I'm sorry. It's being ordered for 31 on Monday July the 8th. We have a roll call. Chair Lindsey. Vice Chair Kamra. I'm going to ask you to ask the question. Is there a question? Is there a question? Is there a question? Is there a question? Is there a question? Is there a question? Is there a question? Is there a question? Is there a question? Is there a question? Is there a question? Is there a question? changes to the agenda for the CV? Excuse me. There are no changes to the agenda. However, you do have some desk items for each of the projects on the agenda tonight and the project planners will present those during their presentation. And then just other than that, just a reminder for all to make sure we clearly speak into the microphones for the benefit of those in the room, but especially those on Zoom. It's hard for them to hear if we speak into the microphones for the benefit of those in the room, but especially those on Zoom. It's hard for them to hear if we speak into the microphones. Thank you. Also, we have a large in-genese public today with us. Just to remind everyone there is a signing sheet at the back. And could you please, before you leave, sign in. So we have a record. Great. Any public communications. This is a call for anything, any request from the public to make a statement that doesn't include anything on the agenda for this evening. Just general comments about anything related to development within the town of Woodside. I wouldn't want to make it too broad. Otherwise, you don't know what we're going to get. Anything not on the agenda. related to development within the town of Woodside? I wouldn't want to make it too broad otherwise you don't know what we're getting. Anything not on the agenda? I know it in the room. Anyone online? Sarah? No hands raised online. Great. Anything the consent agenda for this evening? It's two cents of minutes, May 6th and May 20th. Okay. And this is simply a call whether to adopt the minutes of these meetings. Is there a motion to adopt the minutes of the meeting of May 6th? I make a motion to adopt the minutes of the meeting of May 6? I make a motion to adopt the minutes of May 6. And if you don't have any questions with either you can do it in one vote. Okay. May 20th. Second the motion. Chair Lindsey. Yes. Vice-chair Comrade. Yes. Vice Chair Comra. Yes. Member of the Movement. Member DeGavio. Yes. Member Taft. Motion moves. Thank you. Okay. Now we begin the public hearing. So we start with the first agenda item which is 45 Turkey Farm Lane. And we would invite the staff to make a presentation. Hello and thank you. I will be introducing the project at 45 Turkey Farm Lane for ASRB review. For this conceptual design review project, the applicant is proposing to demolish an existing residence, swimming pool and pool house, and to construct a new main residence to one story accessory structures and associate site developments. So there is one desk item from the applicant, Danielle DeYoung, regarding minor changes and clarifications in the staff report. So staff determine the lot area based on the size of the lot, excluding the right away roadway perimeter easement of turkey farm lane, which would bring down the lot size down to 3.01 acres. So there is some differences in the lot size. And the applicant should clarify which or if all of the easements were excluded from their lot size calculations during formal design review. The applicant has also clarified that the visible finish of the building facade will not include metal and will be made up of wood and concrete. The applicant has provided preliminary average slope and floor area calculations, as well as hard-scape quantities. And as noted with formal design review, staff will ensure that all calculations are reviewed and are accurate based on the requirements and standards listed in the municipal code. The property size is a little over three acres and is in the special conservation planning five acres SCP-5 zoning district. The site slopes upward from an elevation of approximately 410 feet on the south side, to 480 feet on the north side. And the site has an existing tennis court, as you can see in the topographic survey, and an existing bar that will remain as is. And the project site also includes an existing utility easement running along the front property line, as well as a forced trail easement running along the eased property line. And the San Andreas fault and buffer zone runs through the southern portion of the property, as you will see in the site plan later on. So this is the overall site plan which shows the details and extent of the conceptual design project. The proposed main residents and accessory structures are located towards the northern portion of the property. The existing driveway would remain in place. The fences are proposed to be installed along the horse trail easement, as well as along the southern portion near the main vehicular gate. So here is the enlarged site plan that shows the building footprint of the main residence. Please note that the dashed lines indicate the location of the existing residence that is to be demolished. As shown here, there is only one existing tree, oak tree that is proposed to be removed. So this slide is a proposed paved area and surface coverage plan. And as noted earlier, the planning staff will work with the applicant at the formal design review stage to ensure that all paved area and service coverage quantities are calculated accurately. So these next few slides are the elevations and their respective renderings for the main residents and accessory structures. This first one is for the proposed gates and fences, including the ones for the horse trail easement elevation, the elevation for the vehicle events, the main gate elevation as well as for the secondary access gate. This is the project elevation for the proposed north elevations for the main residence as you can see on the top and for the accessory structures on the bottom. This is the elevation for the south portion for the south facade of the site for the main residence and for the accessory structures. And this is the respective renderingSE elevations, which would be the front of the main residence and the front slash rear of the accessory structures. This is the renderings for that for the main residence. This is for the proposed west elevations, which would be the rear of the main residence, as well as the front slash rear of the accessory structures B and A. So this would be the elevation for accessory building B, and this one for A. And this is the west wind rendering for the main residents as well as you can see both of the accessory structures on the backside here. So these last couple slides are for the remaining conceptual design project renderings. This is just a compiled list that shows or images that show the different angles of the main residents. And provided for you tonight is the physical sample of the materials board. So that concludes my presentation. Staff is, staff is happy to answer any questions. And the applicants are also in attendance tonight. Thank you. Does anyone on the board have questions for staff? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone on the board have questions for staff? No. Thank you a lot. We question the original. Sorry, speaking to the mic. There was a mention that there is no steel or exterior steel used in construction. The panel is look like a carton steel to me, but what material is this? Okay, it's just a way it's standard, but in reality it is. Thank you. it is, it would be a thank you class. And also address that question to that. I have no questions of staff. So with that, we'll move on to presentation from the applicant. Can you hear me? Yep. Yes. Thank you, Kago, for your comprehensive presentation and report for the project and also appreciate the notes regarding the minor inconsistencies that we pointed out in the report. I'm Danielle D. Young. I'm a project manager and associate at Marmal Red Zeener. And I'm here as the applicant representing the architect for the project. I'm also joined by Brent Schroeder, the owner's representative for the project. Kago, if you could please change this line. This is a little bit of a more graphic representation of the site plan to clearly show some of the elements that were proposing for the project as staff detailed existing site is three acres at the end of turkey farm lane at the end of the cul-de-sac. The lot is very restricted due to its size within the zoning district. There's also a known fault running across the property, the San Andreas fault. And there's also very steep slopes on the site making the area that we can build within very restricted, which is why we're staying within the already developed area and mostly close to the existing footprints of the structures on site. The existing residents, the pool house and the pool were built in the 1970s and they're a dated design with unknown structural integrity. The owner would like to provide a home that is designed to withstand the expected seismic activity on the site and also provide clear access to the site for emergency and fire services. They'd also like to include space for an artist workshop and also a guest suite in the accessory buildings on site. The design intent is to retain as many of the existing trees as possible on site. We're currently working with an arborist urban tree management to further develop the site and landscape and ensure that the trees that are existing are protected in place. At this time, we have identified one small seven inch trunk diameter oak tree near the accessory buildings that does need to be removed. And as Kego mentioned, a perimeter would post and wire mesh fence is proposed along the horse trail easement on the eastern side of the property. And also we will remove and replace the existing vehicular gates near the driveway entrance. And that's the extent of the fencing revisions on the property at this time. Next slide, please, Kavob. And apologies, some of these renderings you already viewed and they covered the presentation well. And keeping with the character of the community, design team has selected materials that are muted and complimentary to the natural surroundings. The exterior of the building is to be both textured concrete and wood siding, cladding in some spaces. The doors and windows will be would framed also to match the wood siding. The main residence will be built into the hillside a little bit, similar to the existing house so that it diminishes the massing and follows the slope of the hillside. The windows that are proposed on the project will have interior shades and drapery covering the windows, and this is for privacy but also to block light from the interior in the evening. In some areas of the upper floor of the residents, the windows have been set back from the further succents of the exterior walls so that you don't have large extents of glazing visible. And lastly, when we, as what we mentioned in the site planned, the existing trees, including several really impressive oak trees on site are an integral part of the design and will remain in place. And with the steep slope of the site, these are the trees that provide screening of the residents with their canopies. Next slide, K-O. And we did cover the material palette already. Some of these materials are a little bit unique to the project. The end grain wood pavers are proposed for most of the exterior court yards and pathways and terraces on the project. And the siding is going to be wood and not metal on the project. Next slide. And this was intended to diagram it, diagrammatically show the fences and gates for the project to illustrate that while they're needed for the security of the site, they're not going to be blocking views from the street from neighboring properties or especially not from the horse trail where there's not an existing offense, it will be no more than six feet tall in all those locations and have the open wire mesh to keep the views along the horse trail. Then last slide, Kago. Lastly, appreciate the detailed direction provided by the planning staff and by the review board as we move towards the formal design for the project. And we understand the additional information that's required for formal design that's clear. And we look forward to working with the community to design a beautiful residence. And we're here for questions as needed. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone in the board have questions? We did a very general site. So the few questions I did have, Brent, I answered them. So great. I usually have questions. You have questions. That's very nice did have, Brent, I answered them. Great. I usually have a question. Okay, so that's very nice. Thanks, Brent. Yes, thank you. I have a nice question. I had one question, and that's if the roof does change from the concrete, what might it be? The concrete roof, it may end up being cement plaster to give a concrete look to the fascia, but at this time it will probably be a steel framed roof with wood infill and then just a finished fascia. Any questions? Let me. No question. Last name. Tell me what was that? I do have a question. I have a question. Fascinating. I do have a question. I'm curious if you could speak to the original brief that resulted in this particular aesthetic. I'm hard pressed to put it into a category. There's elements. The design of it. Mid-century elements. It draws for many inspiration. It does. I say the majority of the inspiration were mid-century homes. I see a lot of kind of Lewis Con in the facade of the building, but it really was just an iterative process presenting some originally more dual box designs to the owner and back and forth feedback. The roof structure is an interesting one with the vaulted shapes and that just comes from continued iterative discussions with the owner and their preference. Okay. Yeah, I have no other questions beyond that. Um, that we open to the public for any public comments with regards to this project. Oh, Mr. Taft, you are still able to come to the property if you'd like to see it on site and you can contact. Oh, you don't buy. Okay. Great. Thank you. I'm scared. What are. Basically. Okay. Thank you. It's so with that again, open up to anyone in the public who wishes to make a comment regarding this proposal. If there's anyone online who would like to address this proposal, please raise your hand. See no one online. Say it really quickly if I may. We're working with the neighbors pretty closely several the neighbors. Dr. Moretti just returned from vacation. Barbara meant to still on vacation. We met with 4105 woodside drive. Mr. Gibson. He had no comments other than question question about tree removal because the only thing that he can see from his property is the tree canopy. The only issue we've had is with 560 mountain home road. We've not been able to get a response. We've been in contact with staff at that property, but we've not received any comments. But if we do receive comments, of course, we will try to address them in report back to you. Okay, please get your name. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Brent Schroder, I'm the owners rep for the property. So no public comments, nothing online. Okay, wow. Thanks. A little feedback. With that, we closed the public hearing and open up for board discussion. We would like to kick us off. That's probably that many are the soliciting the people that what I'm saying was all positive. So, this is the key lab. We have one interesting puzzle, what we do with the way. We have to do that at the same time. That would be the same. You can see that at the same time. And now, as I said, when it seems like it's going to be more safe out of pocket, this is a little set of both products. So, you can find, you know, private garbage. No. In the data. Yeah, I commend the kind of way to achieve their goals while having it. In fact, on the site as possible. The building design is awesome. Unique, meter, you'll like it's in line with what we want to see in what sign. And please, we are new, unique architectural addition to the town. And I also like the fact that the applicant is trying to save as much of the existing natural state as possible. I would comment that there are a couple of things when I made a site visit that were not on the removal list that look like. Maybe they should be on a removal list. It's our encouraging applicant to work with an arborist that we evaluate those trees and replace them with something that might stand the test of time. I'll ditto all those comments and I really appreciate the efforts you've gone to for the neighborhood outreach. And I'm sure if they had a problem someone would come forward. So I guess they must really love the project. And I also appreciate that they're all tour today because that really helped us, I mean, me understand everything. So I don't have any questions about that. I think it's absolutely just a beautiful design. I love everything about it, everything you've done. The one for to do anything, I love are those woodpapers and I'd like to see how those actually stand, look after a year or something. I think they're beautiful. So no comments on the design, the site, the only thing I know it's out of your control completely, but that barn is such a treasure and I'd hate for it to continue just to be a rat trap in a fire hazard. And so if you can just continue to work with the town and see if there isn't anything that can be done. I mean, not before formal re, I mean, just, you know, keeping it in mind. And that really was for usage. I'd hate to see that that barn go to the rats literally. So that's my only comment. It's beautiful. Thank you. That's just a general observation and it's not typical of specifically a Roberta drive, which is basically access to the property, also living on the private street, again, the way to this, the pavement on a Roberta drive leaves a lot to be desired. And the main, may not be probably there isn't any neighborhood agreement for the maintenance. So again, this is nothing to do with the architecture, just a kind of practical mention that it may be helpful when you contact all the neighbors who research maybe their heads that agreement and poise, if not, it's something you may be interested to get us. Again, it's, it has no burning on the approval of the, of the architecture design and, and, and, and, and site. Thank you. I'm riddled with you. I think it's really well thought out. The materials are spectacular. I love that you're keeping the footprint and it makes total sense to do so with the restrictions and of the property. And I love that it's unique and it's not one of the other houses that we're seeing passed by every other time. So lovely. Thank you. I'm going to break protocol just ask go back and ask a question. This has to do with the guest suite and whether or not that would qualify as an ADU with regards to the towns intent. No, if I recall quickly would not. We're happy to work with the applicants to, if they'd like to make an ADU. Sometimes people have concerns about septic and septic suitability, but I'm just going to quickly flip open the plans here. There is no kitchen. I believe it will still qualify as a bedroom so that wouldn't have any impact. And that would still be the same whether it's a Navy or not regarding septic. And so, no, like I said, we're happy to work with the applicant if they'd like to convert, you know, add that kitchen into the unit and would qualify for an ADU whether or not they propose to have that be uses the ADU right now. At least it would provide the flexibility in the future for it to be used as such. Okay. Okay. Okay. There are five questions. There are some questions. The question is, it needs to have a permanent cooking facility. And so what that that's the definition in the code. But what that what we've confirmed with the building apartment is that. That would include something that requires venting. So they'd have to do some type of cooking facility that requires installed venting. And then other than that, you have a sink in the countertop and you plug in your appliances otherwise. Thank you. So yeah, just returning to summary. I echo the comments I follow member Middlement about community outreach. This has been so important for successful projects in the past. So, commend you on that. I do think it's an example where the constraints of the site forcing you to basically build on the existing platform is actually a good thing. It's good thing in terms of preservation of trees and significant, no significant trees are being impacted one or two perhaps. I think it's tremendous. I do think that from a static standpoint, it is unique, but I have no issue with regards to the residential guidelines. I think it's modest given the potential for development or property that size, but generally, yeah, I think it's a nice project. Great. So with that, I can find a summary and the applicant did install story polls. So therefore, the board would have the option to allow staff to complete the formal designer view based on the recommendations that I'll go through right now. And if there is any reason that informal designer view, there's a need for some type of planning commission entitlement, in that case, you would go to planning commission for review. Or the board can determine if it should come back to the ASRB for a formal design review. So with that, the ASRB committed the applicant for soliciting input from neighbors to get feedback for using the existing development footprint to minimize disturbance on the property, providing a design that's unique and uses materials that blend in well with the site. The, um, applicant, the ASRB. Recommends that the applicants just work further with the arborist to determine if any additional trees need to be removed based on their health. Also to, um, continue to work with the town to determine what can be done to save the barn, to remodel it, and maybe add onto it. I know the applicants had some preliminary ideas for that, and we'll continue to work with the applicants with regard to what they'd like to do with the barn. And the last recommendation was just to, for the applicant to think about making the guest house into an ADU and they could work with staff on that. Is there anything else you'd like me to add? So with that, we can entertain a motion depending what the board would like to do with the project. Do we have a motion to approve this project and move it on to formal review. Is that the next step? Yes, and then would you, and then the question is would you want to come back to ASRB or for staff or staff? So motion to forward it to staff or formal designer. Right. Chair Lindsey? Yes. Vice Chair Conmer? Yes. Member Delgavio? Yes. Member Middellman? Member Taft. Motion moves. Thank you. Nicely done. Just for the benefit of the applicant within the next couple of days you'll receive a letter outlining the action that took place today. Okay. Moving on to our second item on the 7, 7, 3, Kinyata wrote. We get a presentation from staff. Give me just a moment to get on zoom. Okay. Going to share my screen. Okay. Hello. And thank you. I'm Melanie Olson, Associate Planner, and I'll be introducing the project today at 773 Kenyatta Road, which is proposed as a concept map for a sub division. You received five desk items today, essentially posing the item and some of its contents such as concerns with the intersection proposed at Glen Craig and Woodside Way, community character, the rezoning from SR to R1. And then you also received an additional letter or a desk item that kind of speaks to an example of a modification to the subdivision. I met with two of the residents. They both included letters from Steve and Jonathan. So they kind of just I shared the plans with them and they addressed their concerns regarding the project. So this project includes the subdivision of two legal lots with three APNs that are approximately nine acres total. The properties are located in the SR Zone District on Canyada Road, adjacent to 280, San Mateo County unincorporated and Gleg Crayway, as well as other Woodside residential properties. The subdivision would include dividing the two legal lots into 11 lots that range in size. The properties overall, Hilly, and has areas that exceed 35%, which are shown in the dark gray on the screen, more so in the northern section of the map being shown. One of the proposed lots would be rezoned from SR to multi-family, which is shown in the bottom left of the property. This would be more so for the town of Woodside to be in accordance with the town's housing element, with the retaining, with the remaining 10 parcels to be resumed from SR-1 by the project applicant. They're also proposing a new or an extension of the existing public woodside way, public right of way. They're proposing to extend that road from Glencreg all the way down to Woodside Road. Or sorry, Kenyatta, sorry about that. And there's an existing 10 foot sewer and drainage easement on the southeast side of the property over here, over here. If you can see my cursor. Let me annotate. So it kind of goes through the properties over here and then it cuts through the actual 7773 canyada where I'm twirling it, but that's where the existing 10-foot sewer and drainage is meant is currently located. Dry creek? So let me clear that. Okay, so just to kind of zoom into the project that's being proposed, what's shown in Teal is along Cognata Road. That's where the multifamily, the rezoning from SR to multifamilies being proposed. Currently, so these are just conceptual buildings that are on this map. They're not being proposed at this time. It's just to kind of show that these buildings are possible to be put on these lots. So it's conceptually showing about 20 units on the multi-family. And then if you look on the orange, these are all the parcels being zoned from SR or proposed to be rezoned from SR to R1 showing conceptual main residences as well as some ADUs. So this is the lower half with the woodside rate, woodside way being cut through. And then being shown here, those upper parcels along Glenrain way, showing that the conceptual building and bloaps down closer towards Woodside Way, more so away from the 35% slopes in most cases. So here the applicant provided an example of a rendering of what the proposed project could look like. Once again, these are not being proposed at this time. It's more so just to kind of provide a visual for what is possible on the lot. So here we have canyotter road, woodside way, going up, and then the multifamily here along Canyotter Road, the potential locations for single family, kind of going up across the lot. Then here is another rendering to kind of show you more of a direct from Canyada Road 280 of the multifamily woodside way extension and then as well just an example of what a single family residence could look like from this view. So the project process is in chapter 152, the subdivisions of the Woodside Municipal Code, which requires two phases to review a subdivision, which include the initial concept map phase, which is more of a recommending process. And then it's followed by the tentative map phase where action is being taken by the town. So during the concept map phase staff reviews the project and then space trails and then currently here we're at the ASRB phase. From here these recommendations will be provided to the subdivision review committee which include the planning director, town engineer, town geologist and fire chief. This review committee combines the recommendations of all committees to be distributed to the applicant to potentially apply. This leads to the tentative map phase. The tenant map phase includes much more details than the concept map phase. This process will go through a similar process as the concept map where the committees will be able to review once again the subdivision and any updates that were applied. However, at this time, the recommendations from the subdivision review committee will go to the planning commission and then ultimately town council. So at this time, the ASRV is required to provide recommendations pertaining to the proposed subdivision with respect to community character, site planning, building design, and landscaping, specifically the topics shown in yellow on the screen. That concludes my presentation. Staffs here to answer any questions you may have, and then the applicants are also here if you have questions as well. So thank you. Are there any questions for staff? I have a question for the staff. A number five you asked as a second. Start to interrupt. If you could just speak into the microphone. People in the background are having trouble hearing. My question, one of the criteria is number five, the designation of any building or site, which requires special review when building pits, permits or grading permits are requested. It's interesting that you've asked us to look at these lots and this concept, but the zoning hasn't taken place, so all of those upper are still zoned SR1. It's does it seem like we're in here too early? I mean, does it should the zoning happen first? And then we look? This is part of the process for a concept map. So ideas to get early feedback to the property owner. So this is their proposal to rezone it to R1. They don't technically apply for that until they submit for their tentative maps. So they'll apply for their re-zoning, a grading exception for the amount of grading being required for the roadway and the building pads. And that's what's being proposed at this time. So this is the project being considered. And the ASRB will provide recommendations based on that project proposal. Okay. It's not on. It's not. There are questions about how to be a city public. I'm not a public. It's not. I can't hear you being there. It's not. Maybe yeah, share mics and tools. And. Is that on? Lashemind the batteries. I'm going to. I had a question in terms of that one's working. In terms of how this pertains to the housing element. I understand that the multi-family zoning is expected in terms of getting the housing element to pass. But how do the lotsplits for the other 10 parcels and zoning designation pert aimed to the housing element. It's expected, is it not? So they're not contemplated in the housing element plan in order to reach the arena targets. If they do get split and if they do get developed, every residential unit will account towards those arena requirements. So the housing element is a plan. It requires there's a certain amount of buffer that gets put into that plan, understanding that every proposal may not be built out. But the subdivision is not something that has been included in the housing element as the plan. But that just has any property owner with any property can propose to subdivide and the town will process that application. That's a currently there's no expectation from the state that the subdivision of those lots happens. It's not part it's not included in discussion with the house and element. I have a few questions. Looking at lots, 67 and 8, there seems to be a lot of issues with uncontrolled sheet flow with all 250 feet away, landsliding, green channel effect on the neighbors. How is that going to affect everyone? Is there a possibility that they don't consider developing those? I mean, everything's a possibility. It seems like there's so much open space that we're trying to preserve. Is that not something we could consider there? Also, is the speed limit 35 there when they were doing their calculations for how many cars are passing, etc? Is it 35? So, hop up to 50 there? I don't know the speed limit. Maybe the applicant could answer that, but I'm not sure. And can there be larger houses than what are shown on the map if they so choose after? I know this is conceptual, obviously. So the maximum resident size in the R1 district is 3,000 square feet. You could apply, you're allowed a total floor area maximum of 4,200 square feet for each of the lots. There's a residence size exception that some of the lots may be able to apply. I mean, they could use more of their TFA towards their house, but it would not increase their TFA allowable. So the maximum TFA is 4,200 square feet. Every lot's allowed another 800 square feet for an ADU. So that's the maximum square footages. These are just footprints on that they're showing. And the code requires that they show a place in which residents could be placed. So you're not creating a lot and where cannot fit a residence on. So that's the reason for them showing these locations. Is it eight, the one that's in the back of eight nine? Is that the two that are? Yes, that on a separate road. So no, so eight, it's just the nine in ten. Sorry. Yeah, so nine and ten. They're just both on off of the woodside way and the lot 9 is a pan handle lot. And so it has its own driveway access to the back. And what's the maximum amount of buildings that can be put on lot 11? On lot 11, there's not a maximum amount of buildings. The town is currently in the process of reviewing objective design standards. And so that limits a certain amount of square footage in height. And could it potentially be up to 30 to 40? It's if they could fit that, they could the reason he was proposing a maximum of 20 units per acre. And so that would be the maximum density allowed. And how many acres is that? This is about 1.611 I believe is in the post. I guess those are the questions or concerns I have. And the other thing is the steepness of wood side way. Is that something that I'm sure well everyone is going to speak to? But it just seems like even when we were there walking the property today, it's only to be just as steep as it is. And they consider altering the path. There, I mean, you'll see all these dark lines shown on this drawing that we're looking at. That's all proposed grading contour changes. So there are some grading. It have to meet the maximum slope standards allowed by the fire district at town of what size. So the fire districts, the town engineer, will also be reviewing this project that they're part of the subdivision review committee. So once trails committee open space and ASRB completes their recommendation, the subdivision review committee is made up of town engineer fire chief, the town geologist and the town planning director. In this case, and in some cases, it includes county health. That's only when septic is being proposed. So that's not being proposed as part of this project. The applicant is working, starting to work with the town engineer to look at getting the lots available for sewer. No mind and me have a question. I had the current objective design standards for the multi-family zoning. Does it specify duplexes or townhouses or? No, it talks about certain separations between buildings, but it doesn't specify that level of detail. Any other questions for staff? It is, well, I can see it push. But adding to what the past was, in a, there is it's private property and the owner gets older I to maximize the payback. So, what is the rationale for keeping poor residences in the proximity of a noisy highway and an offer of fact that it's a really kind of very noisy neighborhood. So I'm trying to follow the logic. It sounds like having a world medium income housing in that area would be realistic and will have the similar payback. I mean these cannot be single-family residences shown on the right, cannot be, uh, can we work off, uh, ROI? This is what the applicants are proposing, so they maybe can speak to that better. But they won't get you the question. These, these are, so general like, one would wonder. And the, and then just to clarify the house and element noted the multi family site, the carry 16 moderate income housing units. It's a certain income level. That also needs to be addressed with the house and element. So it's, it wouldn't be extremely low or low income or some of the units could be above moderate, but they're looking at how is an element projected for 16 moderate income units. Thank you. Any other questions? And one more technical question. In terms of the first floor, in terms of the four square finish numbers, I just want to make sure I'm meaning it correctly on the multi family. It was first and second floors, those floor numbers are per unit when it's, you know to be shown on the different lots and that's so that's just a footprint being shown so it could have a floor above that but again the use the maximum woodside method 3000 maximum resin size lest they went for an exception to take more out of their teeth. It was specifically on the multifamily but what you're saying is that when says first footprint it's one of the the sizes and then the second is the other side in terms of footprint. For the multifamily? Yeah. I believe so. The applicant can probably best clarify that. They're showing this as a concept. It's what they've talked to staff about in order to get 20 units on the site. They're looking for a lot of this size to make sure they can fit in the necessary roadway and dry fire truck turn-around requirements as well as providing left parking. What would the max height on these be? I believe I'd have to double check the objective design standards. I believe it's at 35 feet it might be 40. I can double check that for it. That's what's being proposed and being considered at this time. I went through planning commission and the town council will make the next consideration. I have a clarifying questions. Thank you for the overview of the process. I think one of the things we're struggling with is where are we in this in terms of concept? My specific question, because I heard a lot of feedback today from rounding neighbors around at what point do you evaluate feasibility of any of these ideas? Feasibility being sewer, width of the road, amount of cut necessary, you know, budget questions around difference between what you can build and what you should build perhaps. I don't know if you could speak to that or sage. So the, you know, at every step of the way there's a bill to provide comments. At this stage, they're showing a fair amount of grading being proposed that would be required to place the roadway as shown as well as that would extend grading into some of the building pads for the properties. So that's all stuff that should be considered and commented on at this time. In terms of the sewer, water availability, fire hydrant pressure, things of that nature, that all has to be nailed down with the tentative map application. So that's the next step. So the applicant is working with the different utility providers to nail down essentially what's called the will serve letters that will provide the ability to connect to the different utilities necessary to serve the number of units being shown. So that would come at the next stage, terms of road widths, steepness, you know, that's all stuff that will be considered at this stage as well as the tentative map stage. Some more details will be provided at the next stage, although, you know, the widths are shown, the contours are shown, there's some roadway profiles being shown, and all of that will also be considered by town engineering and the fire district at this stage and the next. Okay. In some areas, especially in Santa Clara County. I want to pre-way and we see where the ornaments being built are kind of overlooking in every way. And it looks ugly. It's so just one would wonder how healthy it is and all this. Highway to 80 is viewed as one of the most beautiful roadways in northern California. Looking at the rendering, I can see the concept of separating higher density housing from the existing single-family residence. So there is a kind of buffer zone, kind of transition to the high higher density development, but it will be immediately visible from the highway. And some trees are shown, but it's still when we'll drive on highway to 8 in one, one would see that, okay, here like a whole bunch of housing so. So is there any at what stage we. Down would would concern itself with the local it from the general public's point of view. The town is currently considering the objective design standards. So that's what would get guide the development on the property. So that gets into things such as heights, color, setbacks. And all of that is being considered. It was considered by the planning commission. They provided their recommendation and next up to be considered by the town council. So yes, this is just concept rendering showing to house something could fit on the property. Just staying on that topic for a little bit. So can you out of road is designated scenic corridor? Is it all of can you out of road or certain sections or all of can you out of road? And this is a locally designated scenic corridor. So yes, all of the locally designated scenic quartersors are just the lengths of the road within which side. The staff report, sorry, Melanie, the staff report sort of hints that the rezoning of the multifamily is something that's sort of in process now is what's the status on that? Well, I can speak to that. So, yes the multifamily is something that's sort of in process now is what's the status on that? Well, I can speak to that. So yes, that's something that as part of the housing element. It's something that the town has to initiate. It's required by HCD to get the rezonies for the multifamily house. I was in a place to for full certification. So as part of the objective design standards being considered at the four multifamily sites, the planning commission has already and a town council will consider the rezoning of the multifamily housing along with objective design standards. Okay. And it's part of that discussion, excuse me. It's part of that discussion is, is there the potential that the outcome is that alternative lots are proposed to be re-zoned versus the a lot proposed here? Maybe alternative configuration, but I, not necessarily, I mean, if it'd be up to the town council, if they wanted to open up the conversation to revisit different multifamily housing sites, it would provide significant delays in the housing element review and certification by the state. Big public input is part of that discussion. In terms of alternate sites, I mean, people can provide any comments. They'd like it'd be up to the council, determine if they want to open up that conversation. Hey, any other questions? Nope. Of staff, yes. And sorry, just to clarify, the maximum building height, proposed of the objective design settings is 35 feet for the multifamily housing site should be noted that the single family housing as proposed to be R1 the maximum height in that district is 28 feet. And the multifamily that's in draft. That's correct. Yes. Yeah. That has not been adopted by the town council. Give me a working mic and then I forget to use it. What's the motivation, the difference in that height allowance or a multi-family building versus a single family. I think it's a matter of trying to provide more flexibility for multifamily housing. So the different sites are providing different height limits. This site has a little bit more slopes to it than say another site that's being selected and worked upon for the town is really flat. So they look to the shorter height limit on the flat lot, providing more flexibility on the sloping lots. Another town owned site is very constrained. So having an increased height there makes sense to provide the units, the planning commission looked at even possibly further increase in the height at Kinyana College to allow for more flexibility there, although they recommended the staff to increase that height and then their final recommendation brought that height back down to what was originally proposed. So, and now you should note that the R1 district is the shortest district in town. All other single family residential districts are allowed to be 30 feet tall. Such as the SR. And this of the place, and since those heights are defined in the objective design standards, a place to comment on that specific the balance is planning commissioner now, I guess, to council. That's correct. Yeah, the objective design standards are not under review by the ASRB. So I'm going to, we're going to take a very short break. Less than five minutes. Yes, all right. So resuming. At this stage, we'd like to invite the applicant to make a presentation. Thank you very much. I'm Wallace Murphy and I'm the owners represented doing this project. My mark should be very brief that staff has covered it well, but I just want to point out when we first took on the planning for this site more than a year ago, there were two at least two major considerations. The first is the fundamental width of the property. Could you put the subdivision plan up there. Yeah, that'll work. I think. You see it. Yeah. So the property line on Kanata Road is long. It's 466 feet. So it's a good size property. And the second consideration was right away, the town came to us and asked us if we would cooperate with them in putting this piece, part of this property forward as part of their housing element to satisfy their rena requirements. And we agreed to cooperate with that. And, you know, those two created the first design sort of dimension which is it needed to have something access to go up and and separate the site. So my remarks I'm going to talk about first the road, Woodside Way, and second the lots themselves. So with respect to the road, we originally had proposed to call the sack because we really do not need the road to go through all the way. I'm showing this on the map behind you. We could come up from from Woodside Road right here to a place somewhere in the middle of the property here and have lots that divide off of that. Yeah, like that. And we never did need this connection over here to Glen Craig. However, when the property was originally subdivided in 1927, the subdivider of this whole neighborhood, I don't know which pieces were part of that at the time, but certainly this one dedicated a piece right there of Woodside Way to the public. And that's right of way that the public owns. And so the town came to us, collaboration with the Woodside Fire Protection District, wanting to provide more access to the Emerald Hills neighborhoods up on the top of the hill above us. If you ever have driven up Klancrag, you know it's a quite narrow road. And the concern was that in the event of a fire up in the top of that hill, that the fire department wanted more fire access for the trucks to come in and for the citizens to egress from the neighborhood. And so we designed the road to connect from our road to the piece that the town needs. And so that developed the the general outline of the road. Much has been made of the grading on the site. And there's no question. The site is a steep site. However, our civil engineer, who's here has designed this to be as flat as it possibly can. And well, when you walk up the thing right now, you do have to walk up some pretty steep slopes. But as we've talked about tonight, there's going to be not an inconsequential term. For this work, there's an unconsculential amount of grading, 15,000 cubic yards. However, no import and no export. So the grading plan is to take the dirt, which is on the site and stir it around and place it differently to make the grades work. And when this final solution is presented, the grade on Woodside Way from the Kaniyatta Roadside is only 13.5%. It's not that steep. There are plenty of 13% steep roads in this town. And the the the grades on the Glen Craig side are only 7.5%. So it's really when the when if you closely examine the grading plant, not that steep. We've proposed a width of 28 feet and some people have commented about that. We did that because the original impetus for the road came from the fire department and we wanted to be sure that there was plenty of good fire truck access, but we're not married to that. And if somebody wants it to be less, we're happy to accommodate. To me, the width of the road is a question for the town of Woodside and the Woodside Fire Protection District. We're indifferent about the width of the road is a question for the town of Woodside and the Woodside Fire Protection District. We're indifferent about the width of the road. Another issue with the road certainly is trees. And there are a bunch of trees on the property. The trees on the property. There's a very lovely oak right there at the intersection where woodside way would intersect with Cognata Road and you can observe that there's a little bit of a sway in the road right there. It couldn't come down and be 90 degrees. We put that sway in there so that we could avoid that tree. Then there's a junky one someplace up in here and no more trees up in here. Unfortunately, there are a lot of hereditary trees, but they're all right up here in the town's right of way. And it's just a consequence. If the town wants the right of way and then what the road to go through, unfortunately, those trees are in the public right of way. And we can't move them. Nothing we can do about it. So that's sort of the overview of the road. Talk a little bit about the lots, the lots speak for themselves. The one thing I would say is that all of these lots are in substantial compliance with the zoning ordinance for R1 lots. The 20,000 foot lots, these down in here, but the Palm Circle lots over here, which are the same zone, although they are greater density, because our lots are 20,000 foot lots and the average lots on palm circle are 14,000 feet. So it's a little tighter. It's a little more dense, but it's the same zoning. And we purposely did it that way, we were saying, well, how can those neighbors object to be a budding properties, which are exactly the same zone as their property? Obviously, the ones on the upper hill, they are larger. They had to be because the area on those lots, which is less than 35% and buildable is less. And so those lots wound up being much bigger pieces of real estate, but the building sites are similar in size. And I want to point out that much has been made about the retention of trees and habitat. All of this up here on the top of the hill, it's about 115,000 square feet of trees and 35% slope undisturbed in the plan. We're not touching it. one small exception. Can you get me over to the Lot 8 grading plan, please? There we go. Lot 8 has a bunch of woods and a bunch of grassland and this is the grassland and this is the woods and the the plan to access it is to come off of woodside way with a driveway that cuts across the hill and then comes up through the grasslands. This area right here is about a hundred linear feet by 20 feet or about 2,000 square feet where we are requesting a variance of the 35% grading prohibition to provide access to the billable portion of this site. Okay, so it's 2,000 square feet. We're preserving about, as I said, about 115,000 square feet. So we'll be requesting a variance of about less than 2% of the slopey real estate on this site in order to build on it. So that's the only variance we need. That sort of concludes my overview of the lots. A little bit some discussion about the multifamily and I don't want to spend a lot of time on it because it's really not part of this I don't think it's much part of this conversation. You know the the the planning commission has approved the housing element they have approved the guidelines for this site and they've approved the zoning of this site. It was to go to the town council tomorrow night and I don't know why I got put off, but you know there's a lot of pressure from the state to approve the housing element and I think it's a foregone conclusion that you know this site is going to be a multifamily site. I urge you not to get too hung up about that exact plan. What this was was an effort, it's a designed study to see the feasibility of how you could actually put multi-family, whether they're apartments or town homes or what it is, but many houses at a higher density than single-family residential on this site. And that plan right there is accomplished by, and you can see the contours run around like this, it's a knob, and it's designed to conform to the hill. So that all of the buildings face down the fall line of the hill, and so you don't have to reshape the hill in order to accomplish that. And that was the objective of that design study. Now, I don't know if that's what it's going to look like, but I do think that in order to get any kind of numbers on it, it will be three levels of some type of structure overlooking each other. And could you go to the renderings please? Okay, this one's expository, this tells a message. It's a bird's eye view and so you see these structures here. Nobody but the birds are going to look at them like that. People are on the freeway or going by on the road or going to look at them and I'll go back one, please. Thank you. Notice that there's a big line of mature trees right here and there's another big line of mature trees right here. So there are bookends at each end of the site and the next time you're driving on 280, I urge you to look at this site as you go by. Don't look away from the road and observe how long the window is actually open to peer into this site between this tree, this, this stand of trees, a big redwoods, etc. And these oaks over here. It's a very, it's a very short interval and you should be looking throughout anyway. Now if you would go to the perspective from the next slide from the perspective from the surface level. As Sage said, the design standards for the multifamily that has been presented to us are 35 feet. And what you see here is the first row of structures, whatever goes here, whatever plan gets built here, is what will be seen from the road, from the freeway, whatnot. They form a site screen for the buildings behind this is an accurate depiction you can just barely see the roofs behind So in the real world all you're going to see driving by this is the very first row of structures You you see a big project when you look at it from the bird's eye perspective, but from actually from the surface It's gonna look like this. You're gonna see the first row of structures and not the surface, it's going to look like this. You're going to see the first row of structures and not the ones above it. So in conclusion, I want to say is the town's pretty much already, I think it's a fate of complete, that they are going to rezone the site multi-family. The question really then is not that one lot. The question for you is the 10 lots that we are interested to subdivide. And, you know, all I can say is that the state is assigned to the town, a rena requirement of 328 new entitlements in the next cycle. You have six years left in the calendar. And this is an opportunity to entitle 10 lots that are each has required, as said, to be demonstrated that you could also create an ADU. So it's really 20 entitlements towards your 328 required. Where is there a better site in the town than this one with a freeway on one side, permanent open space on another side, the houses on the north side or over the brow of the hill, none of those people can see this lot. The only, and there's nobody on the other side of the freeway who looks into this lot, the only neighbors for this are these right here. One, two, three, four, five. That's it. So which? Okay, fine. Yeah, right. Okay. The people on the other side are going great. Well made. But my point is still is still the same. This is the farthest piece in the town of Woodside from the center of town. Where better to put many home sites to satisfy the state's requirements? So we proposed this. Well-conceived, meet the code. The question is to the town serious about meeting its arena objectives. If they are, then this is an excellent opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone on the board have questions for the app? I do. I have to hear you. I have to hear you. I have to hear you. I have to be curious from Melanie or the app. Well, I hope that the top here is being pushed up to the horse I at the top of the the yellow there is a there is a horse easement right up here there's all the places I don't know where it goes when it gets to the top of the hill but we don't care because if it's on our property I don't know if it's on our property it's not on our property okay the if it's on our property, I don't know if it's on our property. It's not on our property. Okay, the horse trail goes off our property. But this, you know, this is woodside. This horse trail is sacrosanct and it's a horse trail. Yeah. I actually had a question. Yeah, go ahead. Considering lots, six, seven,8 are all greater than 1 acre. What was the motivation of keeping it R1 versus SR1 in the zoning? It has to do with the setbacks, I think, right? Right. I'm sorry. Ended, and'm sorry. And the answer to, yeah. Yeah, though that zoning would accommodate it here. It has, R1 has smaller setbacks. So what you'll see is where they can place a billion footprint. If it was SR zoning, front setback would increase from 30 to 50 feet, further constrain that lot on where something could be placed. Same with the side setbacks. At this stage, you can't take in the account of 30 foot exception. When the correct, that would just be another exception. Yeah. Okay. I was asking questions. The comments. I think. Raise this question. Raise it as a question. Again, from the general public's viewpoint, driving behind, I drive on that racial freeway daily. What prevents you from committing a layered landscaping when actually not what you have in the rendering, but I'll show two layers of greenery so that really only the roofs of, eventually only the roofs of the pronged buildings will be immediately visible. That I think that will go a long way to keep it silky. We're here talking about the subdivision plan, not the plans for the projects. When anything gets built here, you know, the architect has put a representation that there would be landscaping here, but there would definitely be a landscape buffer that goes, you know, you're going to be landscaping that goes on the front here. I don't know what that's going to be, but, and, you know, they'll be, they'll be small. The year they get planted, but go back to the slide just before this. Once upon a time, all these trees didn't exist here either, you know, they grew up over time, and those houses have been screened by the trees, And the same would happen here for sure. Yes. Really because it seems like it might block these houses, these are just buildings. There's the rings we have in the show. Why is it not a question? Well, I have another question as well. When you're saying that you'll only see the front row of houses, if the next two proceed up the hill higher, why would you not see those houses as well? Because of the sight line. You see, there's a line from your eye right here that hits the eve of the roof of the first one and it projects over top of the roof of the second one and the third one. A little bit. Yeah. Only from the far side of the preway. From the near side of the freeway, the sight line is steeper. You don't see the roofs of the structures in the next ones. And from Kenyatta Road, you definitely won't because the sight line is much steeper the closer you get to the structures. Yeah. And where is the quarry? The quarry is just to the adjacent to the just just north of the property. That's you know that's one of the sort of reasons why I think this makes sense to develop this property is that on one side you have no neighbor at all. I mean you got permanent open space on that side. Yeah, that's the quarry right there. So like I said, you know, there's nobody here, there's a freeway over here, the property ends up here and these residences over the top of the hill, they cannot see down on this side. So three sides of this property are totally open. There's a huge house on the top floor, right? And then it's a massive, isn't that up there? A house on the ridge line. No, yeah. I know, it's, but no, we don't have, we're not contemplating a house on a rich line I'm starting to do it on history I must say how many, right? We're in a crowd load. And I'm not talking about two trucks at the paper. It's really bad. I work asked. Right. So it's really this. That wants this extension road rather than the build them. The town is reacting to a proposal. I think what you'll find is the fire district probably prefers it more than anyone. So the it's likely that even if there was a cul-de-sac, the fire district would require some type of emergency vehicle access through the Glen Craig. It's quite possible that they would... So the thing I've been going on really late, there's not much, but it's not a short, you know, to hate a fine. So the fire, I mean, I realize going back there. So the fire department saying that they would use this. So to get to those top. But I want to imagine. No, there's nothing there now. It's just, it's a, it's a public right of way. It's not developed. And so the applicant is proposing that it gets developed as part of this project to connect through where they're proposing the connection to Kinyata Road. The engineering department has had minimal review. You know what we talked with with the applicant is that there is a public right of way at the top. That's already dedicated. And that is that area of that Melanie just circled there on that kind of magenta color. So is that something that can be like a requirement that it is restricted access only for fire instead of it being an open road? It's something that could be looked at as part of the design. It also be subject to review by the Fire District and Town Engineering. And in the vein of this question, you spoke that you had originally planned the subdivision with the coldest act versus the food street. And whether it was in your conversations with the Fire Department or the Towns conversation fire department, I'm trying to understand what the benefit to a through connection is when there's a through connection to the rest of the neighborhood from Glencress, Glencreg on Kinyata, and understanding what the, you know, the weighing that benefit against the cost of developing, the right away that the town has had the option to develop for what, 90, seven years, and hasn't done it yet? The town has not developed it. It would be a road to nowhere on the town or to develop it at any time in the past. I can comment as a contingent in the member of the emergency preparedness committee. The egress from the end cred is very bad. There are lots of people up the hill. In order to get to the main road, the bottleneck will be at Jefferson. Because all people from up the street on Jefferson will be also trying to escape if you would. So indeed, the suggestion by the fire department is entirely logical. As far as the costs creating a turnaround in the middle of the subdivision would be probably as costly on me even more costly than connecting it through. So I think it's a win-win when one, I have to do with the parking versus garages. So there will be 20 dwellings, and each dwelling will have at least two cars probably. So is there any provision or any strings attached or planning around how those cars will be kept. Will there be garages or it will be an open parking which is minimally required but also looks like a parking lot. I would say the same thing about the single family as about the multi-family. The purpose of the drawings on the single family lots is to show that it is possible to put a building pad there so that the town doesn't entitle a project which you can't build on. Exactly how it's configured is gonna be up to an architect to design a house. But in this market, I can't imagine anybody designing homes of this in this neighborhood that don't have two car garages and parking outside for guests but there'll be no parking allowed on Woodside Way that's for sure. One thing I might add, I'm sorry. Side road. Which side way, our road, which we can now officially use the name. We're working with the county on the intersection of the road and canyada road and I will tell you that we will be proposing a stop sign there. So, so, have some people talk to me about how the really objective of the speed at which people go up canyada road and there are three stops, I guess there are two stop signs now, there'll be a third stop, we would propose a third stop sign here for sure which would have additional traffic calming influence over the Kinyata Road at least as far as here. And just to clarify the requirement for single family residences would be to have four onsite parking spaces for the residents for any one bedroom or more ad use they require one parking space each. Thank you. Any other question. Okay, I think it's, I mean, we see so few of these that we struggle at this very early stage to balance between something that is concept. I think we want or we tend to see the jump into a feasible something. Yeah. Right. So actually I have a question for engineering. Jim, is it? Yep. And I mean, there's a challenging site. There's a lot going on. There's a lot of soil needs to move to make this happen. Yes. So as well as we're just saying, the whole point is the design is the design was dictated mainly by the road. We wanted the road to be smooth even all the way up. It's below 50 to 15 percent thresholds, which would be required for concrete. It's only at least 13.5%. It's a smooth road all the way up. The other thing we looked at was to balance the grading on site. Knowing who we also have to have some, we wanted to try to maintain areas that are for the houses that are going to be in their future. Now, we're not showing any graded pads or anything like that, but we're trying to disperse the grade and the soil around the site so that A makes a really good smooth roadway with not ups and downs, but a nice, even grade as you go up. And then also on the sides to take some of that soil, move around, place it there so that when all is said and done, hey, this could be a good site for a house. It's not a level site. That's all for a future homeowner to figure out what they want to do there or what the multifamily would end up. But the idea right now is we're demonstrating that we can make the roadway work nice and smooth, transitions for it, grade the sites on, grade the ground on either site. You've noticed it'd be been out there right now. That site's been butchered, beyond belief over the years. So we took a really close look at the 35% areas. We all know those are the things we look at very carefully in Woodside. And we sat down with the really fine tooth comb and laid out what do we think are these band made ones and what are more of a natural one. We did that very clear. We know exactly where those are. It's primarily what you see right here for lots, six, seven, and eight. Those areas are primarily untouched. Everything on the lower spot or lower portions towards coming out of road. That's all been butchered over the years. The idea is to take it, fix all that grading problem we used to have, create that smooth road, and create transitions on the side with grading but also balance the grading. Yeah, but your is a good word. It is. Okay. Do you or the scope of your work is largely focusing on the roadway, potential drives. Well, it's that and we're also trying to look at it and see that when you look at the contours, if you look specifically like one, two, three, four, and five, those lots have lines going across, but they're pretty smooth. The idea is to give a smooth ill side that's not as unjullar as you have now over the place. But to smooth it out as much as we can, making that roadway, use the availability of the dirt we're going to have to create to, you to make that roadway and make the rest of the lot conducive for what might be using the future. So, some of the feedback I've heard is that much of the hillside is being cut out and pushed down the hill to level out some of the lower properties. Is that an accurate? Well, you can see what the dark lines are. The dark lines are what we call proposed contours. We're keeping those in the area that basically is already developed for the most part. So the idea is that you know lots nine, ten and the ones above those lots primarily are not being touched except for what you see here. Lotten number eight literally is going to be developed at least with the proposal we're proposing in front of you to be used with teeny walls to bring that that grade up there without having to grade all over and and change that hillside. Everywhere you don't see a dark line is proposed not to be touched at all. So it does keep the grading on that lower part that has been developed over time. You can see the weird road network does there. All that's being being smooth out to more natural state. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, welcome. Um, question for the applicant. Do you have a target in terms of number of units on the multifamily lock that you aiming to create? No, we do not. No. As your client turns out is before we did this, we laid out some design surets of what you project has to look like in order to achieve 20 units per acre. Not doable. Things have to lay out like on grid paper, 90 degree angles, very dense, very tight. This is 20 on an acre and a half. So that's about 12 per acre is what that represents. But to actually get to 20 per acre, I don't think is feasible in this town or on that site because it has to look like a project on graph paper in order to get to those numbers. I have a question. And this will come later. You can. But the more you squeeze in, the less area there's going to be kids play. I mean, obviously, you're going to be allowed the holiday, leave it down in the room and have a show and not only this way, and it's an age two month, do you have a gene in it? The same thing is, you're not going to have young kids play that. So it's more of a common thing to say, you're living in the same place. You know, you're all these housing, but where are the play structures? like a living plan. You know, you all these housing, but we're asleep. Light structures, the areas that would be, is there going to be a park in the middle of it? Um, that kids plan, um, because otherwise there's no word to follow. As I said, we have not got that, but we aren't that far. And this is, this was just a was just to see how you could, because it is a steep site, and that's the piece that's got the sort of nose that's exposed. And we thought, you know, we're not going to change the grades of that nose appreciably to, you know, plane it off flat so that you had a flat, you know, not going to happen. So we have not done nothing no more than just to look at that. But in terms of, you know, play areas and all that, we just, we aren't there. That hasn't gone on. There isn't a project being proposed. The lot is what's being proposed. And the zoning, of course, but not by you. Yeah. Any other questions? No, thanks. Hey, and let's open it up to public comments. Whoever would like to go first, the only thing we ask is try to keep it reasonably brief. I think a lot of us that have already heard some of the feedback already. So we'll just capture what's important. Hi, my name is David Dishar. I'm at 802. First of all, thank you for the three of you who did come and visit. It was incredible that you did that. I really appreciate it. The first thing I'm going to say, I don't have a script. I didn't write down anything. I found it incredibly insulting for the applicant's representative to count the number of neighbors and then say, what better place to put 50 houses? I'll tell you a better place from my perspective, Bill Butler's backyard. He talked about cooperating with the town and multi-family. There's no altruism here. There's no charity here. He's going to build as much as he can build and make as much money as he can. And that's what's going on here with the rest of the development. We met with the town council numerous times about the multifamily. Finally, I just said fine. I release. I understand one acre, 20, put it in the housing element. Let's talk about the rest of it. Now we're talking about the rest of it. I did send you an email and I've talked to three of it. Now we're talking about the rest of it. I did send you an email and I've talked to three of you. There are two lots here. I'll refer to them as the lower lot and the upper lot. Thank you Melanie. The upper lot presently is completely surrounded by SR1. If the lower lot is rezone to MF plus R1, then that little portion is R1 bordering R1. The rest continues to be SR1. There is no logical reason to rezone the upper law, R1. And I'll tell you, what's the precedent of doing that? Well, maybe me, maybe the lots north should just, now it'll be bordering R1. So they get to be R1 now, and so on and so on and so on. I don't know about rezoning and how it just seems like that's a big deal. I don't see that come up in, you know, when I go to the post office and see the agendas that and to me this is a huge deal and he told you why he wants to do it so that the setbacks has more flexibility. So I did address that in my email. The second thing I addressed is, and I appreciate, Don, that you asked the question, what are we doing here? Because I did hear, well, yes, our B says, well, we're going to subdivide. It kind of has to be buildable. Well, unless it's R1, it's not buildable. And unless there's a sewer, it's not buildable, they have no legal right to a sewer. And unless they change, unless the town changes the ordinance. Where are they going to put a septic on these? The houses are down at the bottom. I don't know where we are. Let me let me one more thing to I'll probably think of something else too. When I talk to my neighbors we have this feeling of defeat because it just feels like it's going to happen, no matter what we say. That there's some feeling that there was a favor done by this developer with the multi-family for the purpose of the housing element. And this is kind of the quid pro quo. I hope that's not the case. I did not get that impression from any of you or staff. It's just a feeling that the people have. And so I wanted to express that is what we hear when we talk to our neighbors. I trust that you will consider what I've said and everybody else. I don't know how you give your feedback other than my suggestion is, as you say, that the concept fails because it presumes things that are not true. Thank you. Thank you. Steve Lubin, Circle. I already communicated with you quite a bit, so I'm going to start by addressing things that have been said today. If I can collect myself, the rezoning to the multifamily was not already done with the town council, as previously looked at is a one acre stretch along Cunyata Road. The Planning Commission had very short public hearing with many, many subjects on it about expanding the multi-family area, the housing element as it is now has 16 units in a one-acre zone. This, what's proposed here, is 1.7 acres is what I thought it was, I think say, just 1.6 acres. It could be 34 units at 20 units per acre. So this isn't something that's already done. This is a chain from what's been talked about during the whole discussion on the housing element. The height has been, there was no discussion of this at the planning commission, the height on the site across the way is 30 feet and this one is 35 feet. It doesn't make sense that you'd have a higher height limit on the steeper, more visible site. It's going to be a freeway called us. A lot of extra grading. The town standard for it can be an 18-foot road, what should it be? I do think having to go through is good for people and you know in the hills behind us as having another egress when the fire comes. So as for the configuration of the road, it is not as flat as it could be. If I think I've sent you a sketch of a different configuration that more or less follows that the northern driveway on the property already, which could be less steep would follow the terrain better not require so much grading. The idea that this is just like Palm Circle in terms of the grading, you know, Wallace was saying that how can we complain about it? Palm Circle is basically flat. This is a very steep site. And Palm Circle was developed in the mid-20s. This is being developed now. It's a much more challenging site. And, you know, I think they can't be viewed the same. I'm a little as far as the visibility of the sites, these sites, having the multi-family go higher up the site, will be visible from 280. These are going to be three story buildings, what's proposed here, which is in my idea, I think insane. They should be shorter buildings and they will be quite visible from 280 from Kaniata Road and from the surrounding areas. I am, you know, completely regrading this lot is really insane and really contraided the town's policies. And we've all, you know, this idea of rezoning the rest of the property except for the multi-family family to is is a totally new thing that's been sprung on our neighborhood and is really unfair to us. So I'm a little confused here but if you read what I sent you I hope that that helps straighten it out and if you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. We do have one resident with your hand raised online. Yes. Hi, I'm Maggie Ma. And I live just off Jefferson, even though we're not immediately adjacent to this area, we will certainly be impacted by it as well everyone else. I want to echo what one of the previous speakers said with regard to where better to put a development like this. I think that it is an insult to the people who live here. It's also an insult to the people who might potentially live there because we are going to be impacted by traffic. The town has not looked at the possibility of infill within the current town center. You'll notice that there are a lot of empty buildings down there. And that has not been looked at. It was cited as a very possible alternative in the environmental impact report, which I would certainly hope that members of the ASRB have read. said that there would be no aesthetic issues with regard to these developments. I want to say with regard to visibility from 280 or Cognata Road that at night you're going to see these things. I don't care. And if the idea that they are not going to be visible, I agree totally with what Steve has said, that they are going to be visible, unless they just grade to be Jesus out of it, which it sounds like they're going to do, which is going to impact everybody. So I also want to say that putting a stop sign there, I don't know if any of you have ever hung out around Jefferson and seen how much respect is given to the stop sign there. The stop sign is not going to fix this. And the speed limit right now is 50 along that stretch, not 35, it's 50. So I don't see that a stop sign is going to have much of a traffic calming effect. It's just going to be a cause for more flouting of this sort of thing. The impact of when this is if and when this is all completely built out, it's going to have a massive impact on the entire town, the number, the amount of traffic, it's going to be crazy. And at night, there are going to be lights that are going to be coming out, shining out through those windows. Are you going to put incess the people put shades on all their windows? Come on, you know, it's going to be visible. And I should also say that screening and in the residential design guidelines, you should know this too, that landscaping is not a mitigation. Landscaping can go away. Trees die, they get cut down, they get damaged. It's not a mitigation. And that is very clearly stated in the residential design guidelines. I looked at Steve's design and I thought this makes so much more sense. It is much more in keeping with the area. I think it would be much more livable. The idea that it has a trail around it is a lovely idea along with the Bill Butler open space, which I think is fine idea as well. The whole thing is, you know, is just massively better and more in keeping with the terrain, the neighborhood. I mean, I have no illusions that this thing is going to get done one way or another. But also about the road that goes through there. I'd like you to consider the impact of this road. I agree that it's way too wide. It doesn't need to be that wide. I think it's a good thing in terms of egress and a potential evacuation area, but consider how it's going to impact normal traffic. It's going to be a cut through. Some people are going to cut normal traffic. That's going to, it's going to be a cut through. Some people are going to cut through there, you know, they will. There's going to be more traffic on those very narrow roads just on a day-to-day basis. And I also want to say that drainage in this area is really problematic. And the more that it is developed, the worse it gets. And we've already had some real disasters on Jefferson. And this one is a disaster waiting to happen in terms of drainage. And I don't want to hear from Leigh and Bray's because they always say it's going to be fine. We'll fix it. But that doesn't happen. We know that. So I urge you to consider this very, very carefully and also consider the alternative design that Steve did. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of public in the room. Yes. I'll be very, the name of Steve Patrick, all of it, 732 West Glenway, which is a stone store from this property. I've lived there for 66 years and things have changed quite a bit. I think there's no reason this has to become a thoroughfare between across this. I think it could be blocked off. It could be used for emergency vehicles. And I think somebody point out, yeah, call this heckle, use up more dirt and more probable building area. That's not our problem. It's not the town's problem. It's not the residence problem. That's the applicant's problem. And I do believe that this straight shot off of Kinyada Road, basically connecting us. This road doesn't meander. If you come off of most any street and woodside, it meanders you come off of Glend Kray, it meanders off of Jefferson, you come off of Midglend at meanders off. This straight shot, this basically something you might see in Pleasanton or something where basically it's all linear streets lined up. Great, right angle might see in, you know, Pleasantin or something where basically it's all linear streets lined up, you know, great, right angle intersections are important, but it seems that as Steve sketched out the road could cont, you know, follow the contours and then approach the intersection on can y'all the road in a much more handsome manner. I don't believe there's a quid pro quo that maybe it's considered that we gave in our parcel. We're going to up zone it so that we can put high density housing. I don't think there's any implication that they could up zone the remainder of the acres and the R1 zone or the SR zone, should I say, to R1 just because we were nice here, so give us a lot more developmental credit everywhere else. I think it should be considered that certainly the upper three lots or I don't know let's see one two three if lot four and five were merged. And then the other lots were in a sense zoned SR you can see that the developmental area 50 puts that back from the main street makes a big difference on the density and that would be more in keeping with what you know wood sides all been about in the last you know basically 67 years since its inception. Yeah I don't see any reason to up zone it and I think it's important that there is some you know high density housing I think Steve's important that there is some, you know, high-density housing. I think Steve kind of did a nice layout where that would work. I think there is a solution here, but I don't think this is the one that should move forward. Thanks for considering our thoughts. Thank you. You have a hand raised by Maggie Maugh. Any left, Jason? Russ, that quickly? Yeah, I think that a lot of it. I'm sorry. Just a second. Yeah. Am I allowed to speak? Yes. Okay. All right. Just one last thing as there was a several comments with regard to the where people might, you know, there might be recreation areas, whatever. And that may be something that is planned for the future. But I will just say that the impact of this development to the open space area next door is going to be huge. It right now is it's you know yeah it was an old quarry but you know stuff stuff starts to take over nature starts to take over and there it's going to be hugely impacted not only by this development when it happens but also by the people who live there and I think that should be considered as well. If there are no play areas, whatever, that's very attractive out there. And it's definitely going to be used. You can just bet on that. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for putting up with me. I didn't mean to butt in about the creek. It does flow pretty rapidly when it rains and they're going to need to put a bridge over that and there's going to be a lot of destruction of the habitat when that happens. So that was one of the things I wanted to talk about was was connecting Woodside Way to Glencrag. It's going to be an issue and I don't think it's going to be a great fire exit, although I don't mean to disagree with a fire marshal, but if you have an accident just above that road, I mean, people barrel down Lincrag. They go really, you know, a lot of them do. They go fairly fast. I walk my dog in the evenings and I put on a white coat. I wear a light on my head and the car is just zoomed by me. And if there's a fire, people are going to want to get out pretty fast. And that's an intersection waiting for an accident. And if there's a fire, people are going to want to get out pretty fast. And that's an intersection waiting for an accident. And if there's an accident there, there's a whole lot of people who won't be able to get out from the upper upper areas. By the way, my name's Dr. Ken Stason. I live at 635 Woodside White just about across the street where you're planning on or where Mr. Butler is planning on putting his name but or I don't know. Yeah, Butler. I wanted the residents that felt discouraged and why should I come because it's already happened. And I see that there's other people that feel that way too and that's why I'm here. And by the way, while we were talking and you brought up the playground, my wife's a an elementary school teacher. She's taught for 30 years. And the first thing she said is, where are the kids gonna play? I mean, this is a really steep area. And where's the playground? And we moved here in 96. And of course, the reason why we moved here is because wood sides, wood sides. It's a great place to live. It's got good schools, trees line the street, and I kind of like there was a UPS guy that I met when we first moved here. And he said, you know, we call this spaghetti hill. And it's because the roads are narrow and windy, and there's trees. And we like that. That's why we came here. And I think rezoning, I mean, we're SR1. All of a sudden, you're going to zone at R1. And that just, I'm not my property. I mean, but, you know, all these other properties. And I don't think that's fair. I mean, this is a, we moved here because it was an SR1. We moved here because of the community, and we really like that. So, I know, that's my two cents. Thank you, and good luck. Thank you. We got a hand raised online by Donna Howe. Hi, I'm Donna Howe. I do not live near this, this development, but I am on the another committee with the town and I had the opportunity to learn about this and I just, I really have, my, I have a lot of comments that will be shared by the Environment and Open Space Committee that I won't get into with you, of course. But my question is about the rezoning, just as a, as a property owner in the town of Woodside, I don't understand and I would love if someone there could answer the question of number one, what gives this property owner the, the understand if someone says, oh, I want to reason my property, the town has to accept that request to evaluate and answer. But my question is, what gives this property the opportunity to get that? And if the rules are changed so that any property can resummit for rezoning. I think that really affects all of us and our entire town. And I have a lot of concern about that. And I would like to know if you could tell me, how would the public get the opportunity to ask questions about this rezoning? And how do we get involved in that? How do we talk to the town about that? Who makes that decision? Thank you for taking my call. Did you want to address that question? So as was noted by the speaker, any property owner can propose rezoning of their property, whether it's approved or not, that's part of the process. So that's what's being proposed today and that's what we're reviewing. And sorry, the second, oh, in terms of learning more about it. Yeah, we encourage anyone to meet with town staff. You know, these hearings aren't really set up to kind of do a lot of back and forth questions to really go through details together with plans. So it's always good to set up an appointment on this case Melanie is the project planner. It's good to start with Melanie. So setting up an appointment with Melanie, she's done it with others really sit down. Sometimes are for just to look at plans by themselves and don't want someone hovering over them. That's okay too. The plans are public record. They're copywritten but they're public record so people can come in to look at them. We're happy to walk people through the plans and all the different details of the proposal. That's the best way probably for individuals to get their questions answered. Question about zoning so we don't tend to do a lot of subdivisions but is it common in a subdivision proposal that entire area. New zone is applied for as part of that. Yeah, as you've noted, we 16 years, we've probably counting this application, probably processed about five subdivisions. There's a couple more in process right now. And there, I note of one property that it was on greenways drive. If you know greenways off of Alameda de las pulgas, I was part of a more recently annexed part of Woodside, probably in early 2000s, I believe. And zoning had to be applied to that street. And so during the annexation, and so when you go about halfway up the street towards the properties, the back there are larger lots and they were zoned SR. And the lots closer to Alameda de las pul there are larger lots and they were zoned SR. And the lots close to Dalamita, Dillus, Pulgus were smaller lots and they were placed in the R1 district. And there was a property that was right in the middle, it was zoned R1, but it was about an acre in size and that property owner proposed to rezone it to R1 so they could do a lot split. And that property was rezone to R1, and they did divide that property into two parcels. Without the re-zoning, the land division would not have been possible. So that's one instance on a much smaller scale, which it has occurred in the recent past. Happened on the 1100, Kinyada. So that's a zoned SR property, and it about seven acres and so they proposed about seven lots there There's a little over seven acres because they needed the area for the roadway But each lot was about a maker in size. They had to change their general plan designation They were designated as institutional used to be an old church and so the SR zoning was already in place But they had to change the general plan designation To residential given that the church was no longer a use on the property. Is there any other? Oh, yeah, a little history on that. I mean, I was on the planning commission for seven years in the 70s, into the 80s, or maybe not quite into the 80s. And at the time we called the R1 zone, the R1 B4, because it covered areas that had been developed before the town was incorporated with small lots already. You know, except for as Sage suggested that has never happened before. So I think on this scale, this is really unprecedented and quite as surprised as in the neighborhood because when the town council was considering the housing element, they were looking at one acre along Canyada Road, low on the hill with 16 units on it. This is very different from that. Thank you. Thank you. Fahya Lubin Palm Circle. Okay, where do I start? I'll throw out my objections. I'm opposed to the 28-foot wide road. I think the configuration of the road is horrible. I think this is a massive, massive development that requires the most consequential zoning change that I'm familiar with in the town and I've lived here over 40 years. I was on the ASRB. The grading flies in the face of the grading ordinance. It's a bit offensive and insulting to know that this has come so far with negotiations with the town but with no public input. And the more I find out, the further back it goes, all the way to 2022. And you just applauded the previous applicant for having done neighborhood outreach. There has been no neighborhood outreach on this. Except for Stephen I, having called up Bill Butler because we are friends and we have done, we were the architects for the museum together and I like Bill, but there has been no neighborhood outreach. And that's even more insulting. I'm bottom line not opposed to some development on this property. I understand the housing element and the constraints and the urgency. But it could be much better designed. Steve has taken a stab at it. And I encourage you to do what we did on several big projects when I was on the ASRB is to continue this item and go back to the drawing board and look at other proposals and look at other ideas. It's still what I call paper and pencil. We haven't pulled out the bulldozers yet. And you have an opportunity here to do the right thing. And there is a precedent for setting aside open space and conservation. When Steve was on the planning commission, there was a Gilmour McDowell subdivision in the glens. I don't know if any of you were living here or familiar about it. That is how we ended up saving Kite Hill. And there were five or six eight houses that went in anyway, but we were able to get that open space in trade. And I'm the, what Melanie, could you put up the two, the zoning has the two, no, it was, sorry. No, the previous there was one that had the two zoning, yeah, that one. So let's look at some kind of development, smartly done, reduced to height, get the setbacks, screening, all that stuff, and leave the upper portion as conservation open space. If you look at the drawings that Steve sent in, you can see the wildlife trails, and we have a critter cam in the back of our property. And I can tell you, you pick the animal, they've all come through there. And I know what Wally said, but there are a lot of neighbors that are gonna be impacted by this and the cut through road. So I would urge you to send this back so we can come back with a better design. I'm not trying to stop the project, but I'm trying to make sure that it both helps the town with affordable housing and God knows it's not going to be affordable but somewhat affordable and look at the road, the grading, all these other constraints. This can be done better and you guys have an opportunity to do that. Thank you. I almost feel guilty. I'm sorry, I'm a little emotional. So I'll try to go quickly. I'm Stephanie. And I want to start by saying that the residents of Emerald Hills purchased their homes homes, not properties for development for profit but homes and reliance on the the current zoning code which I general plan and Emerald Hills lake specific plan. So to start without any rezoning or changing the law for sewer hookups, the astounding and other astounding change. This developer has the right hookups, the astounding, another astounding change. This developer has the right to build, the absolute right to build 33.6 houses on the multi-family zone. On the upper, on the upper, on the remaining three acres of the lower lot, he has the right to build three houses and six ADUs. On the upper lot, but the current zoning, He has the right to build three houses and six ADUs. On the upper lot, but the current zoning, it's probably only build a bull to build one house and two ADUs. So that means that allows 12 additional homes. In addition to the 33.6 that he has the right to build, and maybe I'm being defensive, but I thought I heard him say, I don't think I can get 20 per acre, but if I could I would. So the 12th of the 33, with the 33.6 is without any changes. 45.6 homes, the right to build 45.6 homes on a 10 acre lot that was in a question and property with one house. So why why would he rezone what is we talked about it it's the setbacks he can fit a lot more now he's proposing now what he's proposing after he changes the don't he has oh you know it I don't don't let's not let's see guys don't know that's not and I was realized I was rushing and I have it in the wrong order so let's not even use it. Thank you though I really appreciate it. Uh, presently and everything. Okay so then he now he if he if everything gets changed he has the right to build 63.6 units on this property. So let's remember when we got the number from the state, the staggering 328 homes that they told us we had to build. Well, let me see. With the without changing anything, with his right to build the 12 homes and the 33.6 multifamily with no changes, that's 14% of the housing element right there. If he changes it and he gets the right to build 63.6 houses, that's 20% of the housing element. If you want to pull out your phones and do the math with me, I'm happy to go through through it with you. But that is 20% of the housing element after we got blown away by the number of 328. That's now going in one equi on one equestrian property, one very rural equestrian property, which is supposed to be the goal of the town. I'm not that spotted. All right, so now So now, let's talk about the housing element. If you take the 75 that we think we're going to get from piñata, the 16 houses on the mundo and the 45 houses that he has the right to build, that's 41% of the housing element in one square mile. If we resound and change the sewer that would be 75 of a piñata 16 of remondo and 63.6 on the 10 acres at 773 that's 47% of the 328 houses that we were asked to build by the housing element and everybody, everybody was astounded. You're putting 47% of the housing element on one square mile. I know the housing, that's against everything that the housing element has asked us for. I don't even think it's legal. So, what can we do about it? When Kevin Bryant described the role of the SRB to the town council, and I think it was April, he said that the code charges the ASRB with protecting the rural character and natural beauty of the town. The ASRB ensures that projects are consistent with the general plan. Specifically, the general plan goal, L01 or LU1, is to preserve and enhance wooddied as a scenic rural residential community. Packings, 63.6 houses and 10 acres where one house currently exists, robbing a sewer space from existing residents with failing systems, and jamming 47% of the astounding housing element requirements into one square mile is not protecting the rural character of our area. It's not standing up for the residents who rely on the town officials to be reasonable and to protect the biggest investments of our lives, our homes. So the general plan, just reviewing the general plan, I know you know what it, I'm not going to take the time to go through the general plan, I know you know it very well. The specific plan of Emily Kills has a lot of like, has a lot of lots, smaller lots that the town zoned and their undersides. And for example, my property is like one acre, but it's three lots. So when we bought our property, it was marketed as three lots, but we quickly found out that the town had merged our three lots. The specific plan calls for taking lots owned by one owner and merging them into a bigger lot. That's what the specific plan calls for. This is exactly the opposite. When we asked when our neighbor had our neighbor had the right to have sewer hook up and wasn't going to use it and he was going to sell us his sewer easement, I went to the town and I said, oh you know here's a situation that I'd love to buy the sewer easement and the town said, nah, not gonna do it. I guess the sewer wasn't for our property. They didn't want us to develop our property. They wanted big lots and limited sewer huggups. So it also so the specific plan also calls for limiting the intensity of the development to retain the open space, decrease land intensity on steep hillsides and the mountainous areas where it's necessary to limit storm runoff, prevent increased erosion, avoid natural hazards, protect vegetation and watershed and maintain scenic qualities, minimize the grading and alteration of natural land forms, manage intensity of use of individual parcels and buildings by considering health and safety, safety impacts on adorning properties from noise, traffic, night lighting, or other disturbing conditions, and protection of natural land characteristics. It goes on about accessory uses. I won't read everything that I pulled out because I know you get the idea. If the fire department is claiming that this this new road is going to help with the fire safety, when the fire chief backtracked from saying, this is a severe fire hazard area, and what side shouldn't have new buildings? When he had a backtrack to prove this multi-family zoning, he said, if they could make a road up to West Maple, that's above us, that's where there's a road about this thing that winds all around and it's a steep grade. If they could put a road up to West maple, that would really help. Now this road is just cutting off the very bottom of Glen Craig. It's not doing anything for West maple. And I think it was a lot eight that has this very answer asking for in this long, windy, uphill driveway, that's a match because the fire department can't get up that driveway. It's another West Maple. We've just created another West Maple and if that house catches fire, then all of us are catching fire. So I don't, I'm not buying the fire chief saying that that road is going to help us either and I'm actually really shocked with the town which the developer said oh let's put in this road and develop all the rest of this property when well that's what I heard him say maybe I'm being defensive and I'm sorry I am um I would impress upon this committee that you are what stands between something completely unreasonable and protecting the citizens of Woodside. And I think he's so much for your time and score. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any additional comments online or in the room? There are no hands raised online. Thank you. I see no one in the room standing. So that all close the public hearing on this particular agenda item and opening up for board discussion. So I think it was very convincing a line of question. I can't wait to ask you any chance to introduce other solutions to this problem. I understand they came from... You speak up please, I'm sorry. Really? All of you, we can't... Oh sure, I can speak up probably, happy to offer my apology. I think it was very convincing line of questioning. I have to admit that I haven't had a chance to thoroughly look at the proposed solution which Mr. Rubin forward. I believe that there ought to be an objective way to optimize, to maximize the usual this property from the Towns Perspective to maximize the number of units and savings from the developer's perspective, SC1 to R1, there are substantial savings at least part of that budget probably needs to be allocated in all fairness to have a way area for the kids who will be living there now in the years to come. I'd say additional analysis is warranted. Additional consideration is warranted. I would like to make a motion. Any other comments? I have a couple of questions I've boiled up. Can you clarify the comments about the M. the animal and hill specific plan emerging lots. In terms of law marjorie. Yeah. Um, I have to look at the specific language. I do know, though, uh, it was in the 1980s and which the state provided this lot merger requirements, the subdivision map act. The city I used to work for in Pacifico and I first got there in the early 2000s. They went through, they had this big binder of all these lots and idea was when you had sub standard sized lots lots that didn't meet the minimum lot size is that cities would come in and force the mergers. They'd be adjacent lots that were substandard and under common ownership, and they'd force the merger of these lots. And what you found is that these weren't necessarily like three lots with three houses on it. It was just, you know, we deal with a lot in the Western hills. There's subdivisions that cut lots up into really small sizes. And, you know, they were lines on a piece of paper back in the 1920s. The reality on the ground is that most of those lots weren't able to be built on singularly. And so you find that many of the lots in the Western Hill specifically off of Old La Honda, that people own several of these old underlined subdivided lots in which when they built on them, they merge them. So the city is worth doing that. And so I would suspect that some of what came into the Emerald Lake Hill specific plan was a relationship to this. What's called a forced merger? It's not a voluntary lot merger. And so there's a very specific process in which these have to go through notifications, the county level, there's everything's because you're kind of forcing someone's lots to lose, you know, a number of lots to combine them into one. So it's likely that I know the town in the past has looked at as a way to minimize development, looking to encourage the lot mergers. To my knowledge, the town, at least there's no large binder like Pacifica head of a significant amount of forced lot mergers at the town level. It was probably something that is definitely more encouraged. You read that through the general plan as well. It sounds like the spirit of it is to get some, it's small, you know, some standard lots, lots to come to a standard side. That's correct. Spirit, lots of. And in general, there could have been the encouragement just to merge lots in general as well. But definitely, I know, at least from what came out statewide, it is definitely the encouragement to reduce the number of substaternals by margin and where feasible. And then another question I had. Where did the 20 feet per road with come from? Is that because it's a feeder road, a smaller road, or is that the fire department? Just what I'm not sure. What I saw is just proposed by the applicant. I'm not sure if they had discussions with the fire district. Fire department. Okay. Comments? I guess I struggle because I, you know, Mr. Luebord, parent, an alternate plan, which seems to have support from the neighbors, but it was in both plans, seem to be developed in isolation from any sort of communication and feedback. And while what I've heard from the neighbors, there is a sense that this is something that has to happen and this is where it's happening. They just haven't been part of the conversation over how it will happen. And that is something that we deeply hold at this level. That conversation happened between neighbors and the applicant. And so I, you know, I would like to see some more conversation around how this lot division happens, because at least with the two proposals on the table, the lines of those parcels are substantially different. But there is two plans for the same number of units, the same number of lots. And in that vein, you're not losing anything by incinerating the ulcerative proposal. Those are my thoughts. Wow, it's been quite a day. I want to thank everyone for taking their time on. So I mean, you move, you're not thinking you're going to have to go through these sorts of sorts of exercises. You sound a all out. My concerns are, I mean, I think it's great that they're building, you know, low income housing. I mean, we need it. I don't want to be the board that stands in the way of that. But yet, there's some things on this plan that that troubled me deeply. Then that has to do with more lot 7 and 6 is that that should be I mean that is open space and maybe you can do it and maybe we'll find that that you can't do it. But I would like to see at least 7 and seven continue to be in that zoning of the larger areas and maybe keep that open space. And also, I just can't keep getting back to this driveway. That I would think with the low income housing, you might get seniors, you might get kids, you'll get families, and they just seem to be locked in. They can't go up, 13 and a half is hard. If 15 is the limit, we know what some of these roads can be. I mean, I think Steve, obviously you haven't had all the reports and all of those things, but having that road meander a little bit differently, not be so steep. Spreading out some of the low income housing, maybe to another lot. So that it's just not so dense so that there are some public areas in there because right now there is no public area in in lot 11 So those are just my thoughts that I'd like to see happen or are reconsidered so I think I might get back to tholias comment about Maybe this needs continued discussion and a little more work. Okay. I don't think it's fair either that some some lots are re-zoned and some are not. I live on Gauditia, so I'm rude. But I also think the road with is a challenge. I once again live on Gauditia and people cut off Jefferson going down there and we see what it's like on even on the narrow road, depending on what the sides of the road are. We see the trucks and the UPS and the side of the ditch all the time. So I think this could really be a problem with that being such a thoroughfare. And I would like to see additional design consideration as to how we can change that road. I also don't think going over 30 feet. As Mr. Murphy said, I don't understand how you're not going to see higher levels of the tiers. As you see the next up the hill of the hills getting higher and the same height building is on the next. Why wouldn't you see it? Yes, they can plant trees, but I'd like to understand that better. And then the sight line. And then I am really shocked that there wasn't more neighborhood feedback because we wouldn't be here if there could have been a little bit more collaboration potentially. And we always commend the applicants that come in talking about how much feedback they've had with the neighbors. And if people are feeling they're in the dark we pay taxes we shouldn't be in the dark and I think that is pretty much it why reason I don't think that the there should necessarily be a reason. I think I have a last thank-illusion noise and light. Once again, on Gaudisha, we've got the Cognata College in the background and the height of the light fixtures that are up there are like 20 feet tall. We never have darkness at our house anymore. And I would hate that to continue to happen and there have got to be better type fixtures. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Hard. Okay. Again, because we have so little experience dealing with complex projects such as this that involve rezoning. significant grading, lots of other elements that are impacted. But I think actually, I'm going to point to a positive that I heard today, which was, no one commented that it shouldn't be developed, which is what I often walk into these expecting to hear. So I think if, for me, a lot of the feedback focuses on the specifics around not what is going to be allowed to be built, but rather what's the most appropriate thing to be built. What's suitable for not just this development, but surrounding properties surrounding neighborhoods that are all going to be impacted by this. The specifics I heard, which I think are fair, the roadway itself, the route that it takes, the grade that, ultimate grade that'll end up at. Even the need or suitability for it from a fire perspective from the towns, easement development perspective, I think are quite a reasonable questions to be addressed. From a process standpoint, sage question for you actually is that we know that be back the voice today and whatever recommendation we make as a board will then in that process for those to be debated and negotiated further before a final tentative map is proposed. and which each of the committees will provide their recommendations. And then all of the people in the subdivision review committee will consider those recommendations. So the fire, martial or fire chief whoever participates will have the ability to opine on any recommendations. From any of the committees, for example, the committee is one of the committee said no consider to not have a through street. That's something that the fire district could consider an opine on. Or any comments related to the roadway with, again, town engineer and fire district can comment on those. And those are all things in which once the completion of the concept map process isn't any decision. No decision is made on the project. It's a series of recommendations that gets combined into what we call the subdivision review committee report, which has all of the recommendations from the various staff members, as well as all of the written recommendations from the three different committees that have reviewed it. And the applicant is to take all of those recommendations and to consider them as part of their preparation for the tentative map. And then they'll submit their tentative map application and it will come back to all of the committees and at which time the applicant can explain why they did or did not address certain items from the recommendation. So as an example, we can make a recommendation that half of the roadway be revisited. Yes, that would be something that relates to some of the comments we've heard tonight. Some of the comments to specific objective design standards. We wouldn't be commenting on that stuff, but anything relating to the configuration of the lots of roadways as it relates to this map is something that the SRB could comment on. Okay. And so the zoning is part of it because that creates the lot size and configurations. Right. So if the ASRB is looking to consider a different type of zoning to keep existing zoning, those are things that could be placed in those comments. Obviously it would require, it would go in tandem with a comments to look at reconfiguring the lots. All right, this one. Sorry, go ahead. I was gonna say as part of that recommendation to revisit the vote, I would love to see some kind of quantification of benefit in the fire department in regards to connecting to fine-frag. What I'm sitting here wrestling with is whether there is sufficient room in the process that if we made a motion tonight with a number of recommendations and allowed the process to move forward such that then goes the committee and such, versus a continuation, which is forcing the applicant to return having also addressed the same set of recommendations. Correct, and it't have the benefit of looking at all the recommendations together and deciding how, you know, from one committee to the next how they would all compliment each other or not. Right. We cannot complete the subdivision review committee meeting until we have recommendations from all the committee. I think it's best that to get the recommendations here, that's the point of the concept map. It's really this early stage to provide any concerns recommendations, but the board has and in which case, then the applicant and kind of consider that in conjunction with everything else provided. To respond on that, is there a way to ask our recommendations on have a go to the other committees and then have it come to us again before the time that maps it? That would not be the way the process is laid out. We could get into a circular process. For sure. Do we have to have a group ASRB recommendation or we can have individuals? So I've been taking notes and with you know I just similar to like a concept design review right? I mean to read back the comments and if there's anything additional that the board as a whole like to add we don't see this often, but there's been case in the past. Most of you probably weren't on the board in those cases where some members of the board felt strongly about a specific comment where others didn't. And we would specifically want to make sure that the majority of the board was okay with that particular comment before moving forward. In the case where there's just consensus, we just move forward all of those comments. So I can recap what I've heard so far and the board can decide, no, we don't want that or we want to add some more sounds. Yes, let's do that. Let's do that. Let's make a concluding comment on this from the engineering requirements analysis perspective. I think it's very difficult for both sides, including the engineering side of these conversations. Everyone is trying to do what is fair, what is good, what is fair. When we formulate recommendations, they are not requirements. And prioritization of the requirements is not really done because if someone who except the recommendation and It is not clear is it a requirement is it a must-hame or is it would it something with that would be nice or something that would would be fair It is very difficult. So perhaps we can formulate our recommendations so that they are kind of requirements really. So they can be easily interpreted as or a package, if you would, as requirements. And then the town will be in the position to say, look, we allow this exception because we need to achieve certain goals. And for that, the following items are critical, and the following items are desirable. That may accelerate the outcome. I think it would be good to get the recommendations down. And that's where then the applicant can provide some thorough thought process into what they may or may not consider. And when they return to the board and the other committees, they would explain how they addressed everything, how they decided to address some things. And that would be then the board is in the position to make a final recommendation based on that review of the initial comments and how well the board felt that those comments were addressed. And then at that time, as a recommending body as the other committees are, all of those recommendations would be carried forward to the Planning Commission for their consideration and ultimately the Town Council. So can you summarize? Sure. What you believe to have heard that's recommended. So to go through some of the recommendations that I've heard is that the applicant should consider some type of maybe common play area or common space whether it relates to the multifamily, parcel or the entire neighborhood. Then the applicant should provide more of an effort for neighborhood outreach and they could explain what additional efforts they made for neighborhood outreach. I heard a comment from one board member to look at lots seven and six and possibly keeping those open space or at least keep them in the SR zoning district. The applicant is a recommendation to consider reconfiguring the roadway with. And this was wrapped back into the other comment. It was just to consider all of the lot staying, except for the multifamily, for the rest of the area to consider keeping the rezoning as SR and how that may need a lot reconfiguration. And the last comment I had was specifically for the applicants to get more clear fire district feedback relating to the need to connect the roadway as well as what was stated before, regards to the roadway slope and width. Anything else you'd like to add or anything else that the majority of the board does not feel should be added. To me a little bit more specific about the open space recommendation, I would clarify and say that I would like to see areas denoted and maybe a conservation easement. Acceptable to the risks. So it would be a recommendation to consider keeping a portion of the property in some type of open space or conservation. I'll be right. We didn't do it. So the height is something that we're dealing with a parcel map. And the objective design standards as it relates to the multi-family residential standards really is something that is at the planning commission and now town council level. I'm not sure if that's the right. I'm not sure if that's the right I'm not sure if that's the right I'm not sure if that's the right I'm not sure if that's the right I'm not sure if that's the right I'm not sure if that's the right I'm not sure if that's the right I'm not sure if that's the right I'm not sure if that's the right I'm not sure if that's the right To me, it seems so close. I quite don't understand. And I think the explanation was originally it was supposed to be a fire or something to help the higher residents. But at least from a design standpoint, if they do connect and it not is, instead of just having the roadway down, if they could do a nice wood side type of bridge with the fences and at least add some charm to this area versus. And when you speak of a bridge are you meaning over the ditch at the Glen Craig entrance? If it comes to that. If connecting to consider a bridge over the ditch on a long Glen Craig. Thank you. Great. It's I'm using the word ditch. It's not a town designated stream. So that's why it's the clarification between what's designated in the town. Consider the pollution noise and lighting. In relation to one of those at the EIR meeting, they discussed that all of this construction I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. in relation to a map, do you look for a fewer number of lots or how that would tie into? Better air than this decreasing our air. I don't know. In terms of looking at a map configuration, how that comment would weave into that might be more difficult. There will be, as part of the tentative map process, there's a sequel review that also comes into play as part of that. So those items get more weed into the environmental review part. All these recommendations are caveated with the expectation that various fields, water runoff, soils, all of this will be addressed. All of the technical requirements have to be addressed So all health and safety requirements with any future construction whether it's just for a roadway or for any construction of any residential units All geotechnical considerations all utility considerations meeting fire district standards for access fire water pressure firerant location, all of those items will have to be met. That's correct. So conceptually. I'm comfortable with this list of recommendations. It probably isn't exhaustive enough. However, in terms of moving project forward, comfortable knowing that there will be sufficient opportunity for any public to continue to provide feedback and be informed of progress along the way. I don't see the benefit of a continuation at this stage. I don't see the benefit of a continuation at this stage. I don't see how that will result in a better outcome at this point. Anybody feel differently? Just want to ask a question on that. If this wasn't a lot, some division. And if this was somebody applying for a house, and they, and the airs are being, and the summer neighbors showed up, negative comments, would we incline to let them continue to formal with recommendations or would we ask them to come back? It's not really a form that would not be. be. No, it's it's similar in the that no to step process. We don't get the we don't get them to come back the story folds and then approve right. We four-dollar formal. That's how the house process works. But with this, and what I understand from you saying earlier, the next time we would see it is at the tentative map phase. That's correct. And I think it's a little bit different in the sense that there's this subdivision review committee step. Whereas you have multiple committees reviewing a project and then the technical staff, formulating recommendations, and all of that together is one package of recommendations. Whereas an ASRB review of one house is just the ASRB looking at the house and defining if additional items are needed for that particular house. Whereas I think this is a combination of recommendations and if the applicant comes back at this stage, it may not be addressing other comments that haven't been made yet. By the subdivision or you can be the subdivision or you can be has to consider the final recommendations by the ASRP. I don't know which way is the right way. I was leaving that up to you. I just wanted to ask that thought question. Okay. We have a it's up to the chair. Okay. Yes. So I'll address the hands. There's more than one. Yes. I just want to be clear. So when it comes back to you, it'll be the tentative map. Right. At which point the applicant will have invested more time, money, energy. And I don't know if they're going to seek neighborhood input. We listed it as a recommended. Yeah. Well, you're going to force them to meet with the neighbors or consider what Steve has presented because I don't have much hope for that. But I do think that once you take it to the next step to the tentative map, they're much more invested and more locked into what they want versus what is the right thing to do for the town and for the neighborhood. So not being able to see it again doesn't take into account all of your expertise and input and allow for the public to once again try to make this better. This is not Susie and Johnny moving next door. This is a business and it's a big project. So thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you letting me ask a question. Sage explained, what is it the subdivision review committee or something like that? Is that those and you've identified the people in that? Do those people take the recommendations from the boards and go to a clean room and talk or are you interacting with the applicant? There's particular items in the code in which each individual member is supposed to look at, provide comments to the applicant. So it's not a public hearing process like these are. So we take into account all of the public input that we've been provided, as well as all the recommendations from the committee, and then based on the series of code requirements, each town engineer looks at the specific things, the fire chief looks at specific things, and a report is given to the applicant with all of those comments. Okay, are there meetings that happen with the applicant and the people on the subdivision committee? We will explain those comments to the applicant in the meeting. But these are comments that are, it's not a back and forth negotiation. These are items in which each of the individuals will provide comments to the applicant. And, and, and members of the public able to see those comments? Yes, once the subdivision review committee report is complete, it has all of the written comments from the different committees. It's all public record. And we would come into you and Melanie, we have to come in. No, so as you can, but we also can be now. Everyone who's been signing up on the email list, these are all folks that we are going to when these letters go out, we email everyone a copy of those letters. So as long as you signed up and obviously we know we've been a communication that any of the reports will go out to all of the people that have shown interest in the project. Excellent. Thanks, you great answer. And I do just on to carry through with that thread is that just for all members of the public, definitely can meet with us at any time, can check in any time with us on the status of an application, and we always encourage that. So to reiterate, I think I'm up the position that I'm prepared to entrust the process at minis will all voice different set of recommendations. I entrust professionals to do jobs appropriately and take all of that into consideration. I'm entrusting the applicant who will renew efforts for unity outreach. We saw a good example of that in the first project this morning, where I think it resulted in a very simple and smooth process. Clearly, you have impassioned people who are all bordering on the property and have strong opinions. I suggest you listen to them. But I'm still prepared to move forward with the next thing because I believe in the formality of it will result in proper outcome. Before you make your motion before it. I just want to ask a question. So I understand what I'm voting on. The delta of time between this meeting and when we see it again for the tentative map, what would you estimate that be? It could be months. The applicant has to complete this process which will likely be completed by the end of this month. And then the applicant will need to submit their tentative map application. That needs to be reviewed for completeness. There needs to be completion of the CEQA document and review for the project. And that gets distributed for public review period. It's likely that during the public review period of that document, the town would return to the committees. Per sequa, any recommended body, has to have the ability to review the sequa document. And so therefore, the town can start going back to the committees during the public review period for the SQL document. And all committee members would be provided access to the lengths of hard copies if desired. The process is self-tuning, I think I've raised on the stage of the explanation that the developer and the engineering firm actually be motivated to meet these requirements on these recommendations to align the recommendations to get with smoother sailing with the objectives of the division. In the applicant will take any of the recommendations and they'll provide responses to how they have or reasons why they did not address certain comments. That's the twist. Okay. So with that, is there a motion? And you can have a motion just to go with- Save something to do. Yeah, you could make a motion and you can have a motion just to go with? Save something. Yeah, you could make a motion and reference the summary that I provided on with the whole work board. Are you comfortable moving forward in the process? The alternative is to motion for a continuation. That's correct. But the same set of recommendations. Okay. Just to like process, I mean, I'm back there real more time. And when I said they will have the comments from all the committees. And I know having worked on these projects before is like you want to have all the comments and address them. Yeah. So to be young. I think the main thing that kind of everything stems from is how the multifamily happens on the slot. Whether it's all concentrated, we've heard different opinions, whether it's all concentrated in one area or spread out. And then all the other things kind of stem from that decision. And if we go through this process and that hasn't been addressed, then it becomes much more. Born into ink versus concrete. And so I guess I wonder. Can we can we. What I'm talking with is could we continue? Can we have a continuous on that recommendation? And all the other ones potentially be addressed by the Subdivision Committee. And getting feedback from the neighbors and coming up with a plan that's more amicable. What specific. What specific. What specific. What specific. What specific. and then it's more amicable. You say that? It's all together. I'm not sure what they'd be. That the answer to my question is no. And the town council is scheduled, they were tomorrow, but it's now scheduled on July 23rd to review the multifamily housing. So they'll be, all of this will have more, there'll be a more complete recommendation as well as a more complete answer for the applicant to consider moving forward with their tentative map application. To continue the item could be significant delays without having all of the pieces together, right? Just for just, preclarity, sorry, I'm pulling them, dragging things out. The, what the town is, council is considering is just the multifamily rezoning of 10. They would, and the objective design centers, but yes, they would not be considering any of the map, any of the rezoning for the rest of the party. So, yeah, so a lot of them could change after the time council meeting. Potentially. Okay. Got it. I think I could go ahead and make recommendation or a motion. I think we need to see how this is going to play out with all the parties involved. So I would make a recommendation that we put our comments in to stage, which we already have. And those are limited comments. I mean, I know we all have other thoughts, but those are the big ones. And move this forward to the subdivision committee. Is there a second? You said. Chair Lindsey? Yes. Was Chair Lindsay. Yes. Is your comment? Yes. Member D'Augavio. Yes. Member Middleman. Yes. Berthaft. The motion moves. So thank you for everyone. I do want to encourage anyone to provide comments, meet with staff. We're happy to set up time for me with you both through the plans further and you can always check in on any steps more the application is. We will issue a letter within the next day or so and that will be available to the members of the public that provided that participated as available to the members of the public that provided that participated as well as the applicant. Okay, there are no other agenda items. No directors report. No, we just in terms of reports, just kind of on this topic as noted that tomorrow the town council was scheduled to review the the multifamily housing objective design service and housing element the IR for the housing element and that has been continued. HCD is provided comments and looking to expand more housing opportunities throughout woodside. And so to provide a good enough and that are provide an analysis of that information. The item has been continued to July 23rd. All right. Well, that I will adjourn the meeting.