I'm going to start with a quick question. I think it's a quick question. I think it's interesting to have a good time. It's a good time to have a good time. It's a good time to have a good time. It's a good time to have a good time. It's a good time to have a good time. It's a good time to have a good time. It's a good time to have a good time. It's a good time to call this meeting order. Vice Chair Kamra, President. and can we start with a call? Vice Chair Kamra. Present. Member Delgavio. Member Taft. And Chair Lindsay and Member Middleman are noted absent, although Member Middleman is in the room as an applicant. Now what we do is we have a call for changes to the agenda. Are there any? There are no changes to the agenda. However, you have a number of desk items for the project attend Still Creek. There are various items from neighbors raising concerns about the project as well as desks items from the applicant. The next what we have is we're interested in public communications that are for anything not on the agenda for the seeding. So anything that's not about 10 still Creek Road. Are there any public comments? Questions? I see no raised hands online. And next we move on to the consent calendar. They're the minutes of January 27th and the minutes of February 3rd. If you have no changes to the minutes, then I could take one action. If you have any changes, you could pull either of those items. Does anyone have any changes to the last two and send items? Whatever's fighting you. No changes. Okay, I make a motion that we approve those consent items. Now we will move on. You just need a second to know both. A second. I'm sorry, I missed who made the motion motion. I missed who made the motion. Oh, I made the motion. Thank you to approve the consent calendar. Okay, Vice Chair Conrad? Yes. Member Delgavio? Yes. Member Delgavio. Member Taft. Yes. Thank you. And now we I think we just have one item on the agenda tonight. Yes. Yes. So we're going to move on to the staff to present the staff report. So Sarah will present where we are to update us at this moment. This project. Yes, thank you. Okay, so I'd like to reintroduce the project at 10 Still Creek Road. Siricad project includes the construction of a new main residence within attached garage, JADU, ADU, as well as two detached ADUs that are within one structure for a total of three ADUs and one JADU. So the ASRB reviewed the project at its January 27th hearing and made recommendations to the applicant. The applicant has since made some changes to their plans that I will go over briefly. So the ASRB recommended the following. One is to revise the location of ADUs to number two, three and four to reduce the encroachments into the setbacks and minimize visibility from the road. They also recommended relocating or removing the carport from the roadway easement, completing additional neighborhood outreach, and working with staff to route the plans to the fire district for review. The applicant has indicated the following changes. The first is that ADU2 was moved four feet further from the road to reduce the encroachment into the front setback. So that's this ADU structure here. So it's moved 4 feet further from the road. ADU number 1, which is above the garage, was revised to be a JADU, which brings the number of ADUs to 3 and 1 ADU, which is in compliance with the number of ADUs allowed for the site. The ADU number 3 and 4, which is this detached structure on the other side of the road, has been revised to be, it's a different footprint. It's further down the hill and further from the road. The carport was removed from the right of way. It used to be kind of in this space, and it's now not within the right of way, easement, it's located here. There was some proposed ballerad fencing that was removed from the scope of the plans and that was in response to neighbor's concerns. And this retaining wall kind of adjacent to this garage, was revised to be further from the side property line, and that was a concern from the neighboring property. We did receive a number of desk items. The first sort of chunk were from letters from neighbors expressing concerns about the project and the project changes. There was also a letter from the applicant and lastly there was a letter from mid peninsula regional open space district with some comments and a request for biological assessment for the project. So process wise, given that this is the fourth hearing, second to, second review of this iteration of the plans, staff recommends that the ASRB take one of the following actions. You can either move the item to formal design review with clear direction on project changes, if any. That should be made to achieve a project where the ASRB can find it to be consistent with the design review criteria. This would also allow the applicant to install story polls, which would assist with the review for the ASRB with the applicant's consent and continue the conceptual design review with clear direction on the project changes in order to achieve a project that's consistent with the design review criteria. Or the SRB can reject the conceptual plan with their reasoning on why they are rejecting the proposal. So that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Does the board have any questions for staff? No, let me get questions. Just questions confirming that there's still our five item five topics of challenge basically to, I'm sorry, let me think for a second, that there are basically five alterations to either set acts or hide variances that the neighbors are still in up and arms about. The five is still five. I'm sorry, I don't know if I understand your question. So it seems. How many variances are what? I'm variances. Thank you. Sorry. I think with formal design review application, we can really narrow down all of the specific variances, but yeah, there are variances that we've identified, the height variance, step back variance, potentially maybe variance to work within steep slopes, but so those are like the ones that were identified, and then the maximum residence size exception. So I think that's four. I do have a question. It just came in on the last yes guidance of the NINTSLA open space. They mentioned that there was a horse trail and a quest train trail. Where does that fit into the property? No. I don't. I think. It's pretty easy. Yeah. Oh. The equestrian trail is the road itself. OK. Yes. Oh, it's correct. It's a big question. It's correct. Yes. When I did jog memory there's it's on the parcel map that that allows for the question is meant and emergency vehicle access. Yeah, it was almost too obvious to to to to think of this. But but do we have a slide which shows four exceptions of being asked for? This is the, they're different exceptions. So a resident size exception is just a formula. The code says it shall be granted if they fly with the formula. So that's not, there's not a lot of discretion in that. It's very typical. That can actually be on any house size that maybe sometimes just needs a building permit because they're adding onto the house. And then the ones that the discretionary exceptions that we've identified as far as there's a variance required to the height, maximum allowable heights, there's a variance to play structures within the required setbacks. still working with the applicant, there's a possible variance for slopes to develop slopes in excess of 35%. May recall, the town recently changed the code to allow ADUs in the steep slopes. So any of the ADUs that might go into those steep slopes, that's not on the table. So we're really talking about the main residents. And the applicant has already provided some preliminary review, magio technical engineer, which is what the town requires. That is identified most of these areas that are man-made and prior to bean man-made, 35% or less. There's still a couple areas in question. And so we'll need to get some follow-up information from the Geotechnical Engineer to determine if a variance actually required. All of those details come with a formal design review application. Thank you again. There are the reports that the mid-commands have requested on the biology biodegraduates. So has that been done? Well, biological reports are typically done when they're identified, when a project's within a town identified environmentally sensitive area. Typically, we're dealing with stream corridors. Sometimes there's wetland areas. So this project does not develop within one of those areas. So it's not standard practice. But in some cases, you know, a minor of a minor biological assessment could be done. It's something we'd have to talk to the applicant with further with the formal design review application. It's not typically required for a project on just any vacant lot. And Sarah, I did have a question about the park because that seemed to be a big issue within neighbors. Now, it seems to be that we've increased the parking from this. Oh, the parking. Can you describe where the parking is and what would normally, what's normally required in, is the applicant in excess of what's normally required? Are they asking for more or what would be for normal? Sure. So what's required is four spaces for the main residents and then I believe that it's one space for ADU. And yeah, the JADU does not require space, so that would be seven required. And it's not identified exactly on this land where those would be, but you have the garage which has two spaces. And then they have these sort of like parking areas identified here in front of the garage as well as across here. Well, the memo that we got from the applicant stated that there were up to 26 parking spots now on the property. There's a sheet in the plan set that the applicant has kind of squeezed in, where how many cars you can squeeze into the area The couple of things that we'd clarify is that the one parking space noted in the Road right of way on the downhill side that's not something that it's down with count as a parking space It's just in the right of way as well as there's one or two that hang out into the right of way itself. They're not in the roadway, just to be clear. But just like you're driveway apron, there's a couple that kind of partially hang out into there. So, you know, this is just kind of an extreme example showing that if they had guests, that they could fit as many cars on the property, but seven are required, and they're just showing how many they could at least stack in their driveway. Would you be able to tell us what the maximum without exception of the property home size would be versus what they're asking for? Sure, for the maximum allowed is 6,000, and then with resident size exception, I believe this the lot size will allow up to 8,800. I think they're again we're still need to go through the formal designer view application details for the actual calculations. They're probably in around the 7,900 square foot range. If we were to reduce that size, would that help us with all the setback? I think with a resident size exception, that's something that the coasts is it shall be granted if you meet the formula. So the point is there's not discretion there. You're talking about the total floor area allowed for the entire property. I believe that's five and a half percent of the total lot area. And that's something when you're looking at project massing and overall total floor area, that's something that could be taken into account. Maybe more questions for staff? Yes, I'll be by a poise for a minute delay. Just to confirm my understanding, not everyone knows about SB9, but the state there's a state law which allows subdividing property and then having main house and ADU on the partial A, C, and then two A, D, U ADUs on partial B, and then the requirements for the setbacks are much less stringent than they normally are. So I just want to make sure that we all understand. It's kind of like applicants goodwill to go through this process and not insist on SB9 and going this route, which would leave neighbors not much space for any negotiation because it's the state law. So this might understand you correctly. So by doing what the applicant is doing, it's a show of goodwill. Yeah, so there's SB9 and then that has been recently followed up by SB450, which is kind of loosened some of the requirements from SB9. This project, exactly the way it's designed, wouldn't fit within that exact box. but what member taFs that is true, I'm going to allow for four foot side and rear setbacks. And it allows for no discretion that a billions could be built using the objective design standards. If any exceptions are allowed, it takes off the tape. So this project, the way it's currently designed, would not qualify for SB 450, but some similar, maybe close to equally large project and a different configuration possibly could go through that process. Thank you. Thank you. So my understanding is correct, then that's a it's a it may be considered as a good will on the part of the applicant to to goal the and of the established route and relic solicit inputs and review it inputs from the neighbors and and go this route. This particular project still requires the discretionary review, but yes, a different project potentially not required to go through this process. One last question, so you. I'm just looking at all these cars in the main area, not the ADU area. Is that a car or where those two red cars are? Do we have not only parking spaces, but is that a covered car port as well? That's what it's called out here. It says covered parking. We don't have the elevations for that that we would need for a formal desire interview as well. That would count towards the total flier. So the garage has two inside spots at the car port. That's correct. Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? Okay. At this point we would like to call if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Thank you for having our project in front of you. Sorry for my voice. My children bring home a lot of sickness. So we have, I feel we've made a pretty good effort to engage neighbors. They may not share that view, but I feel like we've made a reasonable effort to reach out individually as well as to the group and have feedback given to us and work to that feedback in with the many constraints that our project and our site itself offer us. And so, you know, we hope that, you know, we can continue the process of hearing feedback, but we hope that we can also move forward with this project and thank you again. Okay, thank you. Does there are any questions for the applicant? Okay at this point I'd like to make a motion to open for the public hearing. Do we have anyone online? So if anyone online would like to speak please virtually raise your hand and then what we do often do is maybe take one online and one person and alternate that. We had a raise hand earlier but it's down now so we don't have any raised hands online. Would you like to have Jim speak as part of your presentation? OK, sorry. So in this case, well, this will still be part of the applicant's presentation. And we'll finish that first. Thank you. Jim, did you have any comments? Hi, I only a couple quick ones. Can you hear me? OK. Am I on? Yeah, OK. This wanted to add. I'm available for questions. But I just wanted to add to that for 80, 80 use three and four that that building was rotated, roughly 90 degrees, it was redesigned and rotated so that the narrow elevation was facing the street. I don't know if that was pointed out or not, but just wanted to make sure that was clear so that from the street, the ADUs present a narrower profile. That's all, it's one of the make sure that was clear. Thank you. Any other public comments? Any anyone else from the public that would like to make a comment? Do you want to speak? My name is Simon Clempere, I'm a resident at number three still Creek Rose. I'm very appreciative of the changes that were made in this revision, moving ADU back four feet. That's a four foot game for the neighbours. Rotating ADU's three and four is a game. But I do think that it is still well within. It crosses over the 30 foot building setback and it will be very easy to move it further downhill with a slightly longer driveway so it was below the line of sight and beyond the 50-foot setback. My point is we don't need to have these buildings intruding on the visual beauty of the The second point on the south side of the road, I really have a concern that the JAU, JADU, is problematic in that the plain language of the code is that it must be entirely contained within the main residents. And yet it is closer than the 30-foot setback. So I see an issue there that although, as was pointed out, there is, you might say there is a single request for setbacks or setback variances. In fact, those variances apply to several of the buildings. Whether you count that as one or as many, I'll leave to you. Thank you. Just a question for you, Sarah. Does the JADU meet the guidelines as being the way it was intended to be in the guidelines as connecting to the main house? It is part of the main residence so in that intent it meets it yes. The buildings are connected by an internal hallway and that it's considered part of all one structure. Any other comments from the public? We have a raised hand online. We have Joan Men. Yes, I would like to speak. My name is Joan Maine, and I live at seven Still Creek Road. And I am concerned about the JADU being considered fully contained within the main residents. At the same point in time that the main residents now is defined as including a bedroom and bathroom over the garage. It's defined as including those because the tower is now defined as part of the main residence because it connects via a long skyway to the main dwelling. So, well, it may technically meet this concept of connected to the main residents. It looks to us and the architects we've consulted with that it doesn't meet the spirit of the regulations. It is an attempt to create what is being called a J-A- of what was formerly called ADU number one. So I ask that the committee consider asking the applicant to push back and the garage. So it's clearly away from the street and connected to the main building to meet the intent of the code. Thank you. Thank you. any other public comments? Hello, my name is Aaron Amy. Excuse me. My, my wife and I own the property at 45 still Creek Road. Just wanted to quickly say, you know, the, the instructions that were given to the applicants at the last meeting was to quote solicit more community outreach for finding whatever changes are necessary to address concerns such that the next review will be in a much better state with regard to community support. We don't really feel that that happened. You know, we as a community provided a list of four things that we felt were sort of necessary from our point of view to preserve the rural character of the neighborhood. And there was some minor, the minor thing was just rotating that one ADU building. But beyond that, the concerns have not been addressed and we did not have an opportunity to review or discuss the new proposal with the applicants. So we feel like the feedback that we gave and the conversations that we had were not substantively taken into account with the proposal that remains very much the same. And the slew of variances that are requested to be able to put, you know, not only larger buildings than are allowed by code, but also putting them much closer to the street would dramatically change the character of the neighborhood. That's our fundamental objection. And I certainly hope that this review board will, you know, take its role seriously and not allow the character of this neighborhood to be so dramatically changed. When, as Simon said, we feel that there are plenty of opportunities to move things further back and not have such an obtrusive gigantic development that would really just change the whole nature of this group. It will move there because it feels like we're living in a redwood forest. Having suddenly, you know, four buildings right right up against the street would really change that dramatically. And I don't think there's any reason for it. And I don't think that a sincere attempt has been made to change that. I would also say with regards to the JADU, I'm not an expert in these code issues and so on, but it seems that it wasn't really changed. There was maybe a change made to a door, but now they're simply not counting the bathroom and the bedroom and so on in the square footage of the JADU, whereas it would clearly be used as part of that. It's in that same building along with it. So it doesn't seem to me like that's in the spirit of a JADU as well as the issues around the setback and whether or not it's part of the main residents. Thank you. The next raised hand online is Royal Cobride. Hi, pardon me, can you hear me? Yes, yes. Yes, so my concerns are mirror what Aaron just said that irrespective of the technical compliance or not with some of the code issues, the overall size of the structures and their position with respect to the road just seems to be a pretty major modification of the neighborhood's character. Yeah, I think the site plans look like they addressed one of the biggest concerns that I had was just the idea of overnight parking of residents. And it looks like there are enough parking spaces now available. So that one's probably, that one's probably adequate. I'm not sure how everyone else feels about that. But, and then just one comment for the panel. There are some occasions when we can't hear the panels, the panelists speaking, because the mics are too far away from the faces or something. It's just occasionally your sound drops out. So I just wanted to request that we keep an eye on the mic. Thank you. back. So I think I have some sense of the role. My wife served on this committee, or the better part of a decade, my deceased wife. So I think I have some sense of the role of the committee, Kathleen Bronsteen, I don't know if you remember. But what you're looking at as a project, which requires multiple variances, which is well within the setbacks all around, built in the middle of what was a beautiful redwood forest, most curiously, 67 redwood trees were found to be diseased, right, and many more will soon be found to be diseased. The fundamental purpose of this committee is to preserve the rural character of Woodside, to preserve its redwood forests. And what we see here is the exact opposite. Thank you. Still no raised hands online. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. I'm not sure if you can see it. My name is Jendi Sue and I co-owned the property at 45 still Creek Road with my husband. I just want to reiterate and emphasize our design. My name is Jendi Sue and I co-owned the property at 45 Stoke Creek Road with my husband. I just want to reiterate and emphasize our desire to preserve the rural character of Stoke Creek Road. If you ever been to our road, you see that it's very much a redwood forest, which we just love. you know, we're willing to bear with the high expenses of maintaining our property of the inconvenient drives, because we just love the feeling of when we drive home. There's a trees, you know, and instead of apartment complexes right on the street. And it does stress me out tremendously to think about that this character will be disturbed or even completely removed with this proposed project. And also, you know, I'm a layperson, I don't understand all these variances, exceptions, and building code and whatnot. But just intuitively, you know, on a 10 acre lot, why can't you just build a long driveway like all the other neighbors are doing? You know this we we are in in in the very hilly region. That's why all of the houses on Stoke Creek Road right now have really long windy driveways, you know our house is a very long windy driveway 500 feet set back away from the road and so does Simon's house. Three still Creek Road, Joan and Hans's house is seven still Creek Road, you know, and 35 still Creek Road doesn't have a long driveway but it's well set back and is shielded by trees. So what we are really asking for is for a property, a project that that preserves the character of the non-obtrusiveness of our properties. And thank you for your consideration. Thank you. We have a raise hand from Phil B. Hi. My name is Phil Borshwa. I live at 100 Skywood right at the corner of Worsh still Creek exits the Redwoods. And I would just like to repeat what was just stated about the rural nature and the fact that this deviates so many locations from the code, I think we have to, you know, kind of call it here and really kind of restrict the bills to what the code allows. And that I think we all can live with. Thank you. Thank you. No one has a raised panel line. Okay, I have a motion to close the public area. I second that. Okay, at this point, we are going to move on to the committee discussion. We would like to leave off with that. Well, it's an interesting challenge. What is the right balance between what one of the neighbors wants to do for the family compound and the nature of the neighborhood and expectations of other members of that local community. All that is in the context of Downs desire and the necessity to increase the number of ADUs developed on and We had an interesting number of interesting projects or would be projects when a large development get lands near an existing neighborhood and It's a multi-unit development, and people are absolutely upset why it's them, not someone else. So part of this is, again, in terms of what's fair, what's not, is someone needs to accommodate some of it gradually. The question is how gracefully, right? So also when one thing sort of change things around and moving things away from the road, for example, there are also budget issues, cost issues, so feasibility issues. So it's probably not as easy and I would imagine that the applicant has been working on it for quite some time. But, more specifically, I believe, Sue, you mentioned 500-feet driveways. So, many people have 500-feet long driveways. So is it to say that everyone has a turnaround for fire truck and you also had to pull in fire hydrants closer to the house. So all that was done by all neighbors. Thank you for confirming this because again there are now pushing how's the main part of the building for the way from the street. I just wonder I saw this site. It seems to be pretty challenging to move it in and also additional trees will have to be cut anyway. So I very much understand and sympathize with the sentiment expressed by you Terry. But again, it's, I mean, when I see a project, when I saw a project, when someone wants to cut 25 trees to increase the sunlight to generate more sun, so energy, I have got a question mark in my mind, maybe it can be moved. There's somewhere on the roof, perhaps, on the different location. Here, it may be challenging. So I just wonder, you know, do we have any representation of what actually where the neighbors are suggesting, how would that look in the reality of the of the terrain and in the reality of that beautiful forest? How can it be moved further away and make it to make it least noticeable? Is it possible that we put this page up on the screen? Yes, a 13. Those are the floor area calculations. They don't give like a stream representation. If you're looking for a building placement may be good to focus on the site plans. Zoom in a little bit maybe. Yeah. So, just... Well, actually, the long aisle way between the JADU and the house, that seems quite long. Can that not be moved towards you, residents? Bill Williams can be placed in different locations on lots. I think what a member TAF was raising is what is that due. So there's trade-offs, so if you push something back, does that require more grading in likely wood. You can see those black dots on the plans. Those are locations of trees. Those are the larger trees on the property. So sometimes moving in different locations could require more tree removal. Yet it could accomplish some goals of being further back from the roadway and less visibility. So there are different trade-offs when moving structures on the site. As you move back, it does get a little steeper. The ADU too, now that doesn't, it looks like there might be one tree there, but could that be moved back? Yes, it's quite possible. You know, I mean everything is, it's in, it needs to be engineered there. You know, if they dig it more into the hill, I mean those techniques are available. How that changes cost and budget, that's something the applicant would need to consider. But it does, could dig more into a hillside and push buildings back. And on this diagram, what is the tallest point which is the most, maybe, visually disturbing and someone mentioned, it looks like it's a tower, it's towering over the area, So maybe addressing that would elevate to the main concern. What would that be? I mean, ADU number two is the closest to the roadway and it has the most building with facing the roadway. I mean, that relative distance. What does that mean? That ADU, it's around 1500 square feet, it's two stories. We've done some preliminary looks at the floor area calculations. They will need to be adjusted a bit. And it's something that the floor calculations are not required at conceptual review because we don't have all of the details. But yet some applicants choose to do them because they want to figure out where they are. So we've done some preliminary review, it's likely some minor alterations would be necessary to those calculations. But yes, that building, it is two stories, and it's a double level ADU that would be technically attached to the house. It looks this calculation that is 1800 plus it's got three decks that are approximately another four plus hundred. The decks may not count towards the square footage, but yes, they are square footage. Can we take comments from the public? It's up to you. You know, you just. Oh, OK, for sure. Yeah. I wanted to respond to the question that Mr. Daffn has of the community. What would we suggest? We haven't hired an architect and engineers and so on. So obviously, we don't have the ability to present detailed plans if that's part of the normal process, then, you know, we can do that, but it seems that, first of all, clear that there's a bunch of stuff that can be moved back from the road. And particularly, I just want to point out that what's being requested of you right now by the applicants is that you give them a variance that they especially be allowed to put all of these buildings right up to the, you know, right close to the side of the road, that they wouldn't normally be allowed to do. And it seems very clear that they're not as set back as they can be. And that makes the whole project very obtrusive. So in addition to the height, the overall size, and I think there are some questions about the, you know, the acreage that should be included in the calculation for the exception there as well. But all of these things add to you're being asked to give permission and a blessing to multiple different variances, all of which would ruin the character of the road. So I think the burden is not so much on us to demonstrate a very specific plan in opposition to that as it is, for the applicant to come forward with plans that don't require all of these variances that would have the effect of increasing the visual impact on the neighborhood. So, it's a perspective I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you for qualifying this up. And just one thought in the back of my mind, if I may share it real quick. I mean, there is always a way, or there may be a way to change the design so that no exceptions have taken. And yet, it would be still imposing on the nature of this particular parcel and the neighborhood. So that's why I hope to hear what if there's any consensus among the neighbors what is the most kind of potentially disturbing or disagreeable part of this project? Because for example, if JDU is not real, JADU, I mean, it's probably not in itself, it's not a threat. But, and also it's probably hidden behind ADU number two. But ADU number two, you pointed out is the most visible and it's close to the road. So where would be the most critical, the most disturbing. if I might use that strong word a part of the project that you can point out. I think it's a combination of the setbacks all across the board. There are a bunch of different things. It's not, it may be one variance that's requested, but it actually encompasses multiple buildings, plus there's a parking spot that's in the road easement there, which would be quite visible. And the height, variance, this request. And the overall bulk, you know, the reason that we're looking at the J8U, for example, is well, it's a separate building from the, and that makes it much more prominent and it's larger than it's stated size because, you know, certain parts of it are not being counted in the square floor. So it's just a combination of the overall size of things and their variances being requested for the, for to make it bigger than it's allowed to be and the setbacks and the prominence in the form of the heights. So it's really all of those things that conspired to make this a very conspicuous and incongruous development. So is the overall mass of the structure and the foreseeable? So the question is, what is the most visible part of that mass which you which you'll start to sheet on the plan, but with story pose and also three view, three deep views of this, it may be easier. So perhaps that can, the problem can be solved this way. That's what I'm just wondering. Well, I mean, I think from the sort of simulated pictures that we see, we, you know, it's pretty easy to see that the whole thing is very, very obtrusive. And what we're asking is that it being made less so, I don't think we need the story poles and so on in order to see that. but I mean, I emphasize just just just how much it is, but you know, from the parking to all the different buildings that are right nestled up to the side of the road. That's really that's really the issue. Thank you again. Really chair. We have we're the ASRB discussion, but given that the applicant, I mean, the neighbors have stood up the applicants architect as razor hand and might want to respond. Again, you know, trying to keep it focused on board discussion would probably be best. Okay, one last. In the architect, it's fine. Did I was that can I speak is that what you said? Yes. Okay, I just wanted to remind everyone that the original intent and design of this building was to minimize the impact on the site by building on only the areas that were less than 35% slope. And the reason why the building is separated on the south side into three sections is because those are the only three sections that currently are less than 35% slope. And so in an effort to try to have a minimal impact on the site and the number of trees that need to be removed because of the building itself, that's the reason that this building was built like this in it's perfectly consistent. I think with the overall design guidelines of a building weaving through the forest and stepping up the hill and building in the areas that are the flattest and not the steepest and in an effort to try to maintain the integrity of the site as it sits. Thank you. I ask Jim a question. If we were to squeeze the whole thing together, so to speak toward the center, you know what kind of grade differentiation from the 35 we're talking about. Well, if we move the if we move ADU number two back any further, it's going to be in the 50% slope. So where we've current, I mean, right now we've pushed it back four feet. When we pushed it back four feet. When we pushed it back four feet, it required us to remove a healthy tree. And it's a good healthy tree. We prefer not to do that. And also we've are now building into the 35% slope and into the 50% slope, which is when I first started designing this and my marching orders from Kristen and David, we're trying to have this minimal impact on the slopes and the forest as possible. And that's the reason that this building is designed exactly the way it is is to have the least impact on the site. And so if we push it back, we're going to be not only in the 35% slope, we're going to be in the 50% slope. And that is also true for pushing back the garage and 80 you number one. And by the way, the garage and the lower level of where 80 you number one is that is part of the main house along with the tower and the bridge. Is the back of the ADU structure is that on stills as well or on peers of some sort? sort of? No, the only structure that is on columns is the main residence. And that's because it sits on a bench that's part way up the slope. But it backs up to a very steep slope. And so the goal there was to allow the natural drainage to run because the house necessarily has to be wide because the bench is relatively narrow. So in order to allow the natural drainage to run below the house, that part of the residence was up on has been put on stills. The same thing happened to the ADU if it were turned and pushback. If you're talking about EU number two. Yes. Well, 80 you number two is probably half as wide as the main residents and so and so what our goal there was was to create a a a swale around the house to allow any drainage that came off the hill. And you can see as you go further south, this site gets very, very steep. And so trying to push the main residents, let's say back further, I think would be, you know, very, very difficult to do. But we, the 80 and number two, I think would be you know very very difficult to do. But we 80 and number two I think is even though it's turned so it's long axis is perpendicular to the street. It's still narrow enough that we can we can direct the drain and surround both the east and west sides of it. And one of the reasons we have a bridge connecting the garage and 80 and number one to 80 and number two is the reason there's a bridge there so we can direct the water around the east side of the residence and below that bridge and collect it below. Okay, thank you. I think at this point, it's time to close the public hearing and move on to our questions. And I'll just remind everyone to speak into their microphones for the benefit of the people on Zoom. Um, commission. Well, I do think that when they purchased this property, they had to have known that there were going to be some challenges building in the redwoods. And I truly feel like the amount of variances that are being granted is, you know, a few too many for my take on what they're trying to accomplish. And I understand the beauty of the family compounds and all that you have discussed, heartfelt It's really important and admirable. It just seems like this is taking too much of the land, generally speaking. Well, I did have a chance to go back up this weekend with my dog to walk the property, to get another look at the property. And I've been fortunate. I've had three different residences in Woodside, all on beautiful country roads, the back of Bear Gulch, more road, and then currently just over here. And it is such a community experience because everyone walks this road, everyone in the community. And we meet our neighbors on the roads and the dogs, and we walk together where all, like, hey, let's go to the hydrant. And so it does appear to me, and I went back to those spots that I've lived, and I cherished just having that wonderful sense of, you know, walking the road and talking to my neighbors, and having this real sense of community. And I think when you are, particularly I felt this when I was up on the back of their galt, how important community was because we were pretty isolated, you know, who's got the generator, who do we go to for this or that because you are somewhat living in the woods a little bit. That I think that the neighbors have what they're saying it is true that you have too much to the road. I mean, the carport, when you say something like the tower, that's a little scary. Then you have the other carport on the other side of the road that I think it's wonderful to have this multi-generational housing, but can we make it smaller? I mean, does it, I have a 1,400 square guest, two bedroom guest house with a band room and it's quite large without the decks. So I don't know, I mean, to me, I would like to see everything pushed, maybe not the main residents, if you've already backed that up to the hill, but bring those other things back. And maybe you don't, if you have a garage, maybe you don't have a carport. If you, you know, have a couple spaces for the ADU's across the street, maybe you don't have a car port there. So I just think that more thought could be given to making this a little bit smaller and taking in the neighbor's concerns so that they're, and now that it's an easement trail, I mean, and people have their horses, you don't want that many cars. You want to have some space and long driveways, longer driveways, than what I think is being presented to us tonight. So those are my thoughts. with so many exceptions. It's difficult from the the designs, then point, that maybe dream, the architect can say something about it, to change things without understanding what is the highest priority item or dimension to cut back on. And without it, it's kind of all over the place. So is it the size? Is it the height? Is it the setbacks? Is it the crowd view of the parking? It sounds to me that maybe the height is probably the most visible. So if not, then I think it's up to the neighbors to come to a consensus. What is the most effective way to maybe scale down, which dimension to scale down? That I think would be helpful. Otherwise, there will be over considerations and changes over and over again unless that. I don't think we want to put this on the neighbors. So I mean, they've already voiced their concerns and I think it's quite clear. It's really the height, the mass. I think it's the size and the closeness to the road that seems to be the most offensive. So I would like to make a motion not to approve this project. Do go back to the your architect and see how you can scale this down. How you might be able to move this, especially ADO to the car ports away from the road. It would, it's my, I'd like to make a motion for that. So we could look at a couple of options. One is just projecting the project and you should be very detailed in what the reasons are for rejecting the project. The applicant, if they consent, could also agree to a continuance to address these items further. That could be another option. You can ask the applicant with it. What's the difference between those two? Having to repay fees and come back, if there are specific items that you think that are okay. So, you know, we should go back a little bit and realize what comments were made at the last hearing and has the applicant adequately addressed those comments. We didn't have any comments about the main part of the main house last time. And whereas there were comments about pushing things back further from the road and the ASRB determines that that wasn't adequately addressed, maybe some of the massing related to those structures. Maybe you number two has a vaulted space area. It's not necessarily walkable square footage. There's different ways that some of those buildings could be redesigned in a way that could reduce the massing. So those are specific comments that the ASRB may want to consider. We've heard comments about the car ports and they're proximity to the roadways and could those either be removed or further relocated. Those are items that did come up at the last minute if not adequately addressed. They might be good to specifically comment on those areas. And you know, then it could be, you know, what decision does the applicant want to work with at this stage or if they decide that they don't want to make further. Discussions, getting into the formal design review is at a place where applications and projects can be approved or denied. Where's the concept level? It's just saying this concept isn't good and needs to be totally rethought. And I don't know that we've heard that Ralph Ai Haranch for the overall project other than the specific comments that we heard last time. So I would make a motion. I think this is the painless one of continuing one more round. And we're asking for mass reduction. We're looking for a reduction of the tower. We're looking for potential removal of car ports and the length of the number eight corridor. If there's a way that we can compress the buildings to be closer together and look at how that doesn't affect the landscape as much by either rotating the building or something of that nature working with the architect. And I also think maybe moving ADU to bat and if it does have you know, vaulted ceilings or something, it's more of the mass. What are you going to see when you're strolling down, when you're taking your horse down, the driveway? What are you going to look over and see all of this? So if you could be reduced and moved. If there's a huge tree, is it big enough that the building instead of being rectilinear ended up being a U-shape that incorporated the indoor outdoor of the beauty of the tree within the design? If I may, I think what is loud and clear in what both of my colleagues mentioned would be the visible height and mass. And that seems to be the most critical part, visible height and mass. In reducing your amount of setbacks, your variances that were having. Those would be nice to him, but visible height and mass. It's visible, velety. This specific, like if there is a steep downhill, and there's a massive something down there and it's not visible, I don't think it would be bothersome as much. I don't think we necessarily design it for them as much as we need to make it clear as to what we're suggesting and how clear are we at this point sage. So what I've heard is a motion for continuance. reducing the tower that something we'll look at, that's for an elevator. So elevators have certain, I require much to have to meet. But that can be looked at to bring the billions further back from the roads, specifically with ADU number two. Looking to push that back further into the hillside, as well as reducing the mass of that structure. And looking at ways that that could be reduction in the overall walls and size. It could be a combination of that with looking at the decks and how those are viewed from the roadway. I've also heard a recommendation to look at the removal of the car ports given their proximity to the road. And then again, just kind of reiterating, trying to bring those three different pieces of the main residents closer together, which would try to minimize the overall mass. You've seen the size of that. And so that you're not asking for, you know, the size, you know, make it a little smaller. I'm going to have to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go to the next room. you know, doesn't really make it a little smaller. Okay, so we have a motion from member Del Gavio. Is there anything else that we should add or just to make sure we capture everything? Think that's it. And then is there a second. Pretty much something up. Second. That motion. I again, in my mind, it's only the visible. I'd en masse. If it's everything, I would probably abstain. Oh, okay. I just, okay. This. So we have to be happy second. It's our yes. Second. So then we have both. Vice Chair Comra. Yes. Member Delgavio. Member Taft. I have to stand. The motion passes. So the item would be continued. We will issue an action letter to the applicants and the neighbors will further meet with the applicant. they can determine the next steps forward. Thank you and thank you all for coming and being considerate. And good luck for both the applicants and the neighbors. It should work out to everyone's or satisfaction, Hopefully. Here with that, we don't have any other items on our agenda. It's just in terms of reports. I just do want to first off, thank member TAF. This is last meeting. Really appreciate all the hard work you've put in. Very been dedicated. I mean, stepped in at a time when nobody wanted to serve on the ASRB. So we really appreciate all the effort and work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do you understand we have a new member? Yes. A member Robert Sullivan. He lives in the Woodside Hills. We will have his orientation later this week. Yeah, and I have to say that I have a lot of pressure at home for a number of things. So I did the best I can. So it worked out just fine from that perspective. We wish you the best. Thank you. If anything else you can enjoy the meeting. They have to join. Thank you. Oh, come on. This you. Well, you're close to home.