Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Massing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portola Valley ASC continues review of controversial 501 Wayside proposal after neighbors and commissioners raise massing, ADU and road concerns
Summary
The Architectural Site Committee continued review of a revised house at 501 Wayside after residents and commissioners objected to the visible two‑story massing, ADU placement above the garage and potential construction impacts to the private Wayside road; the owner and design team were asked to return with scaled or reworked designs.
The Portola Valley Architectural Site Committee on June 22 voted to continue consideration of a revised residence at 501 Wayside after sustained public comment and questioning from commissioners about the project’s visible mass, the placement of a detached garage with an ADU above it, and construction impacts on the private Wayside road.
Commissioners said the relocation and partial second story created a larger, more prominent street presence than the previously approved one‑story scheme. Commissioner Gina said, “I do think, you know, changing the house from a one story to a two‑story is a really big deal,” and urged the design team to explore lowering the finished‑floor elevation and other measures to reduce perceived bulk.
Staff had described the revision as a response to utility and site constraints: the revised plan relocates the primary residence to avoid an overhead utility easement, adds about 596 square feet of second‑story area (raising the residence from 1,830 to about 2,426 square feet), proposes a 500‑square‑foot detached ADU above the garage (not before ASC review), and increases grading by roughly 75 cubic yards. Staff noted the conservation committee supported one newly proposed tree removal and recommended native replacement plantings.
Neighbors told the committee the project felt much larger in person after story poles were installed. Resident Gary Reynolds said, “We were pretty much in shock when we saw the story poles go up,” and others warned that construction staging could damage the private road and constrain emergency access. Brendan Johnson said he and his wife own adjacent lots and worried roof reflectivity, solar placement and construction traffic would harm the neighborhood.
The property owner — who spoke but did not state a full name on the record — told the committee the changes respond to PG&E and geotechnical constraints and that the ADU was intended for family/office needs: “I purchased this property 18 months ago … I just need that extra space … for my office,” the owner said, adding that staging and parking could be managed on site to minimize road impacts.
Commissioners proposed several revisions to address massing: lowering plate heights and finished‑floor elevation by up to about 2 feet, breaking rooflines, reducing the visible two‑story footprint from the street, or relocating the ADU. Architect Frank (speaking for the design team) acknowledged some options were feasible and offered to study plate‑height reductions and other treatments.
Because substantial neighborhood concerns remain and the commission sought concrete design responses tied to the town’s design guidelines, the ASC voted to continue the hearing to an undetermined future date so the applicant can return with revised plans and additional analysis. Staff will coordinate scheduling and renoticing as needed.
Next steps: the applicant and design team were directed to produce alternate designs or mitigation measures addressing finished‑floor height, rooflines and the garage/ADU presentation, and to return to ASC for further review.
