|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
With the appointment of John Carvell to Woodside’s Architectural and Site Review Board on Tuesday (Feb. 28), the Town Council has filled the second of two open seats on the five-member panel charged with protecting Woodside’s rural character.
The council split 4-1 in Mr. Carvell’s favor, with Mayor Tom Livermore and council members Deborah Gordon, Chris Shaw and Daniel Yost voting for Mr. Carvell. Councilwoman Anne Kasten voted to reappoint Maggie Mah, a five-year veteran of the review board.
Not voting were councilman and architect Peter Mason and councilman and general contractor Dave Tanner, both of whom occasionally bring business before the review board. Mr. Tanner was present but recused himself and left the room. Mr. Mason did not attend the meeting.
Mr. Carvell is a partner at Portola Valley-based 38 Degree Advisors, where his specialty is taking development-stage startup companies through to initial public offerings.
He has a bachelor’s degree in management science from UC San Diego and a master’s degree in business from UC Berkeley.
In his remarks to the council earlier in February, Mr. Carvell said he has remodeled homes of his own in Menlo Park, Atherton and Woodside and that his focus in joining the review board would be helping property owners realize their goals in “a timely and cost effective manner” within the parameters of the general plan and design guidelines.
Every February, the council makes appointments to its many advisory committees. To be appointed to the Architectural and Site Review Board, a candidate needs at least four affirmative votes from the seven-member council.
Earlier in February, the council split 3-1 in Mr. Carvell’s favor, with Mr. Yost voting for Ms. Mah and Ms. Kasten, Mr. Mason and Mr. Tanner absent. Town Attorney Jean Savaree told the Almanac that it was her understanding that Mr. Mason and Mr. Tanner did not attend that meeting so as to avoid participating in the process of appointing members.
At the suggestion of Ms. Gordon, the council postponed the vote on the second seat until Ms. Kasten could participate.
Ms. Kasten, asked after the Feb. 28 meeting to comment on her vote, said, “I’d just as soon not get into it. This has been too hard for the town. I think the decision has been made. Extremely painful.”
Ms. Kasten did not say who she voted for, but a tally from Town Clerk Dora Wong Seamans revealed her choice.
Mr. Yost said he changed his vote after hearing public testimony and Mr. Carvell’s remarks at the meeting and after communicating with town residents in the interim. “I felt that, on balance, a new voice with a new perspective would be preferable on the ASRB,” Mr. Yost said in an email.
Mr. Shaw said he voted for Mr. Carvell because he (Mr. Shaw) had been elected as the candidate of change. He won a seat on the council in November 2015 as a write-in candidate running against Nancy Reyering, until recently a member of the review board and a target of board critics who complained about what they perceived as her subjectivity in evaluating construction projects for their adherence to the town’s residential design guidelines.
These critics sometimes included Ms. Mah in their complaints about Ms. Reyering.
In explaining his vote for Mr. Carvell, Mayor Livermore said it was “time for a change.” “Maggie has done a great job, a lot of effort,” he added. “She knows (the) job.”
Ms. Gordon has not yet responded to a request for comment.
—
David Boyce again mischaracterizes the purpose of the ASRB: “protecting Woodside’s rural character.”. That is NOT their job. Their job is to evaluate a project’s compliance wit the Municipal Code, the General Plan, and the Residential Design Gudelines, in that order. This “rural character” spin has served as a shield behind which the ASRB has in the past abused Woodside citizens because they could use that phrase to justify practically any oppressive decision. As I have said before, the phrase appears those documents, but its only one of many, often conflicting, goals that are just as or more important.
David: if you are going to continue to report on Woodside, at least stop writing about those documents until you have read and understood them.
Five years period is too long for 1 person to be on a committee. A change in committee members is healthy for any organization. But then I don’t live in Woodside. Time to shake the town up alittle.
@ASRB Victim
The story says the Woodside Architectural and Site Review Board is charged with protecting Woodside’s rural character. It does not say that’s the only description of its duties, but judging from the municipal code, it appears to be a key charge.
Here is the first item in the Woodside municipal code section on evaluation criteria for architectural and site review:
§ 153.220 EVALUATION CRITERIA.
1. Rural Character and Community Aesthetics. Whether the property is developed in a manner that is in keeping with the rural character and aesthetics of the town.
See the town’s webpage devoted to the review board. http://www.woodsidetown.org/boardsandcommittees/architectural-and-site-review-board-asrb
The summary paragraph says clearly that the municipal code “charges the ASRB with protecting the rural character and natural beauty of the Town.”
Richard —
That is a thoroughly disingenuous argument constructed by cherry picking isolated pieces of text. In your code snippet you included the first item and left out the following 22. And they are NOT in priority order so in choosing the first you got lucky.
At least I now understand how Boyce gets away with this stuff. This kind of transparent spin doctoring is a real disservice to your readers, who wonder what is your motive.
Here ‘s the governing code from which you chose your item IN ITS ENTIRETY:
§ 153.220 EVALUATION CRITERIA.
The evaluation criteria for reviews by the Architectural and Site Review Board and Planning Commission of proposed development, plans for buildings and other structures, and landscape plans are as follows:
SECTION 1: COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
1. Rural Character and Community Aesthetics. Whether the property is developed in a manner that is in keeping with the rural character and aesthetics of the town.
2. Scenic Corridors and Vistas. Whether the property is developed in a manner which respects the character of scenic corridors and vistas.
3. Natural Environment. Whether the property is developed in a manner that preserves natural features.
4. Equestrian Lifestyle. Whether the property is developed in a manner which preserves and supports equestrian facilities and the Woodside trails network.
SECTION 2: SITE PLANNING.
1. Site Constraints and Features. Whether the building location and site improvements are based on a clear understanding of the property’s natural features, regulatory constraints, and relationships to adjacent properties.
2. Natural Feature Conservation. Whether the site development conserves the property’s open space, natural features, vegetation, and wildlife by subordinating development to the site’s natural conditions.
3. Site Usage and Building Siting. Whether the residential and accessory uses are located to respect and preserve Woodside’s rural residential character, and maintain the visual continuity of natural landforms.
4. Site Circulation. Whether the driveways, garages, parking areas, trails, and pathways are located and designed to be safe, minimally visible from the roadway, and subordinate to the site’s natural features.
5. Neighborhood and Community Compatibility. Whether the location, scale, and orientation of site improvements complement and are consistent with neighborhood and community development patterns.
6. Fire Safe Design. Whether the site planning considers the relationship between buildings and high fuel load vegetation.
7. Sustainability. Whether the site planning incorporates sustainable strategies to conserve and minimize energy consumption in the construction and use of structures.
SECTION 3: BUILDING DESIGN.
1. Setting and Architectural Style. Whether the architectural design is tailored to lot size, terrain, vegetation, and other natural and neighborhood conditions.
2. Building Form. Whether the building form is architecturally cohesive and understated.
3. Materials, Color, and Details. Whether the materials, color, and details enhance the architectural style in a well-composed, understated manner.
4. Fire Safety. Whether the project adheres to fire safety regulations, while maintaining the rural character of Woodside.
5. Sustainability. Whether sustainable building practices are considered in project design.
SECTION 4: LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS.
1. Grading, Drainage, and Hardscape. Whether the landscape design minimizes grading, allows for appropriate drainage, minimizes paving, and preserves the natural and scenic character of Woodside.
2. Planting Design. Whether the planting design respects and maintains existing native and mature vegetation, is informal in design, and is in keeping with the rural character of Woodside.
3. Fences. Whether the fencing is open in design and compatible with the rural character of Woodside.
4. Entry Features. Whether the design of entry features is simple, modest, and understated.
5. Lighting. Whether the lighting on private property, especially if visible offsite, is minimized to maintain the rural experience.
6. Fire Safe Design. Whether the landscape design includes fire resistant plantings and the development of a defensible space around structures by elimination of overgrown plant materials with high fuel content while preserving the natural environment.
7. Sustainability. Whether the landscape design incorporates sustainable strategies to maximize water efficiency and preserve open space.
SECTION 5: NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
1. In addition to Sections 1-4 above, the Architectural and Site Review Board shall further review non-residential development to determine:
a. Whether the design promotes harmonious transition in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses;
b. Whether the project expresses an appropriate sense of identity with its function; and,
c. Whether the design and placement of sign(s) and/or graphics are consistent with §§ 153.075 through 153.080.
(’75 Code, § 9-2.901) (Ord. 1980-291, effective 9-11-80; Am. Ord. 1999-494, effective 3-25-99; Am. Ord. 2012-554, effective 8-23-12)
ith the town’s rural character and development patterns; is architecturally cohesive and understated; that the materials, color, and details are well-composed and understated; and that the architectural design is fire safe and sustainable.
(4) Landscape elements. That the landscape design minimizes grading, preserves natural and scenic features; that the planting design respects existing native and mature vegetation and is informal in design; that the fencing and entry features are open and rural in design; that exterior lighting is minimized; and that the landscape design is fire safe and sustainable.