Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADU topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ADRB upholds staff approval of 1,600 sq ft ADU at 100 Cornelia Drive over neighbor objections
Summary
On a 3-2 vote the Architecture and Design Review Board upheld a staff-level ADU Exception approval allowing a 1,600 sq ft detached ADU at 100 Cornelia Drive, citing consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and adding screening and fencing conditions.
The Hillsborough Architecture and Design Review Board on June 15 upheld a staff-level approval of a 1,600-square-foot detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) exception at 100 Cornelia Drive by a 3-2 vote. The project was reviewed de novo under Hillsborough Municipal Code Section 17.52.050 because the proposed ADU exceeded ministerial ADU standards for size and other development standards.
Assistant Director of Building and Planning Liz Ruess presented staff's review and described mitigation measures the applicant proposed to address neighbors' concerns. Opponents, including appellant Mavis Ko, raised multiple concerns in public comment: alleged over-trimming of a 100-year-old tree by the neighbor's gardeners (which Ko said led to tree decline and removal costs), possible impacts to a drinking water line, privacy impacts from the ADU massing and height, and neighborhood compatibility. Appellant representative and civil/structural engineer Eric Cox highlighted visual impacts and privacy concerns and discussed story-pole placement.
Applicant representatives said they reduced the proposal and proposed additional screening. Project manager William Colford told the board the proposed relocation of the ADU would allow the retention of oak trees and the project team would add plantings "to ensure privacy for both parties." Kaya Narayan, a family member of the homeowners, said, "This ADU is very important to the family so that her sister can care for her grandparents." The Board discussed whether additional findings required for an ADU exception could be met and asked questions about alternatives such as an 8-foot fence and the proposed screening heights.
Board member Yuvi Gill moved to uphold the staff approval, seconded by Matt Ken. The motion carried 3-2 (Gill and Ken and McCall voted Aye; Neidig and Filer voted No). The approval was conditioned on added planting to provide neighbor screening, a 7-foot fence, and color to match the main house to be reviewed administratively.
The board also noted the staff determination that the ADRB action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15303 for new construction of small structures. The appellant raised tree-health and water-line concerns that the record shows as unresolved factual disputes between neighbors and the applicant; the board's decision preserves staff approval while adding screening and fence conditions.
