:52] Street and Albon Avenue. So it is within

[18:55] the boundaries of a scenic corridor. The

[18:57] site is currently developed uh with an

[18:59] existing main residence which has met

[19:02] the criteria for classification as a

[19:04] historic resource under the California

[19:06] Register of Historic Places, the

[19:08] National Register for Historic Places,

[19:10] and the Woodside General Plan. In

[19:13] addition to the historic main residence,

[19:15] the site does contain a number of

[19:17] accessory uses and structures, including

[19:19] a pool house, a workshop, a pool, and an

[19:22] inrogress accessory dwelling unit.

[19:24] Please note that none of the other

[19:26] accessory uses on property do meet the

[19:29] historic resource designation. So only

[19:31] the house is classified as a historic

[19:34] resource at this time.

[19:37] >> Okay. Can you give us a quick uh

[19:39] briefing on the difference in the zoning

[19:40] and what the zoning?

[19:43] >> Yeah, absolutely. Um so rural

[19:46] residential properties uh typically have

[19:50] a 3 acre minimum in conjunction with

[19:52] their development. Um as we can see here

[19:55] this property is considered uh under

[19:58] size relative to those standards. Um and

[20:01] if you look in a little bit more detail

[20:03] on this slide um you can see uh the

[20:06] setbacks delineated typically associated

[20:09] with RR are shown in red here. Um and as

[20:14] evident by this diagramming there's

[20:16] actually no legal building parcel on

[20:18] this property. The setbacks make it so

[20:20] that no structure can actually legally

[20:23] comply with the setbacks given the

[20:25] existing zoning relative to the

[20:27] dimensions of this property and the lot

[20:29] size. Um there's some small variations

[20:32] to between the amount of developable

[20:34] total floor area, paved area, things of

[20:37] that nature in conjunction between these

[20:39] two parcels. that um the size of this

[20:42] parcel would typically be more akin to

[20:45] the R1 um property designation that

[20:48] they're seeking in the resoning process.

[20:51] >> So as we review it, you look at it

[20:53] through the eyes of the revised zoning

[20:55] to really look for compliance.

[20:57] >> Yeah. So typically the reasonzoning

[20:59] efforts are um you know they're a

[21:01] modification to the um town's zoning map

[21:06] which would be completed via the town

[21:08] council and the planning commission. Um

[21:11] so you guys don't necessarily need to

[21:12] weigh in on the reszoning. We're just

[21:14] kind of priming you to the fact that

[21:16] this thing looks wacky and out of

[21:18] compliance because they're seeking this

[21:20] extra step um that would be ruled on at

[21:24] the council phase. Um, so really the the

[21:26] bulk of what you guys would be focusing

[21:28] on today is the alignment of the design

[21:31] with the residential design guidelines.

[21:33] Um, just so that they don't get super

[21:35] far into the process and find that the

[21:38] house maybe was a concern all along and

[21:40] now they've taken a lot of time for

[21:42] something that you guys wouldn't have

[21:44] enjoyed in the first place. So, um,

[21:46] that'll be really the focus today of

[21:48] what we're looking at is the design of

[21:49] the home. And I just want to add that um

[21:53] it's important to understand its

[21:55] relationship to surrounding zoning. And

[21:57] so on the north side of Prospect Street

[21:59] in which this uh property is is a RR

[22:02] zoning district. And once you go further

[22:03] north, there's much larger properties

[22:05] that meet the 3acre minimum lot size.

[22:08] But if you look across the street to the

[22:09] south um on Prospect Street, uh those

[22:13] are much smaller properties that are

[22:15] similar in size and shape to this

[22:17] property and those are in an R1

[22:19] district. So it's just kind of expanding

[22:21] the district boundaries to include that

[22:23] parcel.

[22:24] >> Yeah. So Sage mentioned if you look

[22:26] these parcels um you can see are

[22:28] relatively can in size um and those are

[22:32] all R1 zoned whereas this side of the

[22:34] street is is R are currently

[22:38] [clears throat]

[22:39] um

[22:40] >> sorry just close on that. So

[22:42] historically uh nearby examples where

[22:45] the zoning change was successful similar

[22:49] request. Oh. Um,

[22:52] >> yeah. I there's different we we've I

[22:55] recall one property and then uh on

[22:58] Greenways and so when you go like

[23:01] halfway up Greenway Street from Alama

[23:03] delas Pulgus, it's R1 zoning and the

[23:06] properties about halfway up the street

[23:08] got larger into 1acre parcels and they

[23:11] were zoned to SR. One of the property

[23:14] owners was right on that border and they

[23:16] were in the SR district had a larger

[23:17] lot. They proposed to split those lots

[23:21] um but they had to reszone it to R1 to

[23:24] do so. So they proposed the from the SR

[23:28] proposed the R1 did the land division

[23:31] and because it now met the minimum lot

[23:33] size for R1 was able to build two houses

[23:35] on that lot. That's one example. We

[23:37] don't get a lot of these but um it's

[23:39] kind of you know if this was in the

[23:41] middle of a large zoning district it's

[23:43] something

[23:44] people call it spot zoning. not the the

[23:48] right definition of spot zoning, but um

[23:50] you want to be careful of doing that. In

[23:52] this case, it does relate to the zoning

[23:53] across the street.

[23:55] >> Thank you. All right.

[23:58] >> All right. Um so, just a quick a quick

[24:00] overview of what's being proposed at

[24:03] this time for you guys to look at. Um,

[24:05] the applicant has proposed construction

[24:08] of a new addition to the main residence

[24:10] consisting two wings on the north facade

[24:13] of the structure as you can see here in

[24:16] yellow. Um, one of [clears throat] which

[24:18] contains a basement. This lower one on

[24:20] this uh sheet is where that basement is

[24:23] proposed at this time. The applicant has

[24:25] also proposed a complete demolition and

[24:28] rebuild of this front porch here. Um the

[24:31] front porch was actually a later

[24:33] addition that's not a part of the

[24:35] historic home. Um so demolition of that

[24:37] portion wouldn't constitute destruction

[24:39] of a historic resource because that in

[24:41] of itself was not part of the historic

[24:43] resource. Um

[24:46] and they're also looking to do a slight

[24:48] remodel of this pool. You can kind of

[24:50] see that delineation between the uh

[24:53] existing and proposed slight addition to

[24:55] size but almost identical in footprint.

[24:58] So minimal change to the land

[25:00] disturbance there. Uh as mentioned,

[25:03] there's going to be that proposal for RR

[25:05] to R1 zoning which will shift our

[25:07] standards for allowable TFA and paved

[25:10] area a little bit if that does proceed.

[25:14] Um just one brief thing to note as well.

[25:18] Um, as you can see here, there is going

[25:21] to be a need to seek some variances as,

[25:24] uh, you know, we're working on an

[25:26] existing building envelope and doing

[25:27] some additions there. And even with the

[25:29] reasonzoning, this house is going to

[25:31] struggle to comply with the setbacks,

[25:33] but it's further constrained by the fact

[25:35] that it's a historic resource. So, we're

[25:37] kind of working with what we've got

[25:38] here. And um they're looking for some

[25:40] variances to setbacks as well as to um

[25:44] height in the front for that addition um

[25:47] to work um through the constraints we

[25:49] have from the historic resource.

[25:53] Um the proposed main residence remodel

[25:57] clearly distinguishes the existing

[25:59] historic home which is characterized by

[26:01] hip roofs and air appropriate colors,

[26:02] materials and forms from the main

[26:04] residence edition which are

[26:06] characterized by gable roofs, darker

[26:07] colors and distinct modern materials

[26:09] such as corrugated roofing and aluminum

[26:11] windows. Uh you can see between these

[26:13] slides that the historic home um is

[26:17] shown in these um white uh vertical

[26:21] sidings and the additions are clearly

[26:24] distinguished in darker colors with

[26:26] these variable forms. Um this is

[26:29] informed stylistically

[26:31] um by both the Woodside residential

[26:33] design guidelines and the state's

[26:35] standards for the secretary of the

[26:37] interior standards for the treatment of

[26:38] historic properties and their standards

[26:40] for rehabilitation of historic

[26:42] buildings. There are clauses about

[26:45] making them aesthetically divergent that

[26:47] it's clear that you uh know which parts

[26:50] are historic versus modern. um they did

[26:54] do the extra mile work of engaging the

[26:56] town historian at this conceptual design

[26:58] phase. Our contracted historian does uh

[27:01] believe that their design is in general

[27:03] compliance with the secretary of the

[27:05] interior standards relative to those

[27:07] rehabilitation efforts for historic

[27:09] resources.

[27:12] Um here's our digital material board

[27:14] that we have on file. is conceptual. So

[27:16] they weren't required to submit

[27:18] physicals at the time. But you can see

[27:20] their materials are generally in

[27:21] alignment with the Woodside residential

[27:23] design guidelines uh even operating

[27:25] under the constraints of deviating from

[27:28] the historic uh structure for the

[27:30] additions and maintaining the existing

[27:32] character of the historic home.

[27:35] We do have members of the 192 Prospect

[27:38] team here in person. they uh are

[27:40] available to give a presentation

[27:41] shortly, but if you have any questions

[27:43] for staff, more than happy to answer at

[27:45] this time.

[27:47] >> Thank you. Any member of the board have

[27:50] questions of staff?

[27:54] Okay.

[27:56] Um with that, we'll move to uh the

[27:59] applicants presentation.

[28:08] Good evening, folks. Uh my name is Lim

[28:10] Finnegan. I'm here tonight uh with my

[28:12] wife Sam and we're the residents and the

[28:14] owner of 192 Prospect Street. Uh I

[28:18] suppose we bought this property to give

[28:19] you a little background in 2023 of a a

[28:22] man by the name of Jim Milton. Uh and he

[28:24] was the one that convinced us Woodside

[28:26] was the place where we should move to.

[28:28] We have two young kids uh she a boy Dara

[28:31] and a a daughter Anaita. So, we were

[28:35] looking for a a neighborhood or a a

[28:37] location that where our kids could walk

[28:39] to school, a rural community. We grew up

[28:41] in rural in the west of Ireland, and we

[28:42] were looking for that location where we

[28:44] could build our forever home. We believe

[28:45] we found this location. So, I guess

[28:48] that's why we're here today, uh, to try

[28:50] to move this project forward. Uh, it's

[28:52] taken a while to get to this point.

[28:54] We're probably two years into it,

[28:55] working with our design team and our and

[28:58] the historian, U Bonnie, as well on this

[29:00] project. But uh I don't really have much

[29:03] to else to say like or to add to it like

[29:04] you know I appreciate all your effort

[29:06] and all the hard work you guys do like

[29:08] you know and uh with that I can pass you

[29:10] over to our design team like Peter Mason

[29:12] is here and Virginia and they can answer

[29:14] any probably technical questions that

[29:17] you have about the property or the

[29:18] minutiae but so with that just thank you

[29:20] guys.

[29:20] >> Thank you.

[29:21] >> Okay.

[29:31] Good afternoon. You're going to get two

[29:33] of us today because as you've seen from

[29:35] your packet, this is a very complex

[29:37] project and um so we're going to tag

[29:40] team on it and then we're going to still

[29:41] tag team on the next project that's in

[29:43] front of you which is also ours. So I'm

[29:46] Virginia Dear and my husband Peter Mason

[29:48] is the principal of Mason Architects. Um

[29:52] I'm going to just frame this project a

[29:55] little bit. Um I think some of you have

[29:56] lived in town a long time just like us.

[29:59] I've well Peter and I have been here 25

[30:01] years and um in 2000 in about 2010 um I

[30:07] served for two years on the general plan

[30:09] task force and um which in fact came in

[30:13] front of Peter when he was on the town

[30:15] council and at that time uh two

[30:20] very significant houses that qualified

[30:24] for the national historic register were

[30:26] demolished in town and there was a lot

[30:28] of conversation

[30:29] about how we preserve Woodid's historic

[30:33] resources and um that resulted in um

[30:39] policies written into the land use

[30:42] element of the general plan um the

[30:44] housing element of the general plan um

[30:47] the historic resource element of the

[30:49] general plan and um they all supported

[30:53] the sorry I'm reading my notes but it's

[30:56] helpful to me but you know the

[30:57] preservation rehabilitation and the

[31:00] adaptive reuse uh of properties like

[31:03] this and structures like this. And um

[31:07] some of those policies have actually

[31:09] disappeared from our new housing element

[31:11] in the general plan mainly because I

[31:12] think we're now so focused on um you

[31:17] know the numbers that we have to create

[31:18] in terms of our housing stock. Um, but I

[31:22] think we can all agree that the fact

[31:24] that the Finnegan bought this

[31:28] beautiful little house and they decided

[31:30] they wanted to keep it and that it would

[31:31] become the sort of um lynch pin of their

[31:35] project. um is admirable because

[31:37] actually what happened from there was um

[31:41] that decision you know engendered a

[31:44] multitude of challenges and um

[31:49] Liam referred to the two years that he

[31:51] spent that we've all spent on this

[31:54] project. Um [snorts] the last year in

[31:56] particular has been very intense because

[31:59] we started a design that looked

[32:02] different from this in fact and um

[32:05] unfortunately we got we got shut down on

[32:10] it because it didn't provide enough

[32:12] differentiation between the historic

[32:14] resource and the rest of the project.

[32:17] And at that point um we decided that

[32:21] we'd take a different approach and that

[32:23] the um that the new addition would now

[32:28] become part of the sort of compound of

[32:31] the rest of the property and would

[32:33] coordinate with those pieces and would

[32:35] allow this historic resource at the

[32:37] front of the property to shine. Um and

[32:40] hopefully we've done that a little bit.

[32:43] um [clears throat]

[32:45] you you did read all about this probably

[32:47] in the design narrative that we that we

[32:49] sent to you. So you know what what I'm

[32:51] talking about. I'm really just sort of

[32:52] touching on a few important items. And

[32:55] um Jillian has has very described very

[32:58] well this idea that you know we

[32:59] discovered also that we needed to

[33:01] reszone the property because not only

[33:03] was there no building envelope, it would

[33:05] actually be very very difficult. This

[33:06] house is very small. Um it's 1,600

[33:09] square ft. Um [clears throat]

[33:11] now obviously

[33:13] there are parts of the world where that

[33:15] is really considered not at all small

[33:17] but we have um

[33:21] there are only two bedrooms currently

[33:23] and um with a growing family that's

[33:25] really not um you know very practical.

[33:29] So there were um design objectives here

[33:31] that uh excuse me

[33:35] dusty that we needed to meet for the

[33:38] family and for a modern lifestyle.

[33:41] Um [clears throat]

[33:44] excuse me I am coughing.

[33:47] I'm going to hand it over to Peter

[33:50] because he can address the sort of

[33:52] specific elements of the design uh that

[33:54] you might have questions about. Um, and

[33:57] I will just stay here and assist him in

[33:59] that. So hopefully that was helpful.

[34:03] » Uh, thank you very much for your

[34:05] service. Really appreciate it. I was on

[34:07] town council for 12 years and know

[34:09] exactly what goes into both ASRB. I was

[34:11] on ASRB for four and a half years. So I

[34:14] know what goes into your job and I know

[34:15] what goes into the to the town council's

[34:18] job. Um, Shangri, you want to go with

[34:20] the first one or Yuki?

[34:23] So, this gives you an explanation a

[34:26] little bit in terms of what and I forgot

[34:28] my laser. Uh, as you can see, what what

[34:32] Sage was trying to point out was that

[34:34] the area across the street

[34:37] um on the left hand side, left hand

[34:40] side,

[34:43] the ones on the So, that little that's

[34:45] the same size as the lots across the

[34:47] street. in it and having those

[34:49] constraints to it just makes doing

[34:52] anything with this house kind of

[34:53] extremely difficult or impossible. Uh so

[34:57] there's a bunch of little exceptions and

[34:59] variances and that kind of stuff that

[35:00] going to be part of the overall process.

[35:03] Uh this is what we started off with. Um

[35:07] on the left hand side was the existing

[35:08] house. Um on the right hand that's the

[35:12] existing house and then the right hand

[35:14] side shows you you know how the overall

[35:17] build buildout across the property is.

[35:19] So we've we started off by doing the as

[35:22] by doing a ADU and just to point out

[35:26] working through this process we we kept

[35:29] Sage and the planning department updated

[35:31] as what we were planning in the overall

[35:33] so that they were you know everybody

[35:35] knew what we were doing. So when we got

[35:37] to go, can you go to the next slide?

[35:41] This shows you a little bit about what

[35:43] the So the main the historic house is

[35:46] actually was actually only 740 square

[35:49] ft. It was a square structure. It was

[35:52] built in 1887. It's probably one of the

[35:55] first or the first house in Woodside. Um

[35:59] and it was actually built before there

[36:01] was a subdivision. So when they did the

[36:04] subdivision, they did they pushed it to,

[36:09] you know, minimum front step setbacks

[36:10] and everything else. So that's was

[36:12] there. The the um next thing that was

[36:16] done was about 19

[36:19] in the 20s 20s and 30s. There was a uh

[36:23] front the porch was added in the 20s and

[36:26] 30s and then there's a section in the

[36:28] back which was the bedroom wing.

[36:30] um and it extended out and it was flush

[36:33] with the front of the uh existing

[36:37] historic structure. So, as part of the

[36:39] process and working with Bonnie, the

[36:42] historic consultant, we pushed the the

[36:45] bedroom wing back about 5 ft. So, in the

[36:48] first rendering, you saw how it it

[36:50] accentuated this h the house itself as a

[36:53] historic structure. The one in the back

[36:55] isn't necessarily that the that and

[37:01] the um bedroom wing

[37:04] isn't historic. Um and so we were doing

[37:08] the same thing we were doing with the

[37:11] addition of the kitchen structure where

[37:12] it has to be something different. So we

[37:14] changed the siding, we changed the

[37:16] windows, we did a bunch of other stuff

[37:17] like that as well as pushing it back to

[37:20] accentuate that.

[37:22] the all the other development that we've

[37:23] done on the site, we decided the kitchen

[37:25] should be in keeping with that family

[37:28] and that really allows it to

[37:29] differentiate itself from the main from

[37:32] the historic structure which we

[37:35] personally think works pretty well. Uh

[37:38] so what what we created is a little

[37:40] village of similar structures as well as

[37:43] accentuating the the main house.

[37:46] Um

[37:53] So, there's really two there's there's

[37:55] really two additions we're making. One

[37:58] is the one is the back portion is the is

[38:03] the uh kitchen and the other one is the

[38:06] uh master bedroom extension because the

[38:08] house as it exists only has two very

[38:10] small bedrooms and so we have two kids

[38:12] with they have two kids they want you

[38:14] know two bedrooms as well as a master

[38:16] suite. So what we're trying to create

[38:18] here is we're trying to take the

[38:19] historic property and be have it become

[38:23] a modern house in the way it works and

[38:27] functions as a as a family house. Um

[38:32] the addition to the the addition is for

[38:35] the master bedroom is 500 ft and the

[38:37] kitchen additions about 830. gets us to

[38:40] somewhere around uh

[38:44] 20 something. We think 3,000 something.

[38:49] Um

[38:51] the renovation of the historic house has

[38:55] to meet the requirements for the uh

[38:58] United [snorts] States

[39:01] uh restor you know historic secretary of

[39:04] the interior standards for restorations

[39:07] and that requires the difference in the

[39:08] looks as well as what you can and can't

[39:11] do to maintain the and and enhance the

[39:15] um the historic property itself.

[39:19] One of the problems with this house is

[39:21] that it was built in 189 1887 and was

[39:25] built out of redwood and the roof

[39:27] framing is 2x4s

[39:30] uh and they're way overstressed

[39:33] uh to the point where they actually sag

[39:37] uh within it as well as they have

[39:39] absolutely no there's no seismic forces

[39:43] in I mean there's no seismic

[39:46] structural system at all which is one of

[39:48] the things we also have to add here. So

[39:50] when we were looking at the

[39:53] um the front porch is not structurally

[39:57] tied to the house itself and actually

[40:01] has fallen down a couple of times and

[40:03] been rebuilt and it's not historic in

[40:04] any way. And so what we were looking at

[40:07] doing was trying to get the house to

[40:10] have get the structure of the roof to

[40:12] deal with the lateral forces of the uh

[40:15] of the way that's built. So, there's a

[40:17] glass section that's reminiscent of what

[40:18] the existing porch has. And then we

[40:21] wanted to turn the entry to be off of

[40:24] porch, off of uh Prospect and not off of

[40:28] a crazy little stair that comes up to

[40:30] the front of the house. Um, which

[40:32] doesn't work very well in the rain and

[40:34] all the other stuff. So, you know,

[40:36] that's the basis of that.

[40:39] Uh, we know

[40:42] that this property has a lot of paved

[40:44] area issues. um like everyone one does

[40:49] uh as well as you know how you how we

[40:52] tie everything together. So we've been

[40:54] working with staff on the paved area and

[40:57] we'll continue to do so as we move

[40:59] forward but it's the paved area works in relation to the R1 zoning which is good. Um there was a question

[41:09] in there about the fencing.

[41:12] Um,

[41:14] so the existing fence go back to the p the photos.

[41:21] Yeah. So this is these are the on the

[41:24] left hand side is the uh wooden fence

[41:26] that exists

[41:28] on the property and it's very similar to

[41:31] the one that's across the street across

[41:34] on on Prospect on Ab Albian.

[41:38] And so there's a couple of corners where

[41:40] it intersects with what's allowable for

[41:43] a fence. And we do have a pool. So we

[41:46] have to have a you have to have a

[41:48] cohesive fence system for fence

[41:52] enclosure.

[41:54] So what we're doing is

[41:58] uh we're moving we're moving the pool

[42:00] equipment to a area

[42:03] off to the side there. And what we're

[42:04] trying to do is incorporate an enclosure

[42:07] of that fence and the house so that it

[42:10] becomes a a singular element. Um, and

[42:13] that's what the idea here is. What we're

[42:16] looking at doing is um

[42:20] trying to keep either keep one do one of

[42:22] two things. Either keep the fence

[42:24] existing fence where it already is,

[42:25] which is avoiding the trees, or um

[42:30] dealing with an enclosure out on the

[42:32] outside of it. So the one the the

[42:35] elevation on the right hand side shows

[42:37] the uh pulling the fence back to the

[42:40] property line

[42:42] um and then making it moving the the

[42:45] existing fence back for a little section

[42:47] of it to uh deal with the to deal with

[42:50] the being on the property line. We'd

[42:53] like to kind of keep it where it is, but

[42:55] you know we can work around that. We'll

[42:57] work with staff on that for the formal.

[43:00] Uh there any questions? Oh, thank you,

[43:02] Peter. Um, any member of the board have

[43:05] questions of the app?

[43:11] » Okay, great. [laughter]

[43:13] >> Okay.

[43:14] >> Actually, I do.

[43:19] » So, um I I certainly understand the

[43:21] spirit of the historical

[43:24] u guidelines with regards to

[43:26] differentiating old structures from new.

[43:28] um you've taken it to an extreme here.

[43:32] literally black and white and I'm just

[43:34] curious if you could speak to a little

[43:36] bit about your your thinking behind um

[43:39] >> well there's there's two parts there's

[43:41] two parts to that one is and if you look

[43:43] at the if you look at the right hand

[43:45] side of the structure where the where

[43:47] the existing addition is on the right

[43:49] hand that feels like it's part of the

[43:53] house

[43:54] uh and it kind of follows the follows

[43:57] the historic thing and the in working

[43:59] with Bonnie she said it really has to be

[44:02] quite different.

[44:04] Um, and the rest of the property we're

[44:06] doing the sort of it's not black, it's

[44:08] sort of a darker it's a darker brown.

[44:11] And I think what it does is it helps to

[44:13] delineate and show the separation of the

[44:16] two of the two structures. Uh, so that

[44:19] it really it really points out that the

[44:21] house is special, the old house is

[44:23] special and the rest of it falls. If you

[44:25] look at that, if you look at that

[44:26] elevation or the that rendering again,

[44:30] it falls to the background.

[44:34] >> The type of wood is that just a cedar?

[44:36] >> Yeah, it's a cedar. It's a it's a dark

[44:37] stained cedar.

[44:38] >> Just a

[44:40] Yeah, they're all all the all the rest

[44:42] of the house buildings on the side are

[44:43] >> so we really sort of wanted it to recede

[44:46] actually. Um, and in addition to that,

[44:49] it's really extraordinary when you read

[44:51] the Secretary of the Interior, you know,

[44:52] this long document they have that talks

[44:54] about how you comply, they they show you

[44:56] some extraordinary examples of what they

[44:59] consider to be acceptable.

[45:01] Um, you know, I mean, I can't say that I

[45:05] really like them, but, you know, that's

[45:07] what they want. uh they'll show you a

[45:08] glass modern glass extension next to uh

[45:12] you know a Victorian um structure you

[45:16] know which is

[45:18] that's what's required. So so we wanted

[45:20] it to recede

[45:22] >> and and we really wanted to be part of

[45:24] an overall

[45:26] site feel so that it it feels like it's

[45:29] part of

[45:29] >> it's another third component

[45:31] >> another part of it so it's fitting

[45:33] everything together.

[45:35] I know it's not something that you often

[45:36] see. [laughter]

[45:38] So,

[45:41] » well, part of the the roofs um

[45:44] >> that's one of the things you have to do.

[45:45] The the structural engineer was quite

[45:49] clear that he felt that in the event of

[45:52] an earthquake that the porch if it

[45:55] wasn't actually connected better to the

[45:57] building [clears throat]

[45:59] that the porch could come off the

[46:00] building and actually damage the

[46:02] historic structure which is obviously

[46:04] not something

[46:06] >> it would be sort of like you don't want

[46:07] that

[46:07] >> still wagging the dog.

[46:09] >> And in addition to that obviously this

[46:10] is a residential use. It's not um it's

[46:13] not just a little museum somewhere.

[46:15] People are actually living in this. So

[46:17] um it needs to be safe in that regard.

[46:20] >> Oh, excuse me.

[46:22] >> And the intent is to remodel the other

[46:24] existing in addition to the ADU. The

[46:26] other existing structures will be

[46:28] remodeled.

[46:28] >> No, they're already they're already

[46:30] done.

[46:31] >> They're the ADU is under construction.

[46:33] >> Yep.

[46:33] >> Uh the other two structures are

[46:35] permitted already

[46:37] and um this was the next step. Yeah,

[46:40] they they aren't under construction, I

[46:41] don't believe, but

[46:43] >> Oh, yeah,

[46:43] >> they will be shortly.

[46:44] >> Yes.

[46:45] >> Okay. Okay. Any other questions?

[46:48] Otherwise, uh move on. No.

[46:53] >> Okay. Thank you.

[46:54] >> Thank you.

[46:56] >> Um with that, we open up to public

[46:59] comment.

[47:01] I remembered this time. So, anyone in

[47:04] the room or online who wishes to make a

[47:07] comment regarding this proposal, welcome

[47:10] to do so.

[47:11] >> As a reminder, for those online, use a a

[47:13] raise hand feature if you'd like to make

[47:15] a comment.

[47:19] » There are no raised hands.

[47:22] >> Okay. We did receive a number of desk

[47:24] items in support of this project.

[47:27] Um, good.

[47:29] So, that close uh public hearing. Move

[47:32] to board discussion. Anyone like to kick

[47:34] us off?

[47:37] >> Well, I I walked by this house a million

[47:39] times and when it was in it shape and I

[47:44] can work with them. It's just wonderful.

[47:47] It fits in with that all the other

[47:50] houses.

[47:51] fits in with the house

[47:58] and with all the

[48:01] project

[48:04] >> and totally commendable that you had to

[48:05] go through what you've gone through for

[48:07] two years.

[48:12] » Bob,

[48:13] >> yeah,

[48:14] >> no particular comments beyond what's

[48:15] already been brought up.

[48:18] >> Good. Yeah, I think it's a fascinating

[48:21] challenge. Um, I think uh the decisions

[48:24] around the contrasting

[48:27] aesthetics of the new construction

[48:29] benefits from having all the additional

[48:32] structures uh that'll be help bring it

[48:34] in line. Um, yeah, I think it's quite an

[48:37] elegant solution to this problem. I have

[48:39] no concerns with regards to um

[48:42] visibility from surrounding neighbors or

[48:45] the street. I know that was um brought

[48:49] up as a potential cons area of concern,

[48:51] but none with mine and I'm I'm quite

[48:54] happy moving this forward directly to

[48:56] staff for formal. So this this doesn't

[49:00] have story polls up. So it would

[49:02] [clears throat] and part of the reason

[49:04] is it requires all these additional

[49:06] entitlements and so they wanted to put

[49:08] story polls up when they're kind of

[49:09] ready to go ASRB planning commission

[49:11] council to minimize the time that story

[49:14] polls need to be up. Are story poles

[49:15] required as part of the reasonzoning?

[49:17] There uh it's the what happens is all

[49:21] the the project all at the end has to be

[49:23] approved by the town council because

[49:25] they have to take uh action on the

[49:27] resoning. So you couldn't really say

[49:29] approve the setbacks without the

[49:31] resoning. So at the end of the day the

[49:33] council will take final action on all

[49:34] the entitlements. Um the SRP and

[49:37] planning commission will be providing

[49:38] recommending roles. Is it also town

[49:41] council's responsibility to make take

[49:43] any action regarding the fact that it's

[49:45] a historical property?

[49:47] >> Uh there's no special entitlement needed

[49:49] for that. Uh the way that's kind of

[49:51] really handled is through SQA. Um and so

[49:54] by having a building that is consistent

[49:56] with the secretary of in interior

[49:58] standards, it could be exempt from SQA.

[50:01] Um but there's no special entitlement

[50:02] needed for it.

[50:03] >> Okay.

[50:04] >> Sage, is it possible to have uh planning

[50:08] commission do formal

[50:10] Uh it the way the code's set up is that

[50:13] the ASRB has to see the story polls. Um

[50:16] they could I mean at this point uh you

[50:19] know we could bring it back if the ASRB

[50:21] wishes on consent um to the ASRB and

[50:25] then if there's any significant issues

[50:27] brought up at that time uh it could be

[50:29] pulled off consent. Uh [snorts] but in

[50:31] according to the code without the story

[50:32] polls it needs to go back to ASR.

[50:35] Does anyone on the board have concerns

[50:38] with regards to it? Um, going straight

[50:40] to consent

[50:42] >> to consent.

[50:42] >> Yep. No.

[50:44] >> Okay. All right. I think that's that's

[50:46] uh our position.

[50:49] >> Um Okay. So, what I've heard is uh the

[50:51] applicant is commended uh for design

[50:54] additions and remodels to the historic

[50:56] home that uh fits well within the design

[50:59] of the houses on Prospect Street. Um the

[51:02] applicant is commended for working

[51:04] closely with the project historian uh to

[51:07] ensure consistency with the secretary of

[51:09] interior standards and that um while

[51:13] part of those standards require the

[51:14] addition to be distinguished from the

[51:17] main residence or from the existing

[51:18] structure um those additions do tie into

[51:21] other accessory structures on site

[51:23] bringing kind of a cohesive design to

[51:25] the entire project. Um, I didn't hear

[51:27] any recommendations for changes. Other

[51:29] than that, it was uh noted to move the

[51:31] project to the ASRB for story polls on

[51:34] consent and then after that it could

[51:36] move on to planning commission and town

[51:37] council.

[51:38] >> I do think you want to add that they the

[51:41] applicants have gone to a lot of

[51:44] outreach and all the or at least the

[51:47] neighbors around them are very

[51:48] supportive.

[51:52] » We can definitely include that. Um, so

[51:55] with that, is there a motion and a

[51:57] second?

[51:59] >> Here.

[52:00] >> Make a motion

[52:01] >> in second.

[52:04] >> Chair Lindseay.

[52:05] >> Yes.

[52:05] >> Vice Chair Comra. Member Delgavio.

[52:07] >> Yes.

[52:08] >> Member Sullivan.

[52:09] >> Yes.

[52:12] Great.

[52:16] Thank you.

[52:19] >> Yes.

[52:21] Take a very short break.

[52:30] Okay.

[55:03] Sarah, you're presenting. Thank you.

[55:08] >> Yes, thank you. Um, okay. I will be

[55:12] introducing the project at 161 Fox Road.

[55:16] The project includes the demolition of

[55:19] an existing single family dwelling and

[55:22] accessory structures and the

[55:24] construction of a new single family

[55:27] dwelling with an attached junior

[55:30] accessory dwelling unit as well as an

[55:33] attached accessory dwelling unit. Um ADU

[55:37] I'll just keep I'll say ADU. Sorry. um a

[55:41] detached garage with an ADU and another

[55:45] uh detached ADU as well as a uh swimming

[55:49] pool, tennis pavilion, building an

[55:53] tennis court and associated site

[55:55] improvements.

[55:57] So, the property is in is in the RR

[56:01] zoning district and it's about three

[56:03] acres, just over three acres.

[56:06] It's located off Fox Box Follow Road,

[56:07] which is um extends off of Woodside

[56:10] Road. It's currently developed with a

[56:13] single family main residence and

[56:14] accessory structures, all of which are

[56:16] proposed to be demolished.

[56:20] The new main residence will be located

[56:22] in the same general area as the existing

[56:25] residence. Um and the main residence

[56:28] will include

[56:30] um a J AU on the basement level. And

[56:33] then this portion here is the attached

[56:36] ADU.

[56:39] The detached garage is proposed here

[56:42] adjacent to the main residence and we'll

[56:44] have an ADU above the garage.

[56:48] And then the detached ADU is um down

[56:51] here closer to the front of the

[56:53] property.

[56:56] Um, in front of the main residence will

[56:58] be the sort of like outdoor recreational

[57:01] uses which includes this lawn area, um,

[57:04] a swimming pool. They also have a botchi

[57:06] ball court here. And then also they're

[57:09] proposing a tennis court here in this

[57:12] location and the tennis pavilion kind of

[57:14] right adjacent to it.

[57:17] Uh there is um oops actually before I get

[57:21] there um the existing driveway is

[57:24] proposed to be uh removed and relocated.

[57:29] So let me show you where the existing

[57:31] driveway is. Go back. Sorry.

[57:36] So the existing driveway is kind of

[57:38] center in the property and it just kind

[57:40] of extends straight in. So they're

[57:43] removing that driveway.

[57:46] um and relocating it to this kind of

[57:48] corner of the property here. So,

[57:51] there'll be new, you know, new driveway

[57:53] and new parking and a new firetruck

[57:55] turnaround.

[57:58] um on this adjacent property over here

[58:01] on this like right side of the screen.

[58:04] Um so that's kind of like south of this

[58:05] property there is a horse trail um and

[58:09] an easement

[58:11] that extends the entire length of this

[58:14] property boundary.

[58:16] And um we did take the project to the

[58:20] trails committee at their July 9th

[58:22] meeting um to review uh with the trails

[58:26] committee to see if they had any

[58:27] comments they wanted to um express um

[58:31] kind of in uh relation to the proximity

[58:33] of the tennis court to that horse trail.

[58:36] So, the committee um had some concerns

[58:39] about noise

[58:41] um potentially about fencing

[58:44] um

[58:46] but overall they you know they gave

[58:48] comments mostly concerned with potential

[58:51] noise impacts.

[58:56] I'm going to go to some elevations.

[59:02] So, the main residence and the accessory

[59:06] structures will all have the same sort

[59:08] of architectural style and form, and

[59:11] they'll all have flat roofs.

[59:13] The main residence will be two stories

[59:16] with a basement. Um, and it'll be about

[59:19] 24 ft in height.

[59:22] And as I mentioned before, the detached

[59:24] garage will have um an ADU above.

[59:30] So that's uh this structure here.

[59:36] The materials for all the structures

[59:38] include wood panels, concrete, stucco,

[59:42] um wood sun shade louvers, aluminum

[59:45] windows and doors, and um some areas

[59:48] with green roofs. And the color palette

[59:51] includes you muted earth tones in shades

[59:54] of brown, beige, and gray.

[59:57] Uh they have not installed story poles

[59:59] yet. Uh and we did receive a few desk

[1:00:02] items. One was um an additional letter

[1:00:06] of support from a um property owner, a

[1:00:10] neighboring property owner. Um part of

[1:00:13] the packet was a number of letters and

[1:00:16] support for the project.

[1:00:18] Um, a second desk item was a letter from

[1:00:21] the geotechnical engineer um, just

[1:00:24] describing some areas on site that have

[1:00:27] 35% slope and those areas being um,

[1:00:30] man-made

[1:00:31] and that was just in response to some of

[1:00:33] the items called out in the staff

[1:00:35] report. And then the last item was just

[1:00:39] the summary comments from the trails

[1:00:41] committee.

[1:00:42] That um, that concludes my presentation

[1:00:45] though and I'm happy to answer any

[1:00:46] questions. Thank you, sir.

[1:00:49] [clears throat]

[1:00:49] >> Does anyone on the board have questions

[1:00:51] of staff?

[1:00:55] » Does ASRB get involved in conversations

[1:00:58] about the horse trail and proximity to

[1:01:01] some of these improvements or is that

[1:01:02] really fall to staff and planning and

[1:01:05] other folks not ASRB?

[1:01:09] [clears throat]

[1:01:09] >> The you know the ASRB looks at site

[1:01:11] planning. So all aspects of site

[1:01:13] planning are looked at. Um but that's

[1:01:16] why we have you know a number of

[1:01:18] different committees in town and you

[1:01:20] know you have some comments from the

[1:01:21] trails committee to consider. Um the

[1:01:24] code the the reason this was brought

[1:01:27] forward is that tennis courts could be

[1:01:28] closer to a property line than

[1:01:31] structures can. And so uh because the

[1:01:34] tennis court is still further away than

[1:01:36] what is the minimum required. Um but

[1:01:38] both the applicant and staff agreed to

[1:01:40] bring it to the trails committee and so

[1:01:42] they have some input that you can

[1:01:44] consider.

[1:01:45] Sage, I think. Nick, can you clarify? If

[1:01:47] it's a tennis court, it can be 30 feet.

[1:01:51] >> It can beif

[1:01:53] Yeah. So, just tennis courts, no other

[1:01:55] types of sports course, but just tennis

[1:01:57] courts can be as close as 15 feet to a

[1:02:00] side or rear property line.

[1:02:02] >> 15.

[1:02:04] I that's something

[1:02:09] I don't

[1:02:15] I mean that doesn't have to

[1:02:18] work. So to think that this is never

[1:02:22] going to be a sport

[1:02:24] is it's it doesn't it's

[1:02:26] >> if if the town received a call um it

[1:02:28] would be a code enforcement item

[1:02:32] >> and they would have to remove it restore

[1:02:36] with three children and you've got a bot

[1:02:38] that you're probably going to have

[1:02:40] lying.

[1:02:41] >> I can't assume that. Um it's just this

[1:02:44] is what's allowed and if they are going

[1:02:46] to if someone designs something that is

[1:02:49] well smaller than what a tennis court

[1:02:52] is. Tennis courts have typical

[1:02:54] dimensions. Um and if somebody shows us

[1:02:57] something well smaller than that it's

[1:02:58] clearly that you can't just put a label

[1:03:00] of tennis court on it. Um and so but

[1:03:03] that's what's being proposed and that's

[1:03:05] what the code allows if people install

[1:03:07] basketball hoops or change it to a

[1:03:10] pickle ball court or something else. um

[1:03:13] that would uh become a code enforcement

[1:03:15] issue.

[1:03:16] >> And how do we deal with the fact of the

[1:03:18] horses being afraid of balls and fence

[1:03:21] and carter that was created? Can you

[1:03:24] answer how that's worked out?

[1:03:26] >> Oh, sorry, I missed the first part.

[1:03:27] >> Uh a couple of different things. One, I

[1:03:29] had read that they there's a concern

[1:03:31] obviously with the horses and the and

[1:03:33] the tennis balls or pickle balls,

[1:03:34] whatever they are. Um and that there's

[1:03:36] also a fence situation where you'd

[1:03:38] create a carter for the horses to be

[1:03:40] afraid to walk down the corridor. What

[1:03:43] how is that being?

[1:03:43] >> So those are things that I I believe um

[1:03:46] the applicant can probably best speak to

[1:03:47] it, but I believe their goal is to

[1:03:49] propose additional landscaping and again

[1:03:52] they can correct me if I'm wrong. I

[1:03:53] think they're still proposing open style

[1:03:55] fencing um on that side. And so their

[1:03:59] goal is to just kind of screen it,

[1:04:01] provide more dense landscaping to help

[1:04:03] minimize on the visual and noise impact.

[1:04:06] >> Okay. Any any other questions? No. So

[1:04:10] just question for me regarding attached

[1:04:12] ADU. We've reviewed number of detached

[1:04:14] ADUs that are with place within the

[1:04:16] setback by state law. In the case of an

[1:04:19] attached ADU, what are there different

[1:04:23] guidelines?

[1:04:23] >> Very similar as detached. So you can

[1:04:26] still have So if you're attached, you

[1:04:28] can hang over that setback that basic

[1:04:30] setback line as long as no more than 800

[1:04:33] square ft are going into that uh the

[1:04:36] basic setback. So um yes and actually

[1:04:38] the state has been quite clear on that.

[1:04:40] >> Okay.

[1:04:41] >> And how close do we get to the

[1:04:43] neighboring property?

[1:04:45] >> Have to double check. Not that's

[1:04:47] proposed. Oh,

[1:04:48] >> that's prop. Yeah. I mean you can be as

[1:04:49] close as four feet to a side or rear,

[1:04:52] but they're much further than that.

[1:04:54] Okay.

[1:04:56] Good. Thank you, sir.

[1:04:58] >> I'll I can pull it up for you.

[1:05:00] >> Thank you.

[1:05:01] >> Uh 11

[1:05:03] and a half ft roughly.

[1:05:04] >> 17

[1:05:06] >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. I can't read even

[1:05:08] though I have glasses on.

[1:05:09] >> Okay.

[1:05:10] 177.

[1:05:16] » Okay. All right.

[1:05:19] Um thank you for that, Sarah. All right.

[1:05:22] move to the uh applicants presentation.

[1:05:29] » Okay. Um well, good afternoon, good

[1:05:31] evening. Um uh I'd like to introduce

[1:05:34] myself, um Hugo Bar, and my wife Laura

[1:05:36] Griffiths, and we wanted to talk about

[1:05:38] three things real quick. Uh one is who

[1:05:40] we are and our family. Uh the second is

[1:05:43] why we've chosen Woodside to build our

[1:05:45] forever home. And the third is some of

[1:05:48] the sort of functional and design things

[1:05:50] that we've uh kept in mind um when

[1:05:52] creating this home. Um so number one,

[1:05:55] who we are. Um Hugo and Laura, we've

[1:05:58] both been residents of the Bay Area for,

[1:06:01] you know, a couple of decades. Um we

[1:06:04] have three babies. Uh girl, boy, girl,

[1:06:08] Anna, who's four and a half, uh Matteo

[1:06:10] who's two, uh Alex, baby girl, who's uh

[1:06:13] 6 months. uh day after Friday Friday

[1:06:17] this week and we are planning um fourth

[1:06:21] and final um for maybe sometime uh late

[1:06:26] next year is our thinking. So uh we'd be

[1:06:29] um moving to Woodside with a lot of

[1:06:30] little ones and we'll come back to that

[1:06:32] in a second. Um, I wanted to talk about

[1:06:34] why Woodside and maybe for that start

[1:06:37] with Laura's story uh with Woodside,

[1:06:41] which I think is worth hearing. Maybe

[1:06:43] you real quick, my love.

[1:06:46] >> Hi everyone. I'm Laura. I'm so excited

[1:06:48] and unbelievably nervous to be here.

[1:06:51] So, I just wanted to say a little bit

[1:06:53] about my relationship with Woodside.

[1:06:54] I've been coming to Woodside for I

[1:06:57] realized when I was thinking about it,

[1:06:58] think about talking about this today,

[1:07:00] more than half my life at this point.

[1:07:02] Um, so I moved here as an undergrad and

[1:07:04] I discovered Hutter Park very early in

[1:07:07] my first year as an undergrad and I

[1:07:09] started coming here every single

[1:07:10] weekend. So whether it was hot or cold

[1:07:13] or raining, I'd go hike in Hutter Park

[1:07:14] every single Sunday morning. I'd come

[1:07:17] back to my car with my hands so cold I

[1:07:19] couldn't even get back into the car

[1:07:20] because I couldn't click the key. Um,

[1:07:22] and it's just been my sanctuary. Um,

[1:07:25] coming to Woodside has just been my

[1:07:27] favorite place in the world for forever

[1:07:29] now. Um, it's been where I've formed all

[1:07:32] my most meaningful friendships. When I

[1:07:33] was in business school here and I saw a

[1:07:35] girl I like the look of, I would say

[1:07:37] basically like, will you go on a date

[1:07:38] with me and go hike in Woodside and like

[1:07:41] see if we're going to be friends? Um,

[1:07:43] the first thing I ever asked Hugo to do

[1:07:45] with me was to go hike in Woodside.

[1:07:48] >> Um, so it's just been a dream for me

[1:07:50] forever to live here and I can't believe

[1:07:52] we're actually here with the chance to

[1:07:54] do it. Um, and I didn't know if it ever

[1:07:57] would be a reality, but for more than

[1:07:59] half my life, my hope has been to be

[1:08:01] able to bring my kids here and build a

[1:08:03] home where we could not just have our

[1:08:05] family, but you know, we love the idea

[1:08:07] of kind of a family compound and having,

[1:08:10] you know, more of our family around us

[1:08:12] and building a place that can be kind of

[1:08:13] the real center of gravity both for us

[1:08:16] and for our kids and for our grandkids

[1:08:18] and for, you know, my parents and my

[1:08:20] brother and Hugo's family and like all

[1:08:22] the people we love just to, you know, to

[1:08:23] the place people gather. And so, yeah,

[1:08:26] I'm a little emotional talking about

[1:08:27] this, but this has just been we bought

[1:08:29] the property, we signed the offer on the

[1:08:32] property. I think I was in labor.

[1:08:34] [snorts]

[1:08:35] And so, you know, this has just been the

[1:08:38] culmination of, you know, nearly what, a

[1:08:40] year and a half, two years of just

[1:08:42] dreaming about what this house would be.

[1:08:44] Um, so yeah, we're just unbelievably

[1:08:46] grateful to be here today. So, thank you

[1:08:48] for the time.

[1:08:49] >> Thank you.

[1:08:51] We tried a couple of times to um to buy

[1:08:53] a property here in Woodside, but we

[1:08:55] didn't manage to because the people were

[1:08:58] paying a lot of a lot more money for

[1:08:59] these things and but we finally made it.

[1:09:02] Um the funny thing is that we said the

[1:09:04] last thing we'll do is to build a house

[1:09:06] because you know we have all these

[1:09:07] little kids. We want to focus our time

[1:09:08] in them and of course that's what we end

[1:09:10] up doing is choosing to build a house.

[1:09:12] Um, one thing that's really special for

[1:09:14] us, and I think this is even for

[1:09:16] Woodside residents, is quite unique of

[1:09:18] this property, our kids can walk to

[1:09:21] Woodside Elementary without crossing a

[1:09:24] street once because it's literally like

[1:09:26] on the same street block. So, um, so we

[1:09:29] love that we have we we, uh, uh, part of

[1:09:32] the process of me becoming a huge fan of

[1:09:34] Woodside had to do with the fact that

[1:09:35] probably at least a dozen of my close

[1:09:38] friends, uh, already live here and have,

[1:09:41] you know, uh, kids here. Our very next

[1:09:43] door neighbor, David and Marielle, they

[1:09:45] have five kids and our kids kind of

[1:09:47] slide perfectly in between their ages.

[1:09:50] So, we'll have, you know, sort of bigger

[1:09:52] brothers and sisters and little ones for

[1:09:54] all of them. Um and then everybody will

[1:09:56] adopt our fourth hopefully. Um then the

[1:10:00] third thing I want to talk about is the

[1:10:02] things that we've wanted uh sort of we

[1:10:04] had in mind for functional design

[1:10:05] requirements for this house. We're both

[1:10:06] engineers so functional requirements is

[1:10:08] like a love language for us. Uh we both

[1:10:11] grew up in in homes you know running

[1:10:13] around uh with tennis courts. We both

[1:10:15] played a lot of tennis uh you know at

[1:10:18] like local fun level but al also

[1:10:21] competitive level. Our daughter is

[1:10:22] starting her tennis now. So, uh, tennis

[1:10:25] is actually really, really important for

[1:10:26] us. Um, we are pretty anti-pickle ball

[1:10:29] and we're going to hammer that into our

[1:10:31] kids' brains because tennis players do

[1:10:33] not play pickle ball. Forgive me if I'm

[1:10:35] personally offending anyone. Um and um

[1:10:39] and uh we at any point in time probably

[1:10:43] will have you know a set of you know

[1:10:46] grandparents or siblings and their kids

[1:10:48] hopefully not just staying with us but

[1:10:50] with us for a long time which is the

[1:10:52] reasoning behind uh our accessories u

[1:10:54] sort of uh adus. Um what else? What am I

[1:10:58] forgetting my love? Um, these are all

[1:11:01] the main things, but we could talk for

[1:11:03] the whole day about every little piece

[1:11:05] of this house and why we thought about

[1:11:07] it in this way.

[1:11:08] >> Mom's an architect and my mom also did a

[1:11:10] lot of architecture stuff. So, we're

[1:11:12] just Yeah, we just want to build a

[1:11:14] beautiful home that we can be in for

[1:11:16] forever.

[1:11:17] >> Yeah, the architecture style that we've

[1:11:18] chosen um is spiritually uh u sort of an

[1:11:23] honor to my mother.

[1:11:26] >> Thank you.

[1:11:33] We're back. [laughter]

[1:11:35] >> Uh let me let me explain. Uh we are we

[1:11:37] are uh the local architect for this

[1:11:40] project. Uh the architect is a Brazilian

[1:11:44] very famous Brazilian firm. Uh and it's

[1:11:47] been a pleasure working with them. Uh

[1:11:49] they have they do they do lot modern

[1:11:52] houses. So do we. I mean so we have a

[1:11:54] lot of we have a lot in common in terms

[1:11:56] of what's going on. So, it's been it's

[1:11:58] been a pleasure working with them. Uh,

[1:12:00] you want to talk about

[1:12:01] >> Yeah. Um, I'm I'm going to talk

[1:12:03] immediately about the um equestrian

[1:12:05] trail, Don, if that's okay. Because we

[1:12:08] did attend the trails committee meeting.

[1:12:10] Um, and when the tennis court was first

[1:12:14] proposed, our clients um it was actually

[1:12:17] closer, as Sage said, to the equestrian

[1:12:20] trail than it is currently. It was

[1:12:23] proposed to be closer. And when we um

[1:12:26] when the team talked to our clients

[1:12:29] about um how significant equestrianism

[1:12:32] is in the town of Woodside, I mean I'm

[1:12:34] an equestrian. My husband has been an

[1:12:37] equestrian in the past and still owns a

[1:12:39] horse mine. Um

[1:12:41] they and we explained, you know, this

[1:12:43] issue of, you know, noise

[1:12:46] um activity potentially, you know, being

[1:12:48] an issue for horses. Um the conversation

[1:12:51] moved to let's move this tennis court

[1:12:53] back as far as we can on the site given

[1:12:56] that this actually is quite a steep site

[1:12:59] and there is only the only flat area for

[1:13:01] a tennis court is along that um southern

[1:13:04] boundary. So, um, the team and with

[1:13:09] permission from the owners, we moved it

[1:13:11] back to the 30 ft. And an additional

[1:13:14] conversation was had about, you know,

[1:13:16] the possibility of putting uh replacing

[1:13:18] the fencing with um solid fencing so

[1:13:22] that horses wouldn't be spooked by

[1:13:25] movement, noise, etc. But horses also do

[1:13:29] not like this tunnel, the aspect of kind

[1:13:33] of going into a tunnel. And so we

[1:13:36] decided not to do that and have proposed

[1:13:38] additional screening and in fact that

[1:13:41] really did resonate with the trails

[1:13:43] committee. They were actually very

[1:13:44] thankful that we had that that was the

[1:13:47] direction that we were going in here. So

[1:13:50] the solution from from our point of view

[1:13:53] is to put as much landscape screening in

[1:13:57] that 30foot section as possible um to

[1:14:02] mitigate the noise and to uh you know

[1:14:06] mitigate any sort of activity issues. Um

[1:14:12] really there is nowhere else on the site

[1:14:14] for the tennis court to go. So

[1:14:18] >> the vineyard part of this stopping

[1:14:20] >> the vineyard is at the front of the

[1:14:22] property. Yes. If you've dri if you've

[1:14:24] been on the site or driven by the

[1:14:25] vineyards at the front, but I that's

[1:14:27] >> it's in it's in pretty bad shape. Yeah.

[1:14:28] It doesn't it's

[1:14:30] >> it's not really producing

[1:14:31] >> it's not doing anything and it needs to

[1:14:32] be

[1:14:33] >> it pro it's going to be removed in fact.

[1:14:35] So yes, you could pull you could pull

[1:14:37] the tennis court further towards the

[1:14:40] street, but again it's still going to be

[1:14:42] up against that um that equestrian

[1:14:45] easement. Um, so

[1:14:50] I suppose you could say don't have a

[1:14:52] tennis court, but I think that was

[1:14:53] really one of the overarching goals that

[1:14:55] our clients had when they when they

[1:14:57] selected this property.

[1:14:59] >> Thank you, Christie. [laughter]

[1:15:01] Yes, exactly. So I guess the point

[1:15:03] you're trying to make is that you know

[1:15:04] we are here trying to work with we have

[1:15:08] tried to work with the equestrian

[1:15:09] community on this and um if there are

[1:15:11] any other suggestions they actually had

[1:15:13] no recommendations

[1:15:15] at that meeting. Um we did ask Sarah

[1:15:18] afterwards. So there were no

[1:15:19] recommendations there were no

[1:15:20] recommendations. If any recommendations

[1:15:23] come forward that seem reasonable and

[1:15:25] that we can accomplish we certainly

[1:15:27] would do that. um but that but they seem

[1:15:30] to be satisfied with it. Although you

[1:15:32] know

[1:15:35] equestrians you're on horseback it's

[1:15:36] always a challenge.

[1:15:43] » Okay. So I um the design itself if you

[1:15:47] go to the first first couple renderings

[1:15:49] uh well

[1:15:51] you can you go to the to the tooth or

[1:15:54] aerial views?

[1:15:57] No. I go to the Yeah. Okay. So, this

[1:15:59] kind of explains how the property works.

[1:16:02] The existing house has absolutely no

[1:16:04] relationships to its site. And I think

[1:16:08] what the design team was trying to do

[1:16:10] here was to create

[1:16:13] uh one views from the house. So, it's

[1:16:16] got kind of that lazy L that for looks

[1:16:19] towards the western hills. And then out

[1:16:21] in front of that is a lawn area that

[1:16:24] then steps down a couple of feet to the

[1:16:26] pool area and then down on down the

[1:16:29] site. And then there's a big play area

[1:16:31] down below. Uh sort of meadow slash,

[1:16:36] you know, that kind of stuff. That's

[1:16:37] also where the septic system is. Um

[1:16:41] which needs to be reworked, you know,

[1:16:42] given the number of bedrooms that are

[1:16:45] encompassing the ADUs and the house

[1:16:48] itself. Uh the other thing we tried to

[1:16:51] do was expand on the by using green

[1:16:55] roofs to limit the impact of the um of

[1:17:00] the buildings out there and make it so

[1:17:02] that it doesn't feel like it's a it's a

[1:17:05] village of little buildings sitting all

[1:17:07] over the place. So that's that's what

[1:17:09] we're trying to do all over in all of

[1:17:11] them.

[1:17:12] Um, the other thing I was going to do

[1:17:14] was kind of go over some of the comments

[1:17:16] that came through on the on the staff

[1:17:19] report.

[1:17:21] So, one of those deals with the garage

[1:17:24] heights and how that is and how it's

[1:17:29] slightly over the TFA and that kind of

[1:17:31] stuff. So, one of the issues with that

[1:17:33] is that the walls that were d drawn on

[1:17:35] the plans are a little bit too thick. So

[1:17:38] we've we've deducted that down. And then

[1:17:40] we've looked at the separation required

[1:17:43] for the height of the uh ADU in

[1:17:46] relationship to the property line. And

[1:17:49] so we think both of those now are in are

[1:17:52] in compliance with the both the area and

[1:17:56] the setback of the way that the uh the

[1:17:59] ADU steps back from the um steps back

[1:18:04] from the from the garage below it. and

[1:18:07] we'll work with the town to you know

[1:18:09] assure that that's what happens when we

[1:18:11] come back for formal

[1:18:14] the next one is um slopes in excess of

[1:18:16] 35% you see here's an enlargement of the

[1:18:19] area over where the garage is uh so one

[1:18:22] of the things we're do first of all some

[1:18:24] of this is is man-made but we're going

[1:18:27] to limit the amount of grading we need

[1:18:29] to do on that side by by can sort of

[1:18:32] canaling the park that parking area in

[1:18:34] particular off on the side.

[1:18:39] Um,

[1:18:44] Lauria CalS, we will work with the town

[1:18:46] on uh floor area. Uh, we we think we're

[1:18:51] in compliance with the general with the

[1:18:54] floor area. Uh, the height we already

[1:18:57] talked about, and the paved area, we'll

[1:18:59] work with the town to make sure we got

[1:19:00] the pipe area. Obviously, the biggest factor in the paved area is

[1:19:04] the 7200 ft² and a tennis court,

[1:19:08] but as Hugo explained, that's, you know,

[1:19:11] really part of what their life wants to

[1:19:12] be. So, we're going to pursue that a

[1:19:15] little bit further.

[1:19:17] And there are some things we can do to

[1:19:18] cut down some of the paved area so that

[1:19:20] it, you know, like the parking area

[1:19:21] that's down by the down by that lower

[1:19:24] ADU that can go into a green into a

[1:19:26] grass

[1:19:28] pavers type situation where it's, you

[1:19:30] know, just the rings that create the

[1:19:34] >> How much would that reduce you?

[1:19:37] >> We can get it to within probably around

[1:19:39] three and a half thousand

[1:19:42] >> five

[1:19:42] >> versus the five to six. Yeah.

[1:19:50] But other than that, you know, we we're

[1:19:52] >> well, one of one of the issues that's

[1:19:54] actually occurring, you know, we all

[1:19:57] know this with the the way in which the

[1:20:00] um Cal Fire is now changing the codes

[1:20:04] across California and requiring 5 foot

[1:20:07] of um

[1:20:09] >> nothing,

[1:20:10] >> you know, paved area around around your

[1:20:13] structure is actually I mean I have

[1:20:16] brought this up to stage before but

[1:20:17] actually that is actually

[1:20:19] increasing the amount of paved area that

[1:20:21] you need to have on your site.

[1:20:23] >> It just says depends space rocks.

[1:20:26] >> No. So well

[1:20:29] >> they Yeah. So gravel's paved area

[1:20:31] >> they'll

[1:20:33] just finish. Let me finish explaining

[1:20:34] please. The the fire district I know

[1:20:38] prefers some type of hardscape material.

[1:20:40] Um, but I do want to note that tomorrow

[1:20:42] night, town council is uh on a second

[1:20:46] reading of an ordinance um that is uh

[1:20:50] poised to

[1:20:52] uh uh exempt any gravel. Not if you have

[1:20:56] paving like concrete or bricks or

[1:20:58] something like that, it's still going to

[1:21:00] count. It's like a patio like it would

[1:21:01] have always counted, but if you need to

[1:21:03] put gravel within 5 ft of your uh

[1:21:06] structure, that that will be exempt from

[1:21:09] our planetary exception. So, there's a

[1:21:10] chance that some of that could apply

[1:21:12] here. It it it it's already been through

[1:21:14] its first reading. It's been through

[1:21:15] planning commission. Um so, tomorrow

[1:21:17] night is a second reading and if

[1:21:19] adopted, it becomes effective in 30

[1:21:21] days.

[1:21:24] Gravel. [laughter]

[1:21:26] >> Gravel. So it stays there. But

[1:21:27] >> you don't like gravel. I know person.

[1:21:30] Yes. Gravel. Gravel. And

[1:21:32] >> any type of kind of loose material, a

[1:21:34] nonbonded non-binding surface. Yeah.

[1:21:37] >> So then by ADU1, that path that goes

[1:21:39] between there and the office building

[1:21:42] potentially. That's

[1:21:43] >> it's just it's just the area that's

[1:21:45] within 5T of the building.

[1:21:47] >> Not that.

[1:21:47] >> So this is specific to address the fire

[1:21:49] >> district. There's definitely areas where

[1:21:51] we can reduce the amount of paving. I

[1:21:53] mean,

[1:21:54] >> um, and and get it down. It's it's

[1:21:56] there'll be a needling all the way

[1:21:57] around a little bit in terms of where

[1:21:59] you really need it and where you don't.

[1:22:01] And that's one of the things we need to

[1:22:02] work on.

[1:22:03] >> And we'll work with staff.

[1:22:05] >> One of the other issues that comes up is

[1:22:07] that the more ADUs on that you have on

[1:22:09] site, which the state wants, um, the

[1:22:13] more you have to access them, right,

[1:22:14] with paved area. So, um, you're in a

[1:22:18] little bit of an awkward situation if

[1:22:20] you actually max out the number of paved

[1:22:23] of ADUs and you're not using, uh, the

[1:22:26] primary driveway to access them. You

[1:22:29] know, there's sort of constraints there,

[1:22:31] too. So, it is quite complicated,

[1:22:34] [laughter]

[1:22:36] but we're working to solve it.

[1:22:39] >> Any questions?

[1:22:43] » Nope. Any questions? And then there's a materials board that reviewed.

[1:22:48] So it's all

[1:22:49] >> Yeah.

[1:22:50] >> concrete wood

[1:22:54] modern modern uh modern vernacular.

[1:22:59] >> And would there be any consideration on

[1:23:00] the ADU2 if the orientation of the

[1:23:02] kitchenet went to the opposite direction

[1:23:04] that it wouldn't get as close to the

[1:23:06] setback?

[1:23:09] >> And I don't totally understand the plan

[1:23:11] 100%. So forgive me. [laughter]

[1:23:14] I mean there's there's other things

[1:23:17] >> and I I'll just note they would just be

[1:23:18] careful with the ADU considerations

[1:23:22] >> but they they can it's something that

[1:23:23] they can consider

[1:23:26] >> plus the who is the Brazilian

[1:23:29] >> Bernardis.

[1:23:34] In fact, uh, Yugo was telling me that they um they were picking out

[1:23:39] images of what they wanted and they kept

[1:23:41] going to this architect. [laughter]

[1:23:44] >> Oh, is that

[1:23:45] >> and decided, well, we should hire them.

[1:23:48] >> You guys,

[1:23:50] >> okay,

[1:23:51] >> cool.

[1:23:52] >> Okay. Any other questions?

[1:23:56] » All of mine were addressed.

[1:23:58] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:24:02] the board for your service. I

[1:24:04] appreciate it.

[1:24:05] >> Okay, with that moving to public

[1:24:07] comment. Any member of the public wishes

[1:24:09] to make a comment regarding this project

[1:24:12] can do so.

[1:24:18] » There are no raised hands online.

[1:24:20] >> Okay.

[1:24:24] Just a second to see if anyone raises a

[1:24:26] hand. No. All right. That close public

[1:24:28] comment and move to board deliberation.

[1:24:41] » Microphone.

[1:24:42] >> Yes.

[1:24:42] >> Thank you.

[1:24:43] >> Yes.

[1:24:44] >> Um I'm sure that they would consider

[1:24:46] shades to track um the light shining out

[1:24:50] onto the neighboring property on the

[1:24:52] down side of the hill. Probably want

[1:24:54] them anyway.

[1:25:01] That's all I got.

[1:25:02] >> Okay.

[1:25:03] >> Covered it already. [clears throat]

[1:25:05] >> Anyone on the board care to offer

[1:25:07] comment with regards to specific

[1:25:10] materials, design, color as it pertains

[1:25:13] to the residential guidelines?

[1:25:16] >> No, it looks very nice.

[1:25:18] >> Absolutely.

[1:25:19] >> How about you? Um yeah, I think that

[1:25:22] it's exceptional project with regards to

[1:25:25] design and the use of material. Um

[1:25:30] I think hardscape will be a challenge. I

[1:25:32] anticipate that. So um try to figure out

[1:25:36] that solution. We'll see what the

[1:25:37] outcome of the second reading is

[1:25:40] tomorrow night. It have an impact on

[1:25:42] that or create opportunities. Um,

[1:25:45] >> and it looks like there only a couple of

[1:25:47] coast little oaks that are in good

[1:25:49] condition that may be removed. Numbers

[1:25:51] 15 and 16. Probably not by choice.

[1:25:57] » Yes, we always uh note when a

[1:26:00] significant number of trees are being

[1:26:01] impacted by any project. Um, but all

[1:26:04] comes down to the arborist report. Um,

[1:26:10] vice chair camera thoughts? No, I mean

[1:26:12] it's it's a gorgeous

[1:26:14] >> really nice

[1:26:15] >> I love the green.

[1:26:18] I don't if it's really facing the the

[1:26:20] glass is facing the western there really

[1:26:23] aren't are there neighbors over I would

[1:26:27] um so you keep yourself [laughter]

[1:26:30] probably for your art you're probably

[1:26:32] going to keep

[1:26:34] no it's it's beautiful it's the thing I

[1:26:38] would be interested in is seeing the

[1:26:41] storage and letting the neighbors see

[1:26:43] the story because I think couple of

[1:26:45] height I'm still tired

[1:26:48] what's allowable just make sure

[1:26:50] >> we're working that

[1:26:57] » okay okay

[1:26:59] there um okay so what I've heard is uh

[1:27:02] ASRB commends the applicant for the

[1:27:05] proposed design and materials that are

[1:27:06] consistent with the residential design

[1:27:08] guidelines

[1:27:10] um and that to work with staff to

[1:27:12] minimize paved area and surface coverage

[1:27:15] um and also story pole install ation

[1:27:17] which will be required at the next

[1:27:19] stage. Um and that will help uh for

[1:27:23] neighbors and the ASRB visualize the

[1:27:25] heights of the structures. Um so no

[1:27:28] story plers are are installed. Um so

[1:27:31] this would have to go back to the ASRB

[1:27:33] for formal design review. Uh but is

[1:27:35] there are there any other comments um

[1:27:37] that I missed? Um like the earlier

[1:27:40] project where we moved to have the story

[1:27:44] poll or just move the item to consent

[1:27:47] agenda. Did that apply here as well?

[1:27:49] >> Yeah, you it can always apply.

[1:27:54] » Okay.

[1:27:57] » Sure.

[1:27:58] >> Yep. But if the item is on consent and

[1:28:00] we do receive desk items on that or

[1:28:02] comments, we can pull it. Anybody a

[1:28:04] member of the public can ask for it to

[1:28:05] be pulled or the ASR any member of the

[1:28:07] ASRB can pull the item for consent.

[1:28:09] >> Let's move forward with that.

[1:28:13] >> Okay. So, I have a motion uh based on

[1:28:16] the uh recommendations that I've stated

[1:28:19] and to move to ASRB for formal design

[1:28:22] review. Um and is there a second?

[1:28:29] » I'd second.

[1:28:31] And then to clarify to move it to ASR

[1:28:33] beyond consent. Um

[1:28:37] >> second

[1:28:39] >> I be will we get a materials board at

[1:28:42] the same time as the story?

[1:28:44] >> Yep. Yeah. All that stuff is required as

[1:28:45] part of formal design review. Yep.

[1:28:48] >> Chair Lindseay.

[1:28:49] >> Yes.

[1:28:50] >> Vice Chair Comra.

[1:28:51] >> Member Delgavio.

[1:28:52] >> Yes. Member Sullivan.

[1:28:54] >> Yes.

[1:28:56] >> Thank you.

[1:28:57] >> Congratulations.

[1:29:10] Last but not least.

[1:29:11] >> Okay.

[1:29:14] >> Um, moving to the

[1:29:18] last project.

[1:29:24] » First and last question.

[1:29:28] Item five on tonight's agenda, 387 Moore

[1:29:31] Road

[1:29:33] and Diego is presenting.

[1:29:43] Hello and thank you. I will be

[1:29:45] introducing the project at 387 Moore

[1:29:47] Road for ASRB review. Uh for this

[1:29:51] conceptual design review project, the

[1:29:53] applicant is proposing to construct a

[1:29:56] new single family dwelling with a

[1:29:58] detached garage, an accessory structure

[1:30:01] and associated site improvements. Uh to

[1:30:04] give a quick background related to this

[1:30:05] project site, uh there were two previous

[1:30:08] iterations that went before the ASRB uh

[1:30:11] as well as the planning commission uh

[1:30:13] most recently in 2023. And as mentioned

[1:30:16] in the staff report, uh the applicant

[1:30:18] did not submit a complete building

[1:30:20] permit application from that previously

[1:30:22] approved project. Uh the building permit

[1:30:25] application has since expired. And as

[1:30:27] this project is a new design with uh

[1:30:30] significant changes to the building

[1:30:31] footprint uh from what was previously

[1:30:34] proposed and approved. Uh this project

[1:30:36] is being brought to the ASRB tonight as

[1:30:38] a new CDR. And uh as the planning

[1:30:41] director mentioned, uh there is one desk

[1:30:43] item related to this agenda item um

[1:30:46] labeled as desk item number five.

[1:30:50] Uh it's from the neighbor to the

[1:30:51] northwest of the project site. The

[1:30:53] adjacent neighbor states that given the

[1:30:55] locations of the proposed structures uh

[1:30:58] being near the other properties uh the

[1:31:01] applicant should look towards adding

[1:31:02] additional landscape screening between

[1:31:05] the residents at the project site and

[1:31:07] the nearby residents especially to the

[1:31:09] north and west. Uh should the board uh

[1:31:12] provide the recommendation to add

[1:31:14] landscape screening, uh staff would work

[1:31:16] with the applicant during the uh later

[1:31:18] stages of the design review uh to

[1:31:21] address this neighbor's request from the

[1:31:22] desk item.

[1:31:31] And for the property description, um,

[1:31:35] property size is 6.94 acres and is in

[1:31:40] the SCP5,

[1:31:42] uh, special conservation planning zoning

[1:31:43] district and it's accessed from Moore

[1:31:46] Road, a private road extending from

[1:31:48] Woodside Road to the northwest. A town

[1:31:51] designated stream corridor extends along

[1:31:53] the western side of the property and

[1:31:55] drains to Athen Creek. Uh the subject

[1:31:57] site is currently undeveloped and as you

[1:32:00] can see from that uh aerial photograph

[1:32:02] that the subject site is within that

[1:32:04] scenic corridor and is also in close

[1:32:07] proximity to interstate 280

[1:32:14] and this is the topographic survey of

[1:32:16] that vacant lot.

[1:32:18] Uh and as noted in the SAF report, uh

[1:32:20] that clouded outline that you see on

[1:32:23] that upper portion of the lot is the

[1:32:25] building uh envelope restriction that

[1:32:28] the um applicants are restricted to as a

[1:32:31] result of that lot creation parcel um

[1:32:33] from 2014.

[1:32:38] And this slide here is the proposed site

[1:32:40] plan showing the locations of the

[1:32:42] proposed structure. You can see that the

[1:32:44] proposed main residence is in that

[1:32:46] northwest uh corner and uh the proposed

[1:32:50] detached garage and accessory structure

[1:32:52] are located east of that main residence.

[1:32:58] These next few slides are the proposed

[1:33:00] elevations. Uh starting with the main

[1:33:02] residence/dwelling.

[1:33:04] Uh the top shows the north elevation uh

[1:33:06] the uphill side. The bottom uh rendering

[1:33:10] shows the south elevation, the one

[1:33:12] facing uh Interstate 280.

[1:33:18] This uh is the east elevation for the

[1:33:21] proposed main residence

[1:33:24] and the bottom shows the west elevation

[1:33:26] uh also facing towards uh Interstate

[1:33:29] 280.

[1:33:33] Uh these are the proposed elevations for

[1:33:34] that detached garage and accessory

[1:33:36] structure. And as noted in the staff

[1:33:39] report, the accessory structure uh

[1:33:41] currently does not qualify for an ADU

[1:33:43] because there is no u full bathroom. Uh

[1:33:46] but should uh the applicant want to

[1:33:48] create this uh into an ADU, uh they can

[1:33:51] work with staff during the later uh

[1:33:54] review

[1:33:55] design review stages. Um

[1:34:00] although not required for conceptual

[1:34:02] design review uh for physical sample

[1:34:04] materials uh the applicant has provided

[1:34:07] digital uh samples uh so including that

[1:34:11] vertical wood sighting uh they have a

[1:34:13] split face limestone veneer stucco

[1:34:16] finish concrete retaining walls turtle

[1:34:19] glass which as noted in the staff report

[1:34:22] would uh better shield uh uh light

[1:34:25] emissions uh towards inner Interstate

[1:34:27] 280 as well as painted steel uh and

[1:34:30] metal roofing.

[1:34:34] And these last couple slides are

[1:34:36] additional renderings provided by the

[1:34:38] applicant starting with uh additional

[1:34:40] renderings for that main residence

[1:34:45] and additional renderings for that

[1:34:47] detached garage and accessory structure.

[1:34:51] That concludes my presentation. Staff is

[1:34:53] happy to answer any questions. Uh story

[1:34:55] polls were installed at the site uh at

[1:34:57] least 10 days prior to tonight's hearing

[1:34:59] date and the architect is also here in

[1:35:02] person to answer any questions. Thank

[1:35:04] you.

[1:35:06] >> Thank you. Any questions for staff?

[1:35:09] >> What was what did the house

[1:35:11] do we have?

[1:35:12] >> Sure, I can show that. Um

[1:35:15] [snorts]

[1:35:16] >> yeah, there there was a couple

[1:35:18] iterations on it. I happened to work on

[1:35:19] them. Um they they were similar in kind

[1:35:22] of in terms of you know kind of

[1:35:25] placement and footprint u materials

[1:35:28] changed in a couple different iterations

[1:35:30] but I can show you.

[1:35:36] So the top uh image that you see here

[1:35:39] was the previously approved scheme of

[1:35:41] that 2018

[1:35:43] uh conceptual design project. I went

[1:35:46] back um with planning commission in 2023

[1:35:50] uh for uh project changes including a

[1:35:53] greeting exception as noted in the staff

[1:35:56] report and uh the one that's being

[1:35:59] presented tonight the new scheme is

[1:36:02] shown in this bottom um image below. And

[1:36:05] I think what you'll want to note is that

[1:36:07] with all of their designs, uh, one of

[1:36:10] the key factors, the noise from I280 and

[1:36:13] trying to design the building a way to

[1:36:15] where their outdoor recreational space

[1:36:18] was kind of shielded by different

[1:36:19] elements, but the architect can best

[1:36:21] speak to that. Yeah.

[1:36:26] Um in the previous iteration was was the

[1:36:30] planning commission step required the

[1:36:34] because of the amount of grading or

[1:36:35] gradient.

[1:36:36] >> Yeah, if I recall correctly the very

[1:36:38] first design did not require grading

[1:36:39] exception then they made changes um to

[1:36:42] where a grad exception was required. Uh

[1:36:45] so that was part of the approval of the

[1:36:47] second design.

[1:36:51] Um I we don't have those details at the

[1:36:53] conceptual level. The applicant can

[1:36:55] maybe give a guess if they think they

[1:36:56] might need a grain exception or not. We

[1:36:58] just don't have those details yet.

[1:37:05] Okay. Yeah. I think I'll wait till the

[1:37:07] applicant's presentation. Any other

[1:37:09] questions of staff? No.

[1:37:13] >> No. Great.

[1:37:15] Um, that will move to the applicant's

[1:37:17] presentation. Welcome.

[1:37:19] >> Hi everybody. My name's Nick Miller.

[1:37:22] >> Red.

[1:37:23] >> Sure.

[1:37:26] » Oh, nice. Thank you.

[1:37:28] >> I'm used to that though. Yeah.

[1:37:32] >> Um, so I've been involved with this

[1:37:35] actually pre in the previous iterations

[1:37:37] as well. So I've been to the site a lot.

[1:37:40] I think I've gotten five ticks over the

[1:37:42] years there walking that site.

[1:37:46] Yeah, the weeds are really high there.

[1:37:48] Um,

[1:37:50] yeah, I'm the architect. Um, so it's a

[1:37:53] pretty challenging site. Uh, as you guys

[1:37:55] can tell, it's obviously noise is a huge

[1:37:57] concern, but it's juxtaposed against the

[1:38:01] fact that the view is incredible. So,

[1:38:03] it's like the view is amazing out over

[1:38:05] 280. So, we've gotten a noise consultant

[1:38:08] involved through the years, and

[1:38:09] generally what they always say is if you

[1:38:11] can block it with the building mass,

[1:38:14] that does a lot. Um, the interior spaces

[1:38:17] are different, but in terms of where you

[1:38:19] put the exterior spaces, that's kind of

[1:38:20] the challenge we had here. So, in the

[1:38:22] previous one that was approved, we

[1:38:24] actually enclosed an entire interior

[1:38:27] courtyard. Um, and then there was a

[1:38:30] number of reasons why the previous

[1:38:32] owners decided not to move forward with

[1:38:33] the project, but now with this

[1:38:36] iteration, we kind of changed the

[1:38:38] approach. So, we're trying to make sure

[1:38:40] that the outdoor space has a good

[1:38:41] connection, uh, down to the yard. Um, so

[1:38:46] with this design, uh, we've been able to

[1:38:49] orient it south, which has really great

[1:38:51] views, but one benefit of that is our

[1:38:53] bedroom wing can block out the closest

[1:38:56] part of 280.

[1:38:59] um which we were informed is is probably

[1:39:01] causing most of the noise concerns.

[1:39:03] We tried to not turn it so much that it

[1:39:06] felt like a giant wall, you know, as

[1:39:07] you're driving by on 280. Um so we kind

[1:39:10] of found a happy medium there, and

[1:39:12] that's what you're seeing in the design

[1:39:13] reflected here. Um

[1:39:18] okay, let's see what else. Um we tried

[1:39:21] to step the building, the roofs with the

[1:39:23] hillside. Uh there's enough slope to

[1:39:26] this where the back side of the building

[1:39:29] where the garage is is actually

[1:39:30] completely buried in the hillside which

[1:39:32] for me was actually kind of fun. It's an

[1:39:34] interesting feature. You essentially the

[1:39:35] hillside will look like it's spilling on

[1:39:37] as a green roof. And we carried that

[1:39:39] through into this standalone garage as

[1:39:41] well. So the the garage on the main

[1:39:42] house has a similar design element.

[1:39:46] [snorts] Um because of the views uh

[1:39:49] glass is sort of inevitable for anyone

[1:39:51] who would be interested in in living

[1:39:53] here. So, it's um we thought by bringing

[1:39:57] that bedroom wing around and as well as

[1:39:59] trying to use this what they call turtle

[1:40:02] glass, but it's essentially it's

[1:40:03] reducing the glare. We thought that was

[1:40:06] the best way to try and mitigate that.

[1:40:09] [snorts]

[1:40:10] Um

[1:40:11] >> you sorry.

[1:40:12] >> Yeah, go ahead.

[1:40:13] >> Could you expand on this specific

[1:40:17] sentence here associated with this? So I

[1:40:19] just want to understand when located 10

[1:40:22] ft above finish floor or facing 280 view

[1:40:26] corridor.

[1:40:28] >> Yes, that's kind of a carryover from

[1:40:30] what was previously approved and that's

[1:40:31] what had been suggested to us as some

[1:40:34] the best thing we could do to mitigate

[1:40:36] it. Um I could see an argument there

[1:40:38] could be on all of the faces facing 280

[1:40:42] perhaps it could be beneficial. Um yeah,

[1:40:45] I think that's something we would

[1:40:46] consider. Um,

[1:40:50] another thing to add on, uh, someone had

[1:40:53] commented the neighbor about screening

[1:40:54] trees, and we're 100% in favor of that.

[1:40:56] We we would like that as well. There's

[1:40:59] something kind of interesting about the

[1:41:00] site is all the neighbors are actually

[1:41:02] screened from the site just by the

[1:41:03] natural topography, but 280, everyone

[1:41:06] sees it as you're driving by 280.

[1:41:08] There's a lot of trees there. Um, but everyone will see this structure as

[1:41:12] they drive by on 280.

[1:41:16] » Yes.

[1:41:20] Okay.

[1:41:21] >> Uh, yeah, I think that pretty much

[1:41:22] covers what I wanted to make sure.

[1:41:28] » Yeah.

[1:41:33] » That that bedroom wing there. Yeah. So,

[1:41:36] what we're trying to do is uh we've

[1:41:37] nicknamed it the cenote, but if you go

[1:41:39] to the floor plan, we're trying to

[1:41:41] create a space down on the lower level

[1:41:43] that's kind of buried in there that will

[1:41:45] be really protected from sound. So,

[1:41:48] we're trying to offer one outdoor space

[1:41:51] that we know the decibb are going to get

[1:41:53] really low.

[1:41:55] [snorts]

[1:41:57] Yeah, you kind of see it tucked in there

[1:41:59] in that view. Yeah.

[1:42:02] Okay.

[1:42:03] >> Any other questions?

[1:42:07] Oh, can I add one more thing?

[1:42:09] >> Sure.

[1:42:09] >> I just wanted to point out that we we

[1:42:11] actually left the driveway. We made sure

[1:42:13] the driveway could remain from the

[1:42:15] previously approved one. Um Jim Toby's

[1:42:19] here, but we we did a lot of work

[1:42:20] previously on trying to design the

[1:42:22] driveway, did the lease cut and fill.

[1:42:25] So, that was one thing that we wanted to

[1:42:26] make sure we maintained with this new

[1:42:28] design.

[1:42:32] Thank you.

[1:42:33] >> Thanks.

[1:42:35] Um, question for Jim actually. So given

[1:42:38] the distance between the main house and

[1:42:41] the current nonADU, but is encouraged to

[1:42:45] be an ADU.

[1:42:46] >> I'm sorry, I totally missed what you

[1:42:48] said. [laughter]

[1:42:49] So that the I think it's labeled uh show

[1:42:52] garage, but it has also has a not yet an

[1:42:57] ADU structure in it.

[1:42:59] >> So if it doesn't have a bathroom, then

[1:43:00] it's not an ADU technically. Um,

[1:43:02] >> I think his staff report was suggesting

[1:43:05] that could be a future discussion

[1:43:06] whether to make that a full ADU.

[1:43:08] >> Yeah, if it meets the definition of an

[1:43:10] ADU, then we can classify as an ADU.

[1:43:12] >> If it were, would that require a

[1:43:14] separate septic?

[1:43:16] >> No, that would be part of the original

[1:43:17] the overall septic system.

[1:43:19] >> Okay.

[1:43:19] >> So, regardless of what it is, if it

[1:43:21] turns into an ADU, it's an extra

[1:43:22] bedroom. So, we'd have to um enlarge the septic a little bit,

[1:43:27] >> but it wouldn't You're still going to

[1:43:28] bring everything to the same septic

[1:43:29] system. And there's plenty of room in

[1:43:31] the site.

[1:43:31] >> Okay.

[1:43:32] >> It's not like a lot of other projects we

[1:43:33] work on where fighting trying to find

[1:43:34] every little square inch. There's plenty of room on this site.

[1:43:37] >> Yeah. I was just wondering given the

[1:43:40] distance of that structure relative to

[1:43:42] the main structure, it's

[1:43:43] >> no problems at all. Okay.

[1:43:44] >> Yeah.

[1:43:47] >> Uh let's see.

[1:43:49] would say.

[1:43:51] >> Yeah.

[1:43:52] Right. Right on the verge of that.

[1:43:53] Yeah. Um it's probably 300 300 yards.

[1:43:59] Let's see. Oh, there's a dimension there

[1:44:01] actually.

[1:44:01] >> There it is. 334 feet.

[1:44:04] >> Yeah.

[1:44:06] [clears throat] 334 ft.

[1:44:09] >> Pretty pretty wide distance away.

[1:44:11] There's a little drainage ravine with a

[1:44:13] bunch of trees in the middle between the

[1:44:15] two where the um you know that area is

[1:44:17] not going to be touched at all. So it

[1:44:20] gives kind of it really separates the

[1:44:22] property in half almost with this

[1:44:24] natural feature.

[1:44:31] » We're trying to keep as many as we can.

[1:44:33] I think there's a cluster of three that

[1:44:35] get really close to the house and we're

[1:44:37] probably going to have to remove one of

[1:44:38] those, but the other ones will remain.

[1:44:40] Yeah,

[1:44:43] the area of the ravine won't be touched

[1:44:45] at all. It's all in a 35% area.

[1:44:53] Any other questions?

[1:44:57] I think for me the walking the site and

[1:45:00] standing in the story poles looking due

[1:45:02] south is 280 is

[1:45:05] there present. Um,

[1:45:08] uh, light emission is a big concern of

[1:45:10] ours in the residential guidelines and,

[1:45:13] uh, just don't know how those are going

[1:45:16] to reconcile each other. Scenic

[1:45:18] corridor, straight view to 280, a wall

[1:45:21] of glass. So, is turtle glass going to

[1:45:24] solve that problem or is it is it uh

[1:45:29] what we want to avoid is a beacon on the

[1:45:31] hill?

[1:45:32] >> Yeah, I understand. Um yeah, we I think

[1:45:35] we would be totally amendable to trying

[1:45:37] to reduce the amount of glass,

[1:45:38] >> right? Is it realistic to consider a

[1:45:40] lighting study to see what potential

[1:45:43] impact is?

[1:45:44] >> What would that uh encompass when you

[1:45:46] say lighting study?

[1:45:47] >> Um modeling the light emission from the

[1:45:50] house relative [snorts] to the distance

[1:45:53] 280 is is probably

[1:45:57] over a half mile, I think.

[1:45:59] >> Yeah. I' I've never done that before,

[1:46:01] but we could look into it. Yeah.

[1:46:02] >> Yeah.

[1:46:03] So just, you know, I know you guys have

[1:46:04] looked at true gloss before. It's

[1:46:06] something I've seen on a lot of projects

[1:46:07] in Woodside and it does reduce the glare

[1:46:09] quite a bit. It might be something you

[1:46:11] can we can share maybe the specs of the

[1:46:14] um manufacturer that that demonstrates

[1:46:16] how much it reduces. I mean the whole

[1:46:18] point why it's called turtle glassass is

[1:46:20] my understanding is you know it was in

[1:46:22] an area where turtles in Florida

[1:46:24] >> they didn't they were worried that the

[1:46:26] light emissions might might disturb the

[1:46:28] you know the reproductive of the uh

[1:46:30] turtles they were migrating there and so

[1:46:32] they come up with this glass that really

[1:46:33] limited the amount of uh glare coming

[1:46:36] out of it. So that really made a big

[1:46:37] difference. So

[1:46:38] >> is that the origin of the name?

[1:46:40] >> That's my understanding. I've heard

[1:46:41] [laughter] that's the story I've heard.

[1:46:44] >> Yeah. I just this is this is my really

[1:46:46] my only area of concern is just this

[1:46:48] potential impact [clears throat] of the

[1:46:50] light emission from this.

[1:46:52] >> Yeah, I I totally understand that

[1:46:54] concern. I think we could reduce the

[1:46:55] amount of glass. We could even also look

[1:46:57] at some louvers potentially that are

[1:46:59] screening it from that, you know what I

[1:47:00] mean? That would allow light in, but

[1:47:02] that might even be a benefit to the the

[1:47:04] project now that I'm thinking about it

[1:47:06] because it might help screen your view

[1:47:07] down to 280.

[1:47:19] I mean, if you're not really there's not

[1:47:21] neighbors.

[1:47:22] >> It might I mean, are is it Valley Road

[1:47:24] or is it like more the Stanford property

[1:47:26] over

[1:47:28] >> the linear accelerator is really far

[1:47:29] away, but it is that direction. Yeah,

[1:47:31] for sure. Stanford property.

[1:47:34] >> It's not the light's not going down to

[1:47:35] Valley Road right at the end of War

[1:47:37] Road, right? It's

[1:47:38] >> No, no, no,

[1:47:39] >> no. So it would be going

[1:47:40] >> it would only be going towards the

[1:47:41] Stanford property.

[1:47:42] >> The st the Lawler Ranch property, right?

[1:47:44] Yeah. So at this point

[1:47:46] >> Yeah. Lawler Ranch.

[1:47:47] >> Your name Stanford's going to take if

[1:47:50] they ever build.

[1:47:50] >> I don't know if it's in our lifetimes,

[1:47:52] [laughter]

[1:47:53] >> right?

[1:47:53] >> I worked on that one for decades.

[1:47:55] >> So the light isn't really shining in the

[1:47:57] ne there are no neighbors do.

[1:48:01] >> Yeah, that's the interesting thing about

[1:48:02] the site. Yeah, it's really 280. That's

[1:48:04] what it is. It's

[1:48:05] >> You can see it right across the way the

[1:48:06] open patch. That's Stanford's property.

[1:48:10] Right. The L.

[1:48:13] Yeah.

[1:48:15] >> Okay. Any other questions?

[1:48:19] >> And I do have to say I know that it is a

[1:48:21] scenic quarter and so you don't want,

[1:48:24] you know, we don't really want the light

[1:48:26] and we've looked at other houses along

[1:48:28] here and I notice when I'm I'm driving

[1:48:30] from Sandfield to to Woodside, I keep

[1:48:33] looking and you really you're so busy on

[1:48:35] the freeway.

[1:48:36] >> Yeah. You're not going to see very much.

[1:48:39] I mean there are a lot of trees as well.

[1:48:41] >> I've done some dangerous things when I

[1:48:43] was done a lot of trees a number of

[1:48:44] years ago but there's still a good

[1:48:47] screening going on.

[1:48:48] >> There's quite a bit of screening. I know

[1:48:49] when I tried to look at houses there

[1:48:52] either get in an accident or Yeah.

[1:48:54] You're not really seeing.

[1:48:56] >> I've worked on this property for so many

[1:48:58] years. I keep wanting to look up there

[1:48:59] and I can't hardly find it when I'm

[1:49:00] driving on 280 myself.

[1:49:02] >> Yeah.

[1:49:02] >> So it is really hard to see.

[1:49:05] But yeah, Don, I think we're we're

[1:49:07] totally amendable to trying to reduce it

[1:49:09] somewhat and add some louvers. Something

[1:49:12] like that. I think could probably pretty

[1:49:13] easily solve.

[1:49:15] Okay, [clears throat]

[1:49:19] no more questions left. Uh move to uh

[1:49:22] public comment. So, any member of the

[1:49:24] public who's in the room or online who

[1:49:27] wishes to make comment on this proposed

[1:49:30] uh development, feel free to do so.

[1:49:33] There are no members of the public

[1:49:34] online.

[1:49:36] >> Who are the six people who are online?

[1:49:37] Just you guys. [laughter]

[1:49:40] >> Good to know.

[1:49:43] >> Um,

[1:49:47] » all right. The that would close public

[1:49:49] comment and uh board deliberation.

[1:49:53] Anyone wishes to sort of sum summarize

[1:49:55] their thoughts on this and next steps?

[1:49:57] Appreciate it.

[1:50:00] >> No comments for me. It's very nice

[1:50:03] project and being set way back away from

[1:50:05] the highway like that should be no

[1:50:07] issues.

[1:50:09] >> I think if we get the commitment to look

[1:50:12] at some of the light emissions that

[1:50:13] might create or stop from creating the

[1:50:17] beacon on the hill. I think it's a

[1:50:19] beautiful property. I think they've done

[1:50:20] a wonderful job with the finishes and

[1:50:22] the architecture is beautiful.

[1:50:27] Well, I lived on Mor Road for 18 years,

[1:50:29] so I know that whole property and u it's

[1:50:33] a beautiful street. It's a gorgeous

[1:50:36] street. I think the design is gorgeous.

[1:50:40] It

[1:50:40] >> I think it's better than the original.

[1:50:42] I'm not sure if that was worse the

[1:50:44] original, but [laughter] I do like it a

[1:50:47] little bit better. definitely seems to

[1:50:49] you modernize it. Uh, you know, and the

[1:50:51] materials really do fit in side of the

[1:50:54] hill. Um, that, you know, the sandstone

[1:50:58] is just, you know, most of the time it's

[1:51:01] never going to. So,

[1:51:05] um, but I I like the project. I think

[1:51:07] that the more you can bury into that

[1:51:09] house, the less you're going to get.

[1:51:13] >> Green roofs are pretty special, too.

[1:51:16] Yeah,

[1:51:17] >> good. Um, yeah, I think it's a it's a grand project. Um, I do like fact

[1:51:23] taking an approach of trying to bury as

[1:51:25] much of the structure at the rear into

[1:51:26] the hillside. Um,

[1:51:30] we'll see whether it requires a grading

[1:51:32] exception or not. Um, terms of colors

[1:51:35] and materials, um, I have no no

[1:51:38] concerns. Um but I do think that

[1:51:40] lighting remains a concern and for that

[1:51:43] reason I'm going to add to the motion

[1:51:46] that um it does come back to the ASRB

[1:51:49] even though story psy poles are

[1:51:51] installed and I think coming back to the

[1:51:54] ASRB with some sort of proposed solution

[1:51:57] um or at the very least that the problem

[1:51:59] has been looked at more methodically to

[1:52:02] understand what any potential impact

[1:52:04] there is given it's a scenic corridor.

[1:52:07] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we would just prefer

[1:52:10] if it either comes back or it doesn't

[1:52:11] come back with the recommendations.

[1:52:13] >> It's going to come back.

[1:52:14] >> Yeah. So, so

[1:52:19] » if it if it needs to go, so formal

[1:52:21] designer view will require a lighting

[1:52:23] plan. So, it'll identify the this

[1:52:26] particular exterior light fixtures um is

[1:52:29] what's provided. Um, and then the the

[1:52:33] comments I heard is that the applicant

[1:52:35] was commended for using uh materials and

[1:52:38] colors that blend in with the site um

[1:52:41] and to uh partially bury build into the

[1:52:45] hillside for both structures.

[1:52:47] The applicant is recommended to look at

[1:52:50] light emission and ways to minimize

[1:52:52] light emission such as reducing the

[1:52:55] amount of glass using turtle glass

[1:52:57] throughout the project. Um to include

[1:52:59] the specifications

[1:53:01] [clears throat] uh to identify the

[1:53:03] amount of lighting to be reduced, the

[1:53:05] light emission to be reduced um and to

[1:53:07] consider using louvers on some roll of

[1:53:10] the windows. And the applicant noted uh

[1:53:13] that in response to the desk item that

[1:53:16] we received that they would provide

[1:53:18] landscaping between the main residence

[1:53:21] and the northwest property line shared

[1:53:22] with 545 Moore Road. Um and then with

[1:53:26] that uh there was the comment to bring

[1:53:30] this back to the ASRB for formal design

[1:53:33] review. Um, if some type of planning

[1:53:35] commission entitlement is required, such

[1:53:37] as a grading exception, ASRB would make

[1:53:39] a recommendation to the planning

[1:53:41] commission at that time and the

[1:53:42] commission would take final action on

[1:53:44] the project.

[1:53:45] >> Just minor clarification on language for

[1:53:48] light emission. Um, I don't I don't

[1:53:50] think it's necessarily reduce. I think

[1:53:52] it's more control or direct light

[1:53:55] emissions.

[1:53:57] Um, because I do think the problem is

[1:53:59] pretty narrowly focused in specific

[1:54:01] directions.

[1:54:02] >> Great. No, that that's helpful.

[1:54:04] >> As far as the turtle glass too on the

[1:54:06] entire property, I don't know that it's

[1:54:07] necessary, but on the sides that would

[1:54:09] be most reflective,

[1:54:11] >> the ones facing the the

[1:54:16] » good have to say

[1:54:19] I mean from a digital standpoint of

[1:54:21] turtle cloud I mean they use them on a

[1:54:24] lot of like commercial buildings. One of

[1:54:27] the pictures you showed us um I mean it maybe get for light emissions

[1:54:34] it does make a difference but um from a

[1:54:37] science

[1:54:39] have the same

[1:54:41] most

[1:54:44] I don't force them to use turtle glass

[1:54:46] >> so I just want to but I would like to

[1:54:48] hear from the entire ASRB so I've heard

[1:54:51] to use turtle glass in some areas I have

[1:54:53] one member say no turtle glass

[1:54:59] » so I just want So

[1:55:01] >> it's got its own

[1:55:02] >> with a motion that should just be

[1:55:04] clarified in a second in the vote.

[1:55:06] >> I think it's I'll see if I can take a

[1:55:08] stab at refining it. So I think it's as

[1:55:11] part of the overall light emissions

[1:55:14] solution.

[1:55:15] Um if turtle glass can play a role in

[1:55:19] that effectively um then I think that's

[1:55:24] fine.

[1:55:25] And if Uber and other options help

[1:55:27] instead,

[1:55:28] >> yes, they can provide any they'll be

[1:55:31] coming back to the ASRB so they can

[1:55:32] identify what they've done to look at um

[1:55:35] controlling uh the amount of emissions

[1:55:37] and a direction. I I'm not familiar with

[1:55:40] the properties of turtle glass enough to

[1:55:43] know whe

[1:55:45] I mean I think there it's designed too

[1:55:46] so birds don't fly into it much. Um but

[1:55:49] it's got this blue look to it. It's not

[1:55:51] the clear glass. I mean, unless it's

[1:55:54] been approved, but

[1:55:56] >> I think that's an aesthetic choice.

[1:55:59] >> Force an applicant to use a certain type

[1:56:01] of

[1:56:02] >> That's fair. Yep. It also helps that

[1:56:05] we're a,000 ft or more from anybody

[1:56:08] being with all the vegetation along 280,

[1:56:11] you're going to hardly see it. And if

[1:56:13] you were, you were talking about very

[1:56:16] long distance. This is not a

[1:56:18] neighborhood where you're 50 feet from

[1:56:20] your neighbor. The the distances are

[1:56:22] huge. And with a landscaping and so

[1:56:24] forth, it I just don't think it's much

[1:56:25] of an issue. Even the level of light

[1:56:28] emission at that distance is going to be

[1:56:30] staggeringly low. So I I think some of

[1:56:33] this has to do with the fact the site is

[1:56:35] so large and has a lot of natural slope,

[1:56:38] natural vegetation, and highways gotten

[1:56:41] major growth in the vegetation the last

[1:56:43] 10 years. So a lot of those houses you

[1:56:46] just can't see anymore and they're going

[1:56:47] to continue to grow. So, I can't say

[1:56:50] it's really a huge hot button, but to be

[1:56:52] sensitive and aware of it would be

[1:56:53] really appreciated.

[1:56:57] >> I agree.

[1:57:00] » So, there's a we have the motion um to

[1:57:04] look at light emission control and

[1:57:06] direction. Um to consider using turtle

[1:57:08] glass uh facing the I280. Um include the

[1:57:12] specifications of any turtle glass being

[1:57:14] used to identify the light emission

[1:57:16] reduction. um to consider louvers and

[1:57:19] the applicant can also provide other

[1:57:21] ways that they may uh find best to

[1:57:24] control and direct the light emission.

[1:57:28] >> I'm trying to avoid us just simply

[1:57:29] approving turtle glass as a proposed solution.

[1:57:33] >> Yes, understood. and then noted that the

[1:57:36] applicant has agreed to install

[1:57:38] landscaping between the northwest

[1:57:40] neighbor at 545 Moore Road. Um, and to

[1:57:44] bring this back to ASRB for formal

[1:57:46] design review. Is there a motion?

[1:57:47] >> Be clear. I mean, even though the

[1:57:49] neighbor the desk item we received

[1:57:51] talked about postity, um, but the home

[1:57:54] is situated well within the setbacks,

[1:57:57] but there's no variance required here.

[1:58:00] >> That's correct.

[1:58:00] >> Okay.

[1:58:02] Is there a motion?

[1:58:04] >> I'll make a motion for that.

[1:58:07] >> Second,

[1:58:10] » Chair Lindsay.

[1:58:11] >> Yes.

[1:58:12] >> Vice Chair Comradhood.

[1:58:31] So, and I think that sight direction of

[1:58:35] the home. I mean, you're really just

[1:58:37] facing you're not facing the other

[1:58:40] directly.

[1:58:44] You're facing south.

[1:58:49] » There's a motion and a second. We have

[1:58:52] one. Yes.

[1:58:54] >> You second.

[1:58:56] >> But we are voting. I'm a yes.

[1:58:59] Well, I'm I'm a yes for it to come back

[1:59:01] to us and see what the solution is. Not

[1:59:03] that we've said that this is the demand.

[1:59:05] Correct.

[1:59:06] >> Correct. Suggestions. I would agree with

[1:59:08] that.

[1:59:11] >> Vicera,

[1:59:12] >> I would have approved it just to go to

[1:59:16] your department. So, I'm not quite sure

[1:59:19] how

[1:59:20] >> it's there's the motion that if you

[1:59:22] don't agree with that motion, then you

[1:59:24] can vote against it. Um, if you do agree

[1:59:28] with the motion, you can vote for it. If

[1:59:30] you like the project to move forward, if

[1:59:32] for instance, if we had a two- two vote,

[1:59:35] um, that would be a denial. Um, and the

[1:59:38] project wouldn't move forward in that

[1:59:40] case. It would need to come up with some

[1:59:42] other Well, we'd have a we'd have to

[1:59:44] have a new motion. That motion would

[1:59:46] fail.

[1:59:51] » Yes. For me, and you're so you're the

[1:59:53] fourth vote. So we have three and then

[1:59:56] so you're just saying no or

[1:59:59] >> that would not be my motion.

[2:00:00] >> Okay. So it's a three to one vote. So

[2:00:03] that the motion passes.

[2:00:07] » Okay.

[2:00:09] Technicalities.

[2:00:12] >> So that completes this item. Um you'll

[2:00:14] receive a letter in the next day or two

[2:00:16] um outlining the next steps.

[2:00:19] >> Thank you. [clears throat] Thanks a lot.

[2:00:22] We'll be back. We'll see you soon. Yeah.

[2:00:28] [cough]

[2:00:30] » Okay. Last last item of the agenda is

[2:00:33] the director's report.

[2:00:34] >> Yeah. Just uh I'll just quickly note um

[2:00:36] you know with the director's report, one

[2:00:37] of the main highlights we talked about

[2:00:39] is just the number of units, [snorts]

[2:00:41] residential units being permitted. Um so

[2:00:43] in June there were two more ADUs. No

[2:00:46] single family dwellings permitted.

[2:00:49] uh through cycle 6 through June 2026,

[2:00:53] uh we have a total of 89 ADUs and a

[2:00:57] total of 36 single family dwellings uh

[2:01:00] permits issued. Um and I think we're

[2:01:04] poised in July probably to have at least

[2:01:06] three ADUs. Um but we'll run those

[2:01:08] numbers at the end of July.

[2:01:12] » Okay.

[2:01:14] is age when you give us a report can you

[2:01:16] isolate what are replacement structures

[2:01:18] don't add to our numbers versus what are

[2:01:21] actually empty properties that are

[2:01:22] actually adding

[2:01:23] >> they're all going to add to the numbers

[2:01:24] so the the HCD used to only count if

[2:01:30] you're well they did a couple things

[2:01:31] differently right

[2:01:32] >> they counted permits that were final not

[2:01:35] issued and that if there was a a net

[2:01:39] zero then that wasn't counted but that

[2:01:42] has since changed

[2:01:43] So, as you may note that a significant

[2:01:46] increase the number of housing units

[2:01:49] that um need to be permitted. So, last

[2:01:51] cycle was in the uh low 60s um whereas

[2:01:55] now we're over 320 units. Uh and so

[2:01:59] they've changed the methodology and that

[2:02:02] is just strictly for permits issued. Um

[2:02:04] and those all count towards the the

[2:02:08] housing targets. So if we had 50 houses

[2:02:11] that are being torn down and replaced,

[2:02:13] we get credit for that.

[2:02:14] >> That's correct.

[2:02:16] >> And I mean, I think what we are seeing

[2:02:17] is that still with ADUs because a lot of

[2:02:20] the houses are already built on with

[2:02:22] houses and so we're seeing the vast

[2:02:24] majority of these things being new

[2:02:26] because we allow more ADUs now and we're

[2:02:29] changing rules for ADUs, making things

[2:02:31] more flexible for folks. So

[2:02:35] >> great. Thank you.

[2:02:38] This is it right.

[2:02:40] >> See you. Yes. See you in September.

[2:02:41] >> September.

[2:02:42] >> See you in September.

[2:02:44] >> All right. With that journ adjourn the

[2:02:47] meeting at 6:39.

Architectural and Site Review Board Special Meeting - July 27, 2026

Transcript