►
From YouTube: Architectural Review Committee | July 19th, 2021
Description
City of Palm Springs Architectural Review Committee on July 19th, 2021
A
C
A
B
B
C
C
C
D
B
C
Okay,
that
any
other
comments
on
the
minutes,
so
that
will
be
part
of
our
consent
to
calendar.
That's
item
number.
One
item
number
two:
on
the
consent,
calendar
emerald
springs,
requesting
approval
of
a
signed
permit
for
one
main
sign
at
22
square
feet
placed
on
the
front
of
an
existing
building
located
at
560,
south
williams,
road
zone,
m1
recommendation
of
approval
from
staff.
E
E
F
F
E
C
Okay,
we're
gonna
move
to
item
number
three
hawkings
and
marshall,
on
behalf
of
carmelita
properties,
limited
and
for
a
major
architectural
application
to
construct
a
3539
square
foot
single
family
residence
on
a
15
173
square
foot,
hillside
parcel
located
at
310
west
crestview
drive.
Do
we
have
a
staff
report?
Please.
H
Location
of
the
proposed
mechanical
equipment
and
our
services
is
going
to
be
provided,
needs
to
be
reviewed.
The
site's
topography
should
be
incorporated
into
the
design
of
the
proposed
residence
and
the
comparability
of
the
proposed
project
with
respect
to
its
surrounding
neighborhood
topography
and
the
size
of
the
lot
needs
to
be
evaluated
and
a
height
of
the
purpose.
H
So
the
size
of
the
proposed
residence
has
been
slightly
reduced
and,
as
you
can
compare,
the
two
images
of
the
purpose
residence
is
not
being
pushed
towards.
Crestview
drive
and
the
size
of
the
dwelling
is
slightly
increased.
However,
the
size
of
the
garage
has
been
reduced
and
overall,
the
lock
coverage
of
the
project
has
been
reduced
from
24.2
percent
to
23.3
percent.
H
H
H
H
H
And
the
proposed
landscape
design
has
been
changed
significantly.
The
previous
plan
included
a
row
of
pitot
sperm
diamondia
in
the
back
and
for
the
corpus
and
all
the
trees
in
the
side
yard.
The
amount
of
prime
material
has
been
reduced
significantly
to
retain
the
existing
landscape
in
the
rear
and
the
applicants
causing
a
date
forms
aloe
vera
golden
beer
cactus
in
the
front-
and
this
is
the
change
that
the
african
is
proposing
for
landscape.
H
H
H
H
So
this
particular
language
in
the
section
is
applicable
in
determining
how
many
units
the
density
is
permitted
for
specific
development,
and
this
is
particularly
applied
to
a
project
such
as
attract
housing
development
project,
as
well
as
apartment
housing,
development
for
us,
and
then
it's
not
really
applied
to
determine
the
area
that
can
be
developed
in
a
single
family
residential
zone.
The
maximum
arrival
area
is
the
log
coverage
of
35
percent
and
then
also
the
maximum
allowable
density
in
a
single
family.
H
H
However,
it's
not
entirely
prohibited
so
when
up
and
when
someone
proposes
a
development
in
an
area,
that's
30
percent
or
more
in
slope
design.
Consideration
needs
to
be
taken
to
make
sure
that
the
impact
will
be
minimized
so
stuff
just
going
to
include
as
a
part
of
the
presentation
to
the
person
who
requested
the
information
for
the
proposed
design
staff
finds
that
the
strong
horizontal
massing
over
the
hillside
is
is
shown
and
the
rear
portion
of
the
residence
projects
over
the
slope
without
any
adjustment
to
the
building
height
and
also
there's
no
excuse
me.
H
Excuse
me,
the
profile
and
the
south
east
corner
of
the
proposed
residence,
particularly
balcony
in
the
deck
area,
are
projects
into
the
code
required,
require
the
minimum
side,
yard
setback
area
and
the
proposed
five
feet
and
four
inches
of
the
front
yard
and
the
garage
setback
does
not
meet
the
minimum
code
requirement
and
also
the
mechanical
equipment
in
the
west
side
yard
does
not
provide
a
five-foot
access.
Pass.
H
That's
required
by
the
code
and
akoya
horizontal
bands,
intensify
the
horizontal
profile
of
the
proposed
residence
and
finally
start
finds
that
additional
information,
such
as
preliminary
precise
grading
plan,
preliminary
hydrology
plan
and
slot
map
is
required
to
show
the
entirety
of
the
alterations
of
the
site
and
how
the
proposed
site
engineering
will
relate
to
the
hillside
development
project
and,
for
this
reasons,
recommends
that
the
arc
recommend
denial
to
the
commission,
and
this
concludes
the
staff,
presentation
and
stuff
and
applicants
are
also
available.
If
you
have
any
questions.
D
D
H
Sure,
let
me
just
go
back
to
the
site
plan,
so
this
site
plans
that's
submitted
does
not
include
the
setback.
However,
the
measurement
has
been
confirmed
by
the
applicant,
but
the
project
proposes
a
five
feet
and
four
inches
for
the
front
yard
setback.
The
way
that
the
development
standards
is
stated
in
the
zoning
code.
The
zoning
code
differentiates
the
front
yard
setback
requirement
from
the
garage
distance
requirement.
So
that's
why
there's
a
front
yard
and
a
garage
so
a
typical
single
family
residential
development
project
such
as
this
one.
H
It
does
require
a
20
foot,
front
yard
setback,
because
this
property
is
a
curved
lot
and
then
the
zoning
code
requires
25
feet
for
the
garage
to
be
separated
from
the
front
yard.
However,
the
african
is
able
to
request
to
reduce
the
setback
via
administrative
minor
modification
and
that's
what
the
five
feet
and
four
inches
means.
H
D
So
just
want
to
clarify
with
you
noriko
the
the
the
only
way
they're
allowed
to
ask
for
a
five
foot.
Let
me
just
see
if
I
understand
it.
The
only
way
they're
allowed
to
ask
for
a
five
foot
and
change
front
yard.
Setback
for
a
garage
is
through
administrative
modification.
There's
a
minor
modification
there's,
no
there's
nothing
in
the
ordinance.
Now
that
says,
without
that
it's
just
a
garage,
you
can
encroach
20
feet
into
the
required
25
foot.
200
setback
is
that
right.
H
C
Well,
sean,
I
think,
one
of
the
no
I'm
not
confused.
I
mean
I
think
they
truly
are
showing
just
a
five-foot
setback
from
their
property
line.
What
they
don't
indicate
is
that
the
edge
of
the
street
is
not
on
the
property
line.
It's
another,
probably
10
or
12
feet
south
of
their
building,
but
they
don't
give
us
any
dimensions.
So
it's
hard
to
know
where
they
are,
but
the
code
specifically
does
not
relate
to
the
edge
of
the
pavement.
It
relates
to
the
property.
D
E
H
Yes,
five
feet
and
four
inches
the
only
way
that
they,
the
upgrade,
can
have
a
reduced
front-end
setback
is
by
a
variance
review.
However,
if
the
applicant
is
willing
to
increase
that
from
your
setback,
up
to
10
feet,
not
20
feet,
but
that's
available
as
an
option,
but
that's
subject
to
administer
amount
of
modification
or
should
applicant
decides
to
just
apply
for
the
variance
for
reduced
from
a
setback.
E
D
I
guess
this
is
where
my
confusion
comes
in
and
john
john
walsh.
Yeah
is
just
clarifying
that
for
me
also
as
like
I'm,
I
guess
I
wonder,
is
this
the
cart
before
the
horse
require
if
this
project
has
no
wings,
why
are
we
looking
at
it
and
if
and
by
having
no
wings,
I
mean,
like
that's
a
big
ask
to
to
violate
a
setback
or
follow
what
you
want:
an
encroachment
beyond
a
required
setback
of
80
percent.
B
B
This
project
is
going
through
the
city's
architectural
review
process,
as
projects
historically
have
gone
through
the
arc
first
and
planning
commission
second,
but
even
when
we've
had
projects
in
the
past
that
require
a
variance
we
still
process
them
through
arc.
First
before
it
goes
to
planning
commission
your
purview
today
is
the
architectural
review
guidelines
that
were
presented
back
on
june,
7th,
as
it
relates
to
architectural
design,
site
layout,
harmonious
relationship
with
surrounding
area.
B
So
they're,
not
the
quantifiable
objectives
or
standards
per
se,
it's
more
about
the
qualitative
aspects
of
the
project
and
if
you
have
a
concern
about
the
setback,
certainly
that
could
go
into
the
harmonious
relationship
with
the
surrounding,
but
those.
But
the
setback
reduction
cannot
be
a
basis
for
a
denial
from
the
committee.
D
C
F
F
F
Second,
first
and
foremost
thanks
for
your
time,
and
also
thanks
for
your
comments
on
at
the
previous
meeting,
like
any
review
board,
we
take
your
comments
not
just
seriously
about
compliance,
but
as
a
an
effort
to
make
better
buildings
and
from
both
the
committee
and
the
the
neighboring
neighbors.
Excuse
me
requested
repeatedly
how
that
both
projects
related
to
each
other.
F
So
that
was
in
terms
of
massing
views
and
its
relationship
to
the
surroundings,
the
the
material
relationships,
landscaping
and
also
how
that
relates
to
the
building
heights
and
structural
systems,
so
our
to
address
sean's
comments
and
why
we're
asking
for
this
variance
or
the
conditional
approval
is
that
the
the
projects
were
seen
as
protruding
far
too
far
into
the
the
the
gully.
And
so
this
shows
the
two
of
them
with
their
revisions,
which
is
drastically
bringing
the
projects
back
towards
crestview.
F
Following
comments
from
chairman
jackway-
and
this
shows
the
two
and
how
while
they
sit
on
the
ridge,
they
also
are
very
different,
now
planning
on
will
go
to
310
and
if
you've
got
any
questions
about
322,
we
can
address
those.
But
by
inverting
the
plan
you
actually
take
the
mass
out
of
the
hillside
and
what
used
to
be
18.
F
The
real
horizontal
edge
is
on
the
the
west
side,
which
is
actually
surrounded
by
a
large
grove
of
palms
trees,
and
so
the
the
views
that
were
obviously
from
el
camino
way
no
longer
are
obstructing
that
and
the
mass
and
the
height
variances
that
we
brought
down,
allow
both
three
three
two
three
sorry,
three,
three
three
and
three
sixty
to
to
not
obstruct
those.
So
you,
you
can
see
the
kind
of
how
that
relates
now
322
and
just
while
we're
at
that
same
point.
F
It
shows
that
the
similar
reduction
in
the
the
the
mass
out
into
the
into
the
wash
this
allows
just
six
pairs
to
be
used
and
relates
to
the
architectural
language
of
its
neighbor
at
360,
which
again
is
on
on
peers
and
a
deck,
but
again
we're
we
we're.
You
know
willing
to
deal
with
the
the
with
planning
regarding
the
the
setbacks,
but
again
with
the
amount,
the
space
between
crestview
drive
and
the
property.
F
These
sections
were
requested
by
vice
chairman
rottman,
showing
how
from
east
to
west
that
the
projects
actually
step
down
so
that
you're
again
they're
not
treated
as
a
kind
of
flat
plate
for
both
of
them,
but
yeah
step
down
between
the
two,
and
these
are
the
the
some
exploratory
sections
that
show
the
relationship
between
what
was
proposed
initially
and
what
is
proposed.
Now.
F
Likewise,
another
section
shows
the
same
strategy,
so
you've
only
got
this
small
cantilever
out
on
that
location.
And
again
you
see
that
the
the
the
actual
pool
is
the
the
area
that
you're
allowed
to
navigate
the
the
the
landscaping
as
it
goes
down.
We
we
did
see
comments
which
weren't
addre
weren't
mentioned
in
the
last
either
the
the
last
review
or
the
or
the
neighborhood
outreach,
but
we
could
put
these
together
now.
F
F
Corridors
seem
to
be
the
most
important
comments,
so
again
we're
more
than
willing
to
work
if
we
can
get
a
continuance
with
conditions
to
to
resolve
those
conditions
to
resolve
those
issues
while
we're
at
it,
we
might
as
well
just
show
you
the
the
exact
same
relationship
of
the
existing
to
the
for
the
earlier
proposed
and
revised
for
three
two.
Two
again,
I
think
jack
crea
was
concerned
about
piles
and
the
maximum
depth
we're
showing.
Obviously
these
these
are.
F
F
Obviously,
a
one-story
scheme
reduced
by
at
250,
approximately
250
square
feet
and
obviously
the
materiality
is
drastically
changed,
but
you
can
you
see
how
it
actually
is
coming
back
towards
the
law
and
again
issues
of
how
it
faces
the
street
and
how
big
it
appears
there
and
we
feel
can
be
addressed
with
changing
of
the
the
front
yard
set.
As
I
said
just
for
the
just
for
the
garage
and
again
this.
This
is
just
a
review
of
the
longitudinal
sections
that
take
into
consideration.
F
Maybe
some
changes
in
the
in
the
roof
line
of
of
322.
noriko
showed
the
materiality
there's
a
quote.
There
was
a
a
note
saying
that
the
the
review
panel
staff
didn't
see
much
changes
with
that.
We
see
the
relationship
between
the
two
houses
is
really
important
and
the
stress
from
both
the
committee
and
the
neighbors
that
there
should
be
an
individuality.
F
But
in
a
lot
of
our
work,
the
the
landscape
and
the
building
are
harmonious
and
and
the
actual
materials,
whether
that
be
concrete
plaster,
wood
or
actually
the
backdrop
for
the
for
dappled
light
and
landscape
to
really
sing
so
yeah.
We're
again,
I
think,
just
because
of
the
the
two
residencies
constantly
being
compared
to
each
other.
We
thought
that
addressing
them
as
a
as
a
pair
here
would
be
maybe
the
most
useful.
Eric
and
myself
are
willing
to
address
any
other
comments.
F
But,
as
I
said,
we
feel
like
we've
taken
all
the
comments,
as
I
said,
on
board
seriously
and
as
an
opportunity
to
improve
the
buildings
which
we
think
has
been
done
and
and
subsequently
we
would
request
that
both
receive
those
kind
of
very
those
continuances
so
that
we
can
get
these
into
the
planning.
Commission.
C
I
J
J
This,
of
course,
is
a
considerable
loss
of
value
and
eventual
profit,
and
but
in
the
hopes
of
minimizing
time
and
expense
of
this
process,
which
has
been
significant
since
the
last
meeting.
We
have
addressed
every
single
comment
that
was
mentioned,
and
every
concern
is
reflected
in
both
of
these
projects.
I'm
very
unclear
why
our
planner
is
recommending
denial
on
one.
There
is
nothing
in
the
comments
that
she's
made
against
it.
That
cannot
be
addressed
in
a
conditional
approval.
J
C
Well,
mr
rudd,
I
think
that
puts
a
whole
another
stick
in
the
works,
because
previously
the
argument
was
always
that
the
architects
were
only
working
on
these
two
lots
and
it
was
not
part
of
a
five
lot
subdivision
now.
You're
saying
it
is
part
of
an
overall
subdivision
and
it's
a
totally
different
direction
from
what
we
were
discussing
before.
J
This
subdivision
was
done
in
the
1930s.
This
is
not
a
subdivision.
I
own
five
lots
and
I'm
willing
to
go
from
five
lots
to
four
lots.
The
construction
will
certainly
impact
the
neighborhood
via
noise
and
road
disturbance,
of
course-
and
I
I
heard
that
loud
and
clear
at
our
first
neighborhood
meeting
and
I'm
responding
to
it
in
a
very
positive
in
a
very
costly
way.
If
that's
not
appreciated,
then
that's
fine,
we're
fine
thing
with
five
loss.
B
I
would
just
note
the
city
did
receive
a
few
comments
from
members
of
the
public,
so
those
were
provided
to
the
committee,
so
those
should
be
noted
for
the
record,
but
I
don't
know
if
there's
anyone
else
who
wishes
to
speak
at
this
time.
That
would
be
the
time
to
unmute
your
microphone
and
identify
yourself.
C
C
C
It
it
there's
no
mass
to
it.
There's
no
structure
to
it.
You
don't
on
your
material
board,
show
what
the
material
of
the
garage
is
and
if
somebody's
standing
on
crestview
drive
their
feet
are
at
elevation.
502
your
roof
is
at
elevation
503.5,
so
the
people
are
looking
directly
down
onto
the
roof
and
to
the
solar
panels,
and
we
don't
know
what
the
roof
is.
C
It's
very
confusing
to
see
where
you're
talking
about
fences
along
the
side,
property
line,
pool
of
mechanical
equipment.
There's
no
indication
of
how
many
air
conditioning
compressors,
where
the
pool
equipment
and
pumps
and
heaters
are.
But
there
is
a
note,
six
foot
tall
fence,
but
I
don't
see
any
six
foot
tall
fence.
C
There's
a
note
on
one
of
the
eight
and
a
half
by
elevens
that
the
wall
around
the
motor
court
is
three
feet
above
adjacent
grade.
But
as
I
count
the
grade
lines
on
the
survey,
the
corner
of
that
mortar
court
is
about
nine
feet
above
the
adjacent
grade.
And
I
don't
know
if
that
wall
around
the
mortar
core
is
three
feet
taller
than
the
motor
court
or
somebody
could
just
from
that.
Motor
court
fall
down
into
a
hole
off
the
side.
C
C
There's
no
indication
of
any
mechanical
equipment,
there's
no
room
showing
faus.
We
don't
know
where
the
ductwork
is
going.
Is
it
going
on
the
roof?
Is
it
going
underneath
the
house
if
it's
going
underneath
the
house?
Is
it
underneath
the
cantilever
so
that
that
might
be
visible
and
then
the
cantilever,
the
architect,
mentioned
a
small
cantilever,
but
really
it's
17
foot
two
and
a
half
inches
of
cantilever,
that's
massive
and
I
just
don't
think
the
structure
can
be
maintained
and
what
they're
showing
as
probably
a
15
to
16
inch
thickness
for
the
floor.
C
And
to
to
continue
that,
I
think
on
both
both
of
these
two
houses,
the
front
yard
landscaping
is
being
shown
as
if
it
stops
at
the
property
line.
I
would
hope
that
they're
really
proposing
to
take
the
landscaping
all
the
way
to
the
edge
of
the
road
that
would
be
a
significant
amount
of
new
landscaping
and
that
would
totally
change
the
character
of
the
landscaping
we're
looking
at,
and
one
of
the
other
questions
I
had
is:
how
does
the
pool
service
people
get
to
the
swimming
pool?
There's
a
on
your
landscape
and
hardscape
plan.
C
C
C
D
D
Here
or
maybe
it's
adjacent
one
next
door
that
I
think
we're
gonna
meet
about
next,
I
think
I'm
not
sure
why
it's
a
part
of
this
set
and
then
like
the
lack
of
the
the
cycling
grading
plans
that
show
any
hardscape
or
equipment
or
balconies
or
things
like
that
on
them.
In
addition,
I
I
can't
quite
figure
out
the
foreplant
on
this
project,
but
but
let's
talk
about
the
great
implant
for
a
minute.
What
are
the
two
sheets
page
42
and
43
of
the
packet.
D
I
Yeah,
these
are
a
schematic
grading
plan.
Originally,
as
we
made
significant
changes
and,
as
you
know,
cost
of
of
engineering
is
not
cheap
just
to
get
conditional
approval
from
you
guys
and
to
get
additional
feedback.
We
proposed
a
schematic
grading
plan
here
with
drainage
and
would
continue
to
develop
this
plan.
If
this
was
the
approved
path,
we
go
down
with
with
the
conditional
approval
with
you.
C
So
again,
for
looking
at
inconsistencies
underneath
bedroom
2,
it
shows
a
dark
line
that
may
would
meet
to
me
would
indicate
a
wall.
That's
touching
the
ground
which
are
you
on
the
one,
that's
unnumbered
that
that
has
the
drainage
shown.
Okay,
yeah,
that's
not
a
wall,
I
don't
think
that's
the
cantilevered
portion
of
the
house
and
then
it's
got
this
big
square
drainage
thing.
C
A
I
C
I
Well,
we
have
okay.
That
would
be
if
we
stick
with
without
making
any
revisions
to
the
rest
of
it.
But
we've
already
looked
at
revising
the
roof
heights
so
that
both
the
garage
would
be
would
be
higher
and
the
main
living
space
portion
would
have
a
clear
story
band
around
it
and
those
would
correlate.
C
I
C
C
I
Do
we
I
mean
we
weren't?
So
if
we
were
going
to
discuss
structure,
we
would
be
ready
and
provide
structural
drawings.
Here
we
weren't
asked
to
do
that.
We
were.
This
is
a
design
schematic
and
I
have
it
in
my
plans
as
14
and
a
half
foot
cantilever,
which
is
well
under
the
30
percent
backspan
that
we
have
accounted
for.
So
if
we
want
to
get
into
structure
it's
too
early
to
say
we
haven't
designed
it.
I
would
be
speculating.
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
And,
along
with
that,
like
there's
just
the
whole
hardscape
whole
host
of
hardscape
questions
that
might
go
along
with
tom's
current
question,
which
I'm
wondering
about
also
so
maybe
we
can
throw
that
into.
The
answer
is
like:
where
is
all
the
mechanical
equipment,
the
pool
equipment?
What's
the
size
of
it?
What's
the
grade
of
it?
Can
it
be
buried
under
a
deck
potentially
like?
We
can't
can't
really
talk
about
any
of
that.
E
It
also
appears
that
the
garage
I
mean
is
is
actually
retaining
part
of
that
slope.
So
there
needs
to
be
detail
and
call
outs,
for
you
know,
what's
retained,
and
how
do
you
make
the
driveway
transition,
because
there's
no
retaining
wall
showing
coming
off
the
garage
that
would
pick
up
that
sloped
driveway
toward
the
street?
It
would
have
some,
but
again
it's
difficult
to
tell
without
some
some
grades
on
here.
C
I
F
C
D
D
I
G
Yeah
all
right,
thank
you.
So
a
lot
of
your
questions
or
some
of
your
questions
I
had
as
well
tom
from
the
I'll
say
this
from
the
renderings,
the
relationship
of
the
house,
to
the
street.
I
really
don't
mind,
but
I
think
there's
so
many
unresolved
issues
that
it's
difficult
to
say
that
this
could
be
a
project
that
was
approved
it
just
it's.
G
A
I
E
A
D
I
The
way
we've
I
I
completely
agree
that
there's
a
lot
of
inconsistent
contradictions
in
terms
of
the
process
here,
whether
it's
aac
issue
that
should
be
approved
or
a
planning
issue
that
should
be
approved
and
one
should
come
before
the
other.
But
the
way
we've
understood
it.
This
whole
time
is
that
there's
a
level
of
conditional
approvals
that
are
provided
that
if
they
don't
get
worked
out
in
the
subsequent
process
with
planning
commission,
then
they
are
either
sent
back
or
or
denied.
C
That's
the
process.
That's
set
up
for
this
at
this
time,
for
this
particular
lots,
so
we
can
do
it,
and
I
will
clarify
that
at
the
last
meeting
I
didn't
say
the
garage
could
be
touching
the
property
line.
I
said
that
because
the
edge
of
the
pavement
was
so
far
south
of
the
property
line,
that
a
certain
amount
of
setback
reduction
would
be
reasonable,
especially
given
that
360
has
a
setback
reduction.
C
Unfortunately,
it's
not
dimensioned
and
if
your
engineer
could
dimension
their
garage,
it
would
make
it
a
lot
easier
for
us
to
look
at
your
garage,
it's
very
difficult
for
the
committee
to
recommend
a
variance,
that's
unique
and
special
to
just
one
property.
However,
if
it's
something
that
occurs
on
other
properties
or
exists,
then
that
gives
us
some
justification
to
say
why
why
that
might
be
accepted
with
some
exhibits.
D
I
J
I
Prevailing
setback,
calculations
as
part
of
our
aac
is
because
it
was
always
explained
to
us
as
being
the
next
part
of
the
process
as
part
of
planning
commission.
So
we
will
certainly
if
we
can
come
back
with
more
developed
plans,
we
can
include
that
in
the
aac
hearing.
However,
I
still
think
the
process
is
going
to
be
planning
commission
approval.
B
B
This
is
an
additional
four
feet
below
the
10
feet,
request
or
four
and
a
half
almost
five
feet.
So
in
that
case
it
does
require
variance
and
historically,
projects
that
have
required.
Variants
have
always
come
before
the
aac
or
the
air,
so
now
with
the
aac
before,
and
then
they
would
go
forward
to
the
planning
commission.
It
was
just
identified
that
a
project
does
need
a
variance
that
did
not
stop
the
committee
from
being
able
to
act
on
the
project
and
make
a
recommendation
in
terms
of
the
design.
B
E
I
too
have
been
stuck
from
the
first
time
I
looked
at
it
with
the
the
size
of
the
request
on
the
front
setback.
It
sounds
like
there
has
been
a
disconnection
between
project
ownership
and
developers
and
and
information
on
the
city
side.
If
that
is
true
that
you
know,
this
is
not
going
to
be
solved
with
an
amm,
it's
going
to
need
a
variance
because
of
the
extent
of
reduction
that's
being
asked,
for
it
would
be
imperative
that
that
information
be
developed.
E
You
need
compelling
arguments
on
a
variance
and
it
needs
to
be
presented
with
evidence
of
like-kind
conditions
in
the
neighborhood,
where
a
an
exception
has
been
allowed
in
a
different
way,
then
you
are
exercising
them
right
on
your
property.
You
understand
in
any
event,
it's
difficult
to
kind
of
get
give
a
green
light
on
something
that
your
it
would
have
huge
impact
on
the
overall
design.
If
that
didn't
happen,
so
you
know
it's
it's
it's
a
quandary
everything
else
in
terms
of
comments
on
coordination
of
drawings.
I
would
agree
with-
and
I
I
understand.
D
D
We've
made
these
kinds
of
applications
for
encroachment
ourselves
and-
and
it's
certainly
justifiable,
but
you've
got
to
come
with
your
homework
and
show
that
hey
here's,
the
exhibit
that
shows
there's
five
other
houses
down
the
street
that
have
done
the
same
thing.
Where
there's
a
precedent
here,
that's
been
set
in
the
neighborhood
and
somebody
followed
the
center
lines
when
they
were
building
these
roads
is
all
makes
good
sense.
D
I
It
I
respectfully
sean,
I
I
don't
think
you
should
hold
that
against
this
project.
I
think
that's.
This
is
a
process
issue.
We
weren't.
It
wasn't
advised
to
us
to
submit
any
kind
of
supplemental
exhibits
to
prove
neighboring
setbacks.
What
we
were
going
off
of
last
last
presentation
was
a.
We
had
a
10-foot
encroachment,
our
10-foot
garage
setback
and
that
was
deemed
very
suitable
and
they're.
A
Yeah,
nothing
more
to
add
I
mean
I,
I
agree
with
all
the
previous
comments
in
terms
of
the
variance,
and
you
know
the
fact
that
if
you
know
if
the
garage,
if
the
variance
isn't
approved
it's
it's,
the
design
has
got
to
change
significantly.
So
it
feels
like
it's
hard
for
us
to
approve
something.
That's
going
to
that
could
potentially
be
completely
different.
D
I
make
a
motion
sean
I'll,
make
a
motion
that
we
deny
the
project
for
now
until
we
see
the
further
developed
exhibits
and
further
working
with
the
staff
on
that
front,
yard
setback
and
what's
near
allowable,
I'm
not
sure
how
to
work.
That
last
part,
because
not
asking
to
respect
the
setback.
If
they'd
like
to
not
do
that
and
choose
a
different
avenue,
but
it
seems
like
there's
some
work
to
do
on
that.
To
find
some
plausible
encroachment
that
has
merit
and
maybe
has
a
backup
plan.
B
G
B
That's
that's
the
staff's
understanding
of
the
motion.
If,
if,
if
the
applicant
chooses
to
make
revisions
and
come
back
to
the
committee,
that
is
up
to
them
if
they
want
to
do
that,
because
currently,
the
the
project
that
you
have
before
you
right
now
is
a
denial
if
they
want
to
revise
it,
come
back
to
the
committee
that
that's,
you
know
up
to
them
on
and
their
purview.
If
they
want
to
do
that,
however,
if
it
does
go
forward
in
its
current
design,
it
would
be
a
denial.
I
F
B
I
B
B
B
I
F
I
C
I
J
The
rules
are
different
for
hillside,
obviously
david,
if
if
you
could
explain
that
to
sean
in
better
detail
so
that
we
can
get
off
this
issue,
this
was
made
clear.
You
weren't
here
last
time
sean,
but
this
was
made
very
clear
to
everyone
myself
and
my
architects
by
thomas
that
this
was
common
practice
in
this
neighborhood.
It
was
conceded
and
it
was
expected
to
have
a
considerable
encroachment
and.
I
Well,
the
takeaway
is
we're
trying
to
understand
where
where's
a
little
bit
more
reasonable.
We
already
discussed
at
the
last
aac
sean
that
some
encroachment
is
acceptable,
given
what
reasonable
evidence
there
is
on
the
street.
We
can
supplement
that
with
the
data
that
we've
talked
about
prevailing
setbacks
along
that
street,
look
at
an
average.
D
Well,
I
mean,
I
think,
it's
fair
to
ask
for
if
I
was
going
to
say
hey,
we
have
the
right
to
reduce
our
setback
by
60
in
the
front,
I'd,
say
and
here's.
Why?
Because
I
marched
up
and
down
the
street,
I
did
my
homework.
I
got
a
tape
measure
out
and
I
measured
to
the
base
of
the
pavement,
and
I
know
that
to
the
center
line
of
the
pavement
is
the
center
line.
So
I
know
what
my
property
line
is,
and
this
is
what
these
people
did.
It
was
15
feet,
20
feet.
D
C
The
the
easy
exhibit
to
do
this
is
the
last
time
I
did
this.
We
had
a
google
maps
photograph
of
the
entire
neighborhood.
My
civil
engineer,
overlaid
the
property
line
layout
of
all
of
the
lots
onto
that
photograph
and
the
photograph
was
to
scale,
and
we
could
just
measure
all
of
the
setbacks.
So
it's
not
something
that
has
to
be
a
huge
research
project.
It's
pretty.
C
I
E
E
F
C
And
I
would
I
would
make
a
comment
to
the
applicants
that
most
of
the
neighborhood
letters
we
have
gotten
in
opposition
have
all
specifically
referenced,
not
giving
a
reduced
front
yard
setback.
And
if
that
becomes
part
of
the
topic,
I
can
guarantee
you.
The
neighborhood
phone
mill
is
going
to
get
cranking
and
you're
going
to
get
a
lot
of
comments
from
the
neighbors.
D
B
A
G
Just
to
clarify
on
the
as
they
come
back
or,
however,
they
proceed
with
this
as
they
develop
appropriate
sections,
whether
they're
incorporating
the
hvac
ducting
within
the
framing
or
above
that,
it's
going
to
potentially
impact
their
roof
heights,
which
they've
heard
the
staff
report
identified
that
they
dropped
the
roof
height.
I
think
it
was
five
feet
or
something
like
that,
but
that
may
ultimately
be
less
by
the
time
they
finish
their
their
detailing
or
figuring
out.
What
the
actual
sections
are.
I
I
A
C
A
C
This
is
item
number
four
under
unfinished
business,
hawkins
and
marshall,
on
behalf
of
carmelita
properties,
limited
we're
a
major
architectural
application
to
construct
a
3,
181
square
foot
single
family
residence
on
an
11
206
square
foot,
hillside
parcel
located
at
322
west
crestview
drive.
Could
we
have
a
staff
report?
Please.
H
H
H
The
africa
is
proposing
the
incorporation
of
peers
in
the
rear
portion
of
the
property,
where
there's
a
slope,
landscape
design
has
been
changed
quite
a
bit.
It
incorporates
a
similar
concept,
that's
been
proposed
for
310
west
crestview
amount
of
the
landscape,
material
has
been
reduced
and
no
more.
A
rigid
arrow
of
dymondia
for
the
corpus,
olive
tree
and
so
forth.
H
The
staff
finds
that
there
are
some
comments
and
concerns.
Excuse
me
these
are
already.
These
are
the
issues
that
are
mentioned
by
the
committee.
At
the
last
meeting
staff
finds
that
the
purpose
revision
includes
a
three
foot
phone
and
grass
setback,
which
does
not
meet
the
code
requirement
and
the
portion
of
garage
projects
into
the
west
side
of
setback
area
slightly
and
seven
7.63
inches.
C
C
A
A
One
was
submitted,
but
it
was
not
adequate.
It
wasn't
using
riverside
county
flood
control
standards
and
the
hydrology
study
needed
to
take
into
consideration
crest
view
as
well
as
coming
away,
which
it
didn't
do
so
we
don't
know
what
type
of
scour
rate
we
don't
know.
What
type
of
protection
would
need
to
be
done
to
protect
those
retention
basins
that
are
being
proposed
on
their
schematic
plan,
based
on
what
historic
flows
have
been
so
right.
Now,
it's
a
little
bit
premature,
that's
not
something
we
normally
see
in
a
hillside.
C
A
We
can
check
with
the
applicant,
but
if
I
think
if
I,
if
I,
if
I'm
not
mistaken
because
of
the
slope
of
the
ground,
there
might
be
a
type
of
baffle
system
that
would
keep
the
pipe,
whether
it's
underground
or
on
top
of
the
ground,
from
from
sliding
down
the
hill
or
being
disconnected.
So
it's
probably
just
a
way
of
anchoring.
F
F
So,
just
briefly
again
the
same
drawings,
but
we
want
to
obviously
show
you
three
two
and
more
details
so
again
going
from
the
the
four
key
points
from
both
the
neighborhood
review
and
the
staff
comments
and
then
the
the
your
the
panel.
We
again
we
looked
at
the
the
the
issues
of
the
the
mass
and
views
mature
relationships,
obviously
between
both
by
itself
and
related
to
the
house
at
310
and
360.
F
The
the
landscaping
features
obviously
again
the
comments
and
then
the
the
building
heights
in
particular.
So
as
I
go,
you
can
see
322
and
tucked
up
behind
310..
This
shows
the
the
the
removal
of
the
the
second
level
again
the
comments,
and
we
we've
obviously
discussed
these
heavily
over
the
last
half
hour
about
setbacks.
But
you
know
it
was
our
intention
that
the
the
main
issue
or
concerns
for
for
the
panel
and
the
neighborhood
was
the
its
presence
in
in
the
valley
and
from
you
know,
camino.
F
So
this
is
actually
by
reducing
it.
By
to
you
know,
taking
out
another
250
square
feet
of
the
the
residence
removing
that
lower
level
removes
significant
structure,
then
the
language
that
you
see
at
360
with
several
piers
in
a
deck
is
there,
and
that
gives
you
the
the
the
relationship
of
the
actual
the
existing
houses
or
the
two
up
on
the
right
actually
staggering
down
the
hill.
F
As
you
go
down
to
to
kimino,
as
you
can
see
on
the
plans
you
see
where
these
these
piers
are,
and
it
would
be
the
intention
that
landscaping,
natural
landscaping
actually
hides
some
of
that
as
well.
The
again
that
the
driveway
is
asking
for
an
encroachment
and
the
the
planning
department
suggested
that
the
seven
to
ten
and
obviously
we're
amenable
to
that
and
we'll
make
those
changes.
F
As
you
can
see,
this
is
a
very
different
formally
than
to
310
and,
as
enrico
noted,
that
the
materiality
is
significant
changes.
So
it's
more
of
a
a
light,
more
organic
feel
and
you
can
see
that
the
the
the
levels
actually
drop
down
so
we're
trying
to
use
the
topography,
and
these
show
you
the
elevations
and
then
the
sections
and
you
can
see
how
it's
at
the
residence
or
the
home
is,
is
going
down
from
the
the
east
to
the
west
side.
F
F
And
obviously
you
see
that
lower
that
lower
level
which
has
been
emitted
and
again
on
the
section
that
goes
through
the
main
living
spaces,
the
kitchens
and
whatnot,
and
show
you
the
change
in
in
both
the
the
scale
of
the
mass
the
envelope
and
then
the
structure
required
on
the
on
the
hill
yeah.
So
I
think
just
in
summary.
I
think
that
our
our
comments
were,
you
know,
similar
to
310,
that
you
know
we
wanted
to
take
you.
F
I
I'd
also
like
to
add,
obviously
we
went
a
little
too
far
on
the
garage
encroachment
again,
but
we're
utilizing,
as
you
can
see
next
door,
a
front-facing
garage
which
is
roughly
you
know
a
few
feet,
probably
six
feet
or
so,
which
we
can
put.
We
can.
We
can
put
as
an
exhibit,
as
as,
if
you'd
like,
as
a
conditional
part
of
a
conditional
approval,
but
that's
a
front-facing
garage
with
a
much
reduced
garage
setback
and
we're
proposing
a
side
facing.
I
C
C
C
C
C
Then,
on
the
side
of
the
swimming
pool,
it
calls
out
an
infinity
overflow
trough,
but
then
on
another
plane
it
calls
out
a
six
foot
high
fence.
So
I
don't
have
any
idea
what's
happening
at
the
side
of
the
pool
and
then
finally,
as
you
look
at
the
section
on
4.02,
I
don't
really
understand.
What's
going
on
there
between
the
two
lots,
it
looks
like
there's
a
wall
that
comes
up
out
of
the
pool
and
there's
a
flat
surface
and
then
there's
something
sloping
on
the
other
lot.
But
the
two
don't
connect.
C
A
I
No,
I
think
we
when
we
started
redesigning
this.
We
were
looking
at
this
a
little
bit
more
as
a
massing
concept
because
we
reduced
it
so
drastically
from
a
two-story
to
one
story.
So
one
of
the
comments
we
received
from
neighbors
was
issues
of
privacy
and
our
first
proposal.
We
had
max
glazing
on
the
hillside
facing
the
views,
and
so
obviously
there
will
be
windows
for
egress
and
views
in
the
bedrooms.
But
for
now
the
bedrooms
are
are
getting
the
the
views
and
the
the
public
spaces
are
focused
on
the
inner
courtyard.
C
I
C
C
C
I
C
A
D
C
And
I
think
part
of
the
comments
would
be
the
item
number
one
that
was
listed
under
the
items
of
from
our
request.
From
the
last
committee
meeting,
where
we
said
we
wanted
to
see
specific
grading
plan
slopes
and
to
have
the
grades
labeled
and
again
not
an
engineered
final
plan,
but
a
preliminary
grading
plan
that
shows
how
the
site
would
be
modified.
C
A
Make
one
small
comment
for
the
architecture
developer?
I
I
love
the
fact
that
you're
calling
out
48
inch
box
trees,
your
placement
of
them.
I
can't
tell
with
the
grading
on
the
plans
that
you
provided.
I
can't
tell
the
degree
of
slope
that
you're
putting
them
in
having
walked
the
site
if
you're
putting
them
where
I
think
you
are,
I
don't
know
how
you'll
keep
them
alive,
so
you
need
to
develop
the
site
and
really
what
you're
going
to
plant
there
a
little
more
thoroughly.
D
You
had
yeah,
sorry
and
sorry
if
the
the
landscape
plan
is
generally
underwhelming
too,
and
I
think,
like
you
know,
having
just
gone
up
and
down
the
street
here
a
few
times
looking
at
this
project
and
some
of
the
neighbors
and
the
views,
here's
some
of
the
way
the
boulders
are
placed
on
this
site
plan.
It
feels
like
it
wasn't
given
a
ton
of
love
and
attention
the
landscape
plan,
I'm
talking
about
in
the
landscape,
design
and
and
probably
rightfully
so.
D
If
the
grades
haven't
been
considered
and
the
walkways
and
the
hardscape
and
the
experience
of
the
site,
then
of
course
how
could
you,
because
that
would
be
putting
the
card
before
the
horse?
So
I
think
I'm
hoping
that
some
of
that,
when
it
does
come
back,
it's
gotten
the
love
and
attention
that
it
that
it
needs,
and
I
think
that
it's
the
project
could
be
beautiful.
It's
just
not.
It
looks
like
it's
kind
of
half
baked
and
so
particularly
the
landscape
plan
and
the
site
plans.
D
C
D
Other
rooms
would
wouldn't
mind
enjoying
some
of
the
landscape
also
from
their
views,
and
it
doesn't
appear
that
that's
truly
been
considered
here,
particularly
there's
one
large
train.
That
looks
to
be
right
in
the
middle
of
the
north,
facing
the
only
north
facing
windows
on
that
facade,
based
on
the
floor
plan.
D
I
noticed
that
on
that
last
one
also
so
and
without
even
like
a
double
framed
wall,
or
something
like
that,
I
think
it's
going
to
be.
You
know.
I
appreciate
the
streamline
the
architecture
or
the
attempt
there,
but
I
think
it's
also
got
a
chance
of
looking
very
cheap
with
the
thin
walls
and
the
windows
right
on
the
surface
of
the.
I
I
think
this
is
a
slight
misinterpretation
of
the
drawings.
There
is
an
overhang
on
on
the
east
and
obviously
on
the
north.
We
we
aren't
putting
an
overhang,
but
on
the
east
walls
there
is
an
overhang
there.
As
you
can
see,
we
can
clean
that
up
in
the
next
round
to
clearly
show
that
and
on
the
plan
indicate
it
more
clearly
where
the
overhangs
exist.
D
D
H
C
C
A
C
D
Well,
can
I
jump
in
a
little
bit
sure
I
think
what
I
was
suggesting
was
just
like
robert
had
suggested
was
that
the
first
and
foremost
we've
got
to
get
back
to
those
planning
staff,
requests
and
comments,
and
so
I
think
that
answers
your
question.
It's
not
just
that
issue
is
going
back
to
the
drawing
board
on
that
garage,
exhibits
and
reducing
that
encroachment.
C
As
far
as
massing,
I
think
you
went
in
the
wrong
direction
when
you
took
away
the
lower
second
floor,
that
let
the
house
step
down
the
hill
and
have
some
attachment
to
the
hill
by
eliminating
it.
You've
made
it
even
more
of
a
flat
board
projecting
off
the
hill
and
with
nothing
on
the
ground
below
it.
J
You're
contradicting
yourself,
thomas,
that's
not
what
you
told
us
last
time
that
that
massing
that
two-story
messing
on
the
back
was
a
tremendous
issue
for
you
and
all
the
neighbors.
That's
why
it
was
removed,
and
I'm
perplexed.
Why
you're
going
against
your
own
planning
recommendation
on
this?
This
should
be
approved
with
conditions.
These
are
all
minor
issues.
C
B
Yes,
mr
chair
and
committee
members,
so
at
the
last
planning
commission
meeting
last
week,
the
commission
approved
the
living
out
final
development
plan
and
they
as
a
part
of
their
motion.
They
requested
that
a
subcommittee
be
formed
to
evaluate
some
of
the
specific
details
of
the
project
so
per
the
request
of
the
commission.
B
I
would
like
to
see
if
we
could
get
two
volunteers
to
help
out
with
addressing
some
specific
design
issues
on
that
project
and
the
final
details
relative
to
some
landscape
issues
that
were
brought
up
and
some
additional
items
relative
to
the
final
design.
So
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
we
could
have
two
volunteers.