I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And it's realizing that that schools back in session, so we need to see if we can get the third graders back in here for the pleasurable agents. We're going to open public communications, so pursuant to government code section 54954.3a, persons wishing to address the council on non-agendized items that are within the jurisdiction of the town are invited to do so. Please note, however, that the council is not able to undertake extended discussion or to act on non-agentized items. Such items can be referred to staff for appropriate action, which may include placement on a future agenda. This communication period is limited to five persons, three minutes each. Any additional persons wishing to be heard will be scheduled at the end of regular business. I think we'll start in hand raised. All right, last call for public comment. Okay, we're going to close public comment. And this evening our town manager is unfortunately ill. So Jean is stepping into that role for this evening. Thank you, Jean. So no town manager update or report out tonight. So we'll move directly into the consent calendar. And all items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be approved by one roll call motion unless a request is made at the beginning of the meeting. That an item be withdrawn or transferred to the regular agenda. So looking at my fellow council members, any consent calendar items to poll? I have two. Five and six, please. Okay. I'll be brief. All right. Do I hear a motion to approve a consent calendar items one through four and seven? I move that we approve consent calendar items one two three four and seven. Second. Council member Brown. Yes. Council member Dumbkowski. Council member Fluitt. Yes. Council member Gold. Yes. Council member Shaw. Yes. Air wall. Yes. Motion passes six here. Okay. Over. Let's start with item five. Two five and six together, you know mine. I have one question but actually now that you pulled item five, I have a question on it as well. So let's actually do item five first. Okay. So five and six, I'll focus on five. First are the town's response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury report. And I just brought this up because I think we often hear about Grand Jury reports and they have a certain weightiness and almost a sinister that something is wrong and oh my gosh we got a Grand Jury report and we need to respond to it and oh my gosh it's really catastrophic and we're in trouble. Item five is titled, Restaurant Exterior, the Neglected Space. This is what your grand jury has been doing. And this item is about that the health department inspects for those who read this report, it was a bit entertaining, I thought. The health department inspects restaurants, but they don't inspect the front or back of the restaurant where there's garbage and things like that. And so this is an overlooked area. So the grand jury reported this is something we need to do and they're asking for our compliance. The town's response in these things typically is there's usually four, five, six, seven findings. And the answer is that we provide I think it's for those of you who have never read this before is that we agree with the finding that's all it says it's usually one sentence from the town we agree with the finding or we have no information to substantiate the finding and occasionally there's an explanation pretty rarely usually usually there's none but on this one there happened to be one I actually just pointed this out because we're hearing about grand jury reports and how weighty they are. And I think this was actually, you know, I'm not saying it's unimportant, but this is, and by the way, the next one, which I'll talk about in a second, is equally as shocking. Thank you, Paul. Sure. Thank you Paul. Question for I think Brandy in the response prepared by the town in finding six. It says wastewater from the cleaning of trash areas flows into the storm drain systems. Was that the intent of the question? Yes, I believe so. And if it was once to jump in as well, please do so. So I think what they're saying is both wastewater and rain from the trash areas is flowing into the storm drain systems. It's a word I think the wording is a little confusing. Okay, and then the town's response was it doesn't have information available to agree or disagree. I was kind of wondering about that. Like, isn't that something we could figure out? It's really on a case-by-case basis and you have to, I mean, well, I think, yeah, if you're willing, I think you'd like you to answer this question since you have the review over this storm-water compliance. Good evening, Madam Mayor, the Council. In general, obviously, discharge of any kind of fluid of waters into the storm drain is not permitted or permissible. I guess what we're saying is we don't, you have to catch them in the act and kind of see that happening to be able to say yay or nay, this is happening and we don't have enough information on that front to respond. But we agree that this is not permissible and it shouldn't be done. But wouldn't we have information about like if the restaurant, it's not going into the storm drain systems, then where is it going? Well, I think what I'm reading here is that they're washing somehow, they're maybe they're trash cans or whatever, and that water is actually going into the storm drain system, is what I'm interpreting from reading this. And that's not permissible, but in general, they should have a separate obviously system, piping system inside the restaurant, which they do, that sewer goes to the sewer pipe. And it's separate from the water, from the, for example, the sinks and everything that goes into the, it doesn't go into the, well actually that goes in there too. But I guess this is an auxiliary act that they're doing. It's not a systematic thing that they're not up to code on pipes of their piping system, which is why we don't have enough information, which is what I mentioned that these types of things would be like somebody doing their car wash on a street, and that's not permissible either. Okay, so I'm not interpreting it correctly. Our response, we're saying that we as a town, we do not have information about where the wastewater is going from the cleaning of trash areas, from the businesses in town. Or rather that we don't know if they're doing it and if they're doing it, we haven't been a witness to it. Okay, and we have no obligation to know that. Well, if somebody complains and we send the code enforcement officer out there and they catch them in the act and they're subject to an autosavilation. Okay, thank you. And then maybe one question for Jean just kind of building off of Paul's comments. I don't know a lot about grand juries. I do know maybe you can correct me if I was wrong. There's the criminal grand jury is obviously which are in panel in connection with like a criminal matter. And this is very different, right? When we use the term grand jury here, it's a group of citizens that have applied to be on the grand jury and it's really meant to be sort of like a citizen advisory group that, and that's about as much as I know, could you kind of help us understand or just maybe get on the record like what the grand jury in this context is meant to do? You're exactly right. This is a group of citizens. It's appointed by a judge at the court. And then they somehow determine areas that they want to inquire into and find out their information about. They send out these type of reports that they prepare and then request that we respond to them happens every year on many different topics and I cannot tell you why they why they choose the topics they choose. Okay thank you. Yep. For the club it's not a county supervisor or judge that's determining the topics. It's citizens and whatever they feel is important. That right? That's my understanding yes. All right I have no further questions on consent calendar item number five. I don't think anybody has any questions on consent calendar item number six either. Anybody like? Oh yeah sorry I thought you already had. Go ahead. So six was, by the way, I was actually invited to the grand jury many like 15 years ago, and you're exactly right, the civil grand jury, which is determined. As I understood it, we had to decide. I didn't join, but we had to decide the topic on our own. And back then, I didn't join, but it was about CalPERS funding. It was about funding of pensions. I mean, it was a pretty, I thought it was a pretty big deal. And I was actually sorry, I didn't join. But anyway, six is equally devastating. It's a green bin contamination. This is that occasionally the recycle bin erroneously get some compost in it and that this is a big issue that needs to be exposed and resolved. And of course, we did answer that we either concurred with the findings, didn't have enough information or in one case I think that I think it was mostly the town does not have information available to agree or disagree with the findings. But anyway, I'm perfectly content. With that little commentary. Right. Thank you. I would entertain a motion to approve consent calendar items five and six. I will move to approve items five and six. I will move to approve items five and six. Second. Council member Brown, council member Dom Kowski, council member fluid, council member gold, council member Shaw, mayor wall, yes, the motion passes six zero. Thank you, the accommodation. Okay, we are going to move on to old business, item A. And I leave before we get into the substance of agenda item A, looking over to Jean, I think Council member Brown will need to recuse himself. That's correct. Just as to the high road aspect of the discussion. So if you like me to just state for the record, Councilmember Brown will be recusing based on advice from the FBPC that he has a real property conflict of interest in the high road site. And so we have segmented out that discussion from the other zoning amendments so that he can rejoin the council when you consider the rezoning of the three additional properties after you've taken action on high road. Correct. Okay. Jean, would you like to tee up for us the high road proposed ordinance? Yes, thank you. I think I'll just tee up the whole group of ordinances that you have in front of you. So on July 30th of 2024, you introduced amendments to a couple of your zoning ordinances, and you did this in order to implement the programs that are called for in your approved housing element. Tonight is the time at which you would do a second reading and adopt those ordinances, and just for the public, any ordinance needs two readings, and that's why you're back considering these for a second time. If adopted, the zoning would change for four properties, two town owned properties and one private property and the Kinyada College. The staff report describes in pretty great detail and I know the public has attended all your meetings to date so I won't go into the underlying history of this. But just to say the process this evening will be for you to consider the high road site first, to take public comment on that, and then to act on the high road site. Once that's done, Council Member Brown will rejoin you, and at that point you will then consider the rezoning for the remaining three sites. Sage is here, the planning director Sage Sean to answer any questions you might have on the report itself and Matt Francois, our CEQA outside council is also here by Zoom. On can answer any questions you may have related to CEQA and with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Jean. So like Jean said, we'll do council questions for staff related to the high road topic. Then we'll take public comment. We'll have council deliberations. And then we will vote. After that vote, council member Brown will be able to return. So looking down at the panel, Brian, would you kick us off with any council member questions? Yeah, I think I guess there are two questions that I get from the public the most. One is that we have a programmatic EIR and this is going back to something that we discussed, so I just thought we'd ask it again. Project level EIRs, what triggers them? How do we know that we're going to see them for the density sites? I think I'll defer that answer to Matt Francois, please, who should be on Zoom with us. Yes, good evening, Mayor Wall, members of the council. Matt Francois, Retana Tucker, outside council to the town. And council member on an issue like this with the housing element or which is a part of your general plan as you know or any large planning document. It's very typical or a program EIR to be prepared for that broad comprehensive document because it contains a lot of different policies, objectives, and goals that will be implemented over a long period of time. That's in contrast to a project level, a secret document which would be done for an individual development project and is routinely done for those projects as they come forward. So in this case in terms of the assurances that you would have that future development activities would be studied under SICWA, that is the law, even though the program EIR looked at the impacts of the rezoning actions on a broad and comprehensive fashion. The law still requires that the next opportunity, if a development is proposed on one of these sites and seeks discretionary approvals from the town, then Sequa kicks in again and there needs to be an analysis done as to whether or not the specific impacts of that development project have been adequately addressed by the program EIR. There needs to be an analysis done as to whether or not the specific impacts of that development project have been adequately addressed by the program EIR. So it is the law that that check-in has to happen when those individual projects come forward. Thank you. That's great. The other question I'm getting a lot of recently is, I guess at some point in our deliberations, we said that there would be subcommittees that would involve the citizens around the density sites. And there's these questions about, well, how would you define the charter of that? Is it, do we need to codify that or is it just something that we're going to do? When would we do it? When would they be involved? Is there going to be an RFP process that they could weigh in on? And so there's, I get it, it's always a public process, don't know, but apparently in our deliberations, it was stated that we would do this. And I guess one of the questions is should we codify that or is there something that we should be doing with that? To make sure that that promise, if that's how it was interpreted is something that's going to come to fruition. I don't think you necessarily have to codify it because usually what you're doing with ordinances is putting in place broader rules that last for a long period of time. And what I think you're talking about here is part of the discussion that will be involved when the town determines that it wishes to proceed with considering a development on either one of the town approved or town owned sites. And so it's at that point that the council and this would all need to be done in a public meeting, not in any kind of closed session. You'll have to determine what process you want to utilize to solicit developer what you want to look at project wise. That's a very involved's at that point, if you determine you want a subcommittee or a steering committee, sometimes that's what it's called, of citizens to be involved, that would be the time at which you would establish that. Okay. And just timetable wise as a reminder, we have to issue RFPs early in 25, I guess, and then we have to make decisions in a two-year period on any responses. Or, isn't there a timetable that is associated with the density sites? Well, you need to make something happen within this cycle. And as you know, we're already two years into the cycle. Okay. Sorry. And I think Sage is indicating there are some target dates, so I'll let him talk about those. I don't have the specific dates in front of me. I do know that in terms of starting the RFP process, that's something we would be needs start next year in 2025. And so that would work its way through the council developing what should go into the RFP and then we would send that out and see what proposals we get and work through the public through the town council that way. Yeah, okay. Just a reminder, there's three of us that are around next year to fulfill that commitment. Okay, I'll stop for a second. Thank you. Council member Shaw? Yeah. Um, so we're reading through. The packet again, the one significant new item that's here is the whole question around. Egress and we have the letter from the fire marshal in our packet. I'm wondering. I want to put you reserved that for the high. Sorry, I can wait. I mean, well, could bring it up now, but I think I don't think that relates to high. I want to be redundant. All right, looking down this way. Council member Gold. I do have a few questions. Just to most of these questions are for the benefit of the public and people on Zoom. I think I know the answers to them, but I wanted to at least clarify. The required vote count tonight for this first part is four votes. It's correct. And we must actually pass this for Council Member Brown to rejoin. If it doesn't pass, he can't rejoin. Well, you could still consider the other sites if you wanted to after you take action. This one, whether it passes or not. Okay. I didn't know them. So I'm glad I asked. And to review where we are, I appreciate your opening comments about it. So at the last, at the marathon meeting that we had, the one that went late into the night, we adopted the housing element at that point in time, so that's done. And that included the schedule of sites. So we're not discussing the schedule new sites. This is just zoning. That's correct. We also approved the EIR at that time. That is the programmatic EIR. Correct. And we approve changes to the general plan. That's correct. So Those are subject here. We also approve the objective design standards. That's correct. So we're not discussing those. This is strictly zoning and first part just about I wrote. Correct. And then the last question. I have two questions. The timing for an appeal that did come up, obviously, we, it was a point of contention with at the opening comment at our last meeting, I think it was our last meeting. What is the timing to file appeals on these on the zoning actions, or has that already passed? There is no appeal from a zoning action. Okay, so they do have to file a lawsuit. There is no administrative appeal. Okay. And then the last thing, just piggybacking on to file a lawsuit. There is no administrative appeal. Okay. And then the last thing, just piggybacking on what council member Dom Kowski had mentioned about the committee. So as I understand it, and I think we mentioned this at a previous meeting, I think the mayor actually talked about having a committee do this. And I think it's a great idea. So the suggestion is that we have a steering committee that will handle each of the two town owned sites to determine how we're going to RFP them, what they're going to look like, the details around them, and report back to the council. That is my understanding what was discussed. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. I guess similar. Sorry. I just want to probably timely. I don't think that was a suggestion for me. I don't recall making a suggestion. So just wanted to get that out there. It's a good one. I think it was mine actually. Full attribution. Council member flew. I guess outside of the idea of a citizen or resident steering committee. I've asked this before and you've answered before by thing. Same thing for the people on Zoom and people in the room. Could you tell us what are the? I guess the bear requirements. What are the steps that have to take place before anything is built on the town on sites? Now I do like the idea of having steering committee and other things we could do to involve the public, but let's say if nothing else, what do we have to do to eventually have a building on these town on sites. So you would need first of all to decide what kind of a project you want to put on that site. And that's a theoretical planning exercise that involves the public usually. It will always in one form or another through public meetings or through steering committees, through ad hoc committees. You would then once you have determined what sort of project you might be willing to consider, you then would issue an RFP. There would be some opportunity for developers to respond to that under the surplus lands act that adds some additional timing to it. So we're really talking about a fairly long process. Once you have identified a developer that you want to talk to, you would then begin a negotiation with that developer for what's commonly called a development agreement, which would outline the terms under which the property would be developed. Somewhere in there either the developer would be taking responsibility for the design or the town would be involved somehow in that. All of that would come back again through public meetings to be approved as to what the design would look like. So what we're talking about is a pretty long process in my experience on the few projects like this that I've worked on in other jurisdictions. So I guess there's more of a ask for your advice. We were to do a public steering committee. So some kind of public group. I meant we wanna get them in place first before we did anything else. I think you'd want to involve them right up front. Yes, absolutely. Great, thank you. Great. Yeah, I had a question around density. I've seen, I've gotten some questions or seen some questions asked around the density of the high roadside. I think there's two parts of that, right? There's the density proposed on the housing element and then in connection with the rezoning. And sage, I thought if you wouldn't mind just kind of reminding us how we got to the zoning housing element and then also the zoning and their proposed work and that's a density standpoint. So for the or HDD to consider these high density sites, the ton of woodside they had to be zoned at least 20 units per acre. HDD does acknowledge that some sites are constrained, you may not always reach that density and they did accept the target density of 16 units on that side and the sites of Brox-Mellia-Naker. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? All right, we will open this topic up for public comment. Anybody in the room wanting to make public comment? This is just high road. All right. I'm not seeing any. All right. Okay. Hi, Kim Hanson. I'm on Remundo. I have a question specifically for high road looking at the zoning. It says for this particular site. And for the multifamily zoning, it says you can do site grading, make, 1500 cubic yards without planning commission approval of an exception. So does that mean there's un, I'll just list my questions. Does that mean there's in this zone for any property that is zone multifamily? Does that mean any multifamily site can have unlimited grading? Is that how we are to interpret this particular portion of the zoning. And the second part is, multiple-only residential may occur on slips in excess of 35% without approval of a variance. So as I remember, high is in excess of 35%. I mean, this is kind of a big deal. We're saying any site, inward side that's re-zoned multi-family can have unlimited removal of dirt, unlimited slope. I just, I think that for the high road site, that those two factors make it a very dangerous place to do this type of development. And I think for zoning that this is really a bad idea for the present and the future. Thank you. Thank you, Kim. All right, so I wanna make sure we get Kim's questions answered related to both site grading and slopes. I think, say, I'm going to turn it over to you to address her questions. So after all, I would like to make it a small comment. Yeah, we will absolutely get to you. I think we're going to answer Ms. Hansen's questions first. And then you can go next. So the zoning in this particular zoning district would not require a gradient exception. It wouldn't suggest it allows unlimited grading. There's lots of limits to grading in terms of other constraints on sites, but it does not require planning approval of a gradient exception. So that is just being made clear. And also to develop on slopes and excess of 35%. I'm also there is no variance required on those sites, so just to not require planning commission variance approval to develop on those steep slopes. Yeah, Kim, come up, you can follow up on your question. So who approves it? The town owns the site. Well, directed to me in the role. The town owns the site and the town makes the rules. And the planning commission doesn't get a say in it. So I know sometimes the collection of words is a little obtuse for me. But what I heard is town on the site, town makes the rules, town can do what they want in multifamily. Okay, thanks, Sage, could you maybe elaborate more on some of the constraints to Zoni, I'm going to grating and develop it on slopes? And to be extent, I want to talk about responding to Kim's question. Yeah, I mean, in terms of constraints, it's just site by site that you could, I mean, primarily due to technical constraints would be involved but again with the town on sites the town council will, sorry the town council will choose how those sites get developed and it'll have to go through that process so whether it's 1800 cubic yards, 1200 cubic yards that's something that the town council need to consider as part of design that it proves for the town on sites. As can follow yeah, yeah, so these lifting of constraints. Or at the behest or command of HCD. I wouldn't say directly before. They didn't directly ask for that. It was a way to make sure that these sites could be developed without these types of constraints. All right. Next comment. My name is Marcela Mahahoni, the Lalqasar. And we already talk about everything. So I'm not going to ask any questions. I just want to make a comment that the decision that you guys are making is really bad. It's going to affect the people at what side. I think you guys are not thinking and the people that like us, I would have been here for more than 20 years paying our taxes and doing everything you could have found in other places and you are not thinking that there is so much traffic, everything was listed. There is so much traffic coming, I would like you to invite all of you to go a busy time, eight o'clock in the morning, two o'clock, three o'clock in the afternoon. When the traffic is coming for high road, all the trucks and everything they go down, they are stopping and hiding. They go through high road and they don't give them anything about anything. So putting kids and putting other people over there, we will affect them as well. It's going to affect us with only trafficking with everything. And you are not thinking about all the wildlife that we have there. We care, we protect our places. Now, you're going to put 16 more units. It's just going to know good for them to, because they're going to have kids, they're going to have animals, so much traffic, and we are going to live. And also, if we decided to live with my husband, even is going to affect the price of her property because we have to say at this close that there's going to be a construction over there of this type of houses. So I would like to encourage all of you to think about that. There's so many places that you can put these units. It's not that we are against it. It's the problems that is going to cause. The people could actually live in there and the problem that it will be for the people that they are going to come here. It's so much traffic. It's really bad. Bad decisions. So please think about it. Thank you for listening. Thank you. All right. I'm not seeing any hands up in the Zoom room or any other public comments in the room. All right. Please approach the microphone. Oh, Mr. He was just a point of process. We are only covering the high road site right now. We're not covering the other. I thought that might be relevant to you. Are any further comments in the room? All right. I would not sing hands hands up so I'm going to close public comment and move into the council deliberations portion. Council member Dom Kowski. Where to the council member who's district discipline discussion. You sure? With the mayor's consent. Well, I mean councilmember Shaw, or do you have anything? Yes, take it away Paul. Um, so thank you. I appreciate. I think that I'm not surprised that there's not a lot of people here tonight because I think that the last few meetings were very painful. And I am going to try to keep my remarks brief because as councilmember Shaw pointed out last time I think I spoke for a half hour and I, what's it? And I apologize for that. I try to write down my comments so I can be efficient and I usually ramble, I'm rambling already. I have a spoiler alert for those who are in attendance because tonight's vote is very likely going to be the same as our first vote. I just wanted to manage expectations. I see no reason to change mine, and I presume that my colleagues don't see any reason to change theirs. But before I begin, I just wanted to note that although I disagree with my colleagues on this particular issue, I think citizens should know that the five of us, the six of us, when council member Brown is here, we generally agree on most issues. I think you see this on the Supreme Court that I think 90% of their decisions are unanimous, but we tend to focus on the I-4, the 6-3 votes. And this is one of those, although it's likely 4-1 or 5-1. This issue is different though. And I suspect that if their districts were allocated 91 of the 124 of the town's multifamily units as mine has been. Instead of zero as their districts enjoy, they might feel just a bit differently. There's no need for me to comment on the merits of this particular zoning change on high road beyond pointing out this site is absurdly unsuitable for a small single family home, let alone a 16-unit apartment building. I think that if we can change the zoning from one extreme, open space, our most protected designation, to a brand new one never used in Woodside before, MF-20, multi-family 20 units per acre, then our zoning laws are meaningless, because we changed this completely, capriciously. This was done to accommodate the state. This has nothing to do with the merits. And I think the council has never even discussed the merits. I'm going to get to that in just a second. We're doing this because the state has a proverbial gun to our head, and I get that. But if we can make that kind of change, this because the state has a proverbial gun to our head and I get that. But if we can make that kind of change, how do we hold others to those zoning regulations? I mean, we have zoning regulations that say you can't even put a second driveway in and we've red tag projects because they violate. We had just had one on my street that was red tag because of a retaining wall. And yet we just say open space, our most protective status, we're now going to build a 16-unit condominium there. It just, to me, it just seems outrageous. I think it is outrageous. So, in spite of spending time arguing about the merits, I'd rather focus on process and fairness issues related to high road. And this will certainly abbreviate my comments on the next issue I probably won't even have any. It's, I mentioned before that we haven't heard a single argument in support of any site, Ramundo, high road, any of the sites. I don't need to name them. So we're supposed to focus on high road. Not from a single citizen at the microphone and not from a single planning commissioner and not from a single member of the town council. That is supporting a site. Now, I attended, you may think I'm crazy for doing this, but it was a couple of years ago. I attended a Redwood city hearing about Sequoia Station, the development there. And the audience was very divided. I mean, some people talked about the merits of Sequoia Station. I mean, it's got main highways, El Camino Rial, it's got the trains there, it's got a bus station, it's got proximity to transportation, schools, fire libraries, medical care, the police, town hall, I mean, all sorts of things, recreation. No one's spoken favor of these sites. No one ever said, gee, you know, high road, it's such a great site. It's really perfect for this use. There were people who spoke in favor of affordable housing in general, but not one comment, not one that I recall, supported this particular site. I've heard zero support in this particular, as opposed to the Redwood City meeting that I just referred to which took place. I think it was two years ago. There was support for sites and opposition to sites. Here, I haven't heard any support for the sites other than to say we need affordable housing and I agree with that. In fact, at these hearings from the public at both the town council and at planning commission meetings, there has been near universal opposition to this plan. And when our town council votes and our planning commission votes are so out of sync with members of the public and our citizens. Something's wrong. I get it. I understand the reason why I'm not dumb. I certainly do that. I'm going to comment on that in a second. But our citizens are not dumb either. They're very well versed on these issues. Some of them more better versed on these issues than we are. But we just plow it ahead. And the principal rationale, as I mentioned, of the town council has been this Darth Vader from Sacramento. If we don't pass this housing element and do it soon, the HCD is going to swoop in and destroy us. And we just can't have that. I'm kidding, of course, they're not going to destroy us. They're not going to kill us. But what they say is going to happen, and I don't disagree with some of these comments, is the attorney general is going to take over our permitting, they're going to impose fines on us, and we'll be exposed to that dreaded builder's remedy. Oh my gosh. Never mind that Woodside has been exposed to the builder's remedy for two full years. And as I said before, I can't help but notice the absence of the line of contractors and builders and developers outside town hall seeking their remedy. It just hasn't happened and it hasn't happened because our town is simply not appropriate say that the consequences aren't serious. They are and I get that, but they've been overstated. And I'm going to give you an example, a very specific one that actually Council Member Brown was referring to a bit earlier. I'm not aware of a single city or town. I may be wrong. I do Google it. I Google it just before this meeting. It's been fined. And as for the infamous Beverly Hills experience that their permitting has been shut down, well, let's say that turned out to be somewhat overblown. I know this because I spoke with Michael Forbes and Beverly Hills. Michael Forbes is the head of community development there. Planning, building, permitting, report to him. He's an executive there. And I spoke with him and I told him about G. I've heard about Beverly Hills. By the way, if you Google it, it doesn't really come up. There's not a lot of information there. And I asked him, G. I heard your permitting was shut down by Sacramento that they came in and you can't even like, I think the word was, you can't even get a bit and he said, actually that's not quite the case. And by the way, he was very forthcoming. I just called him, he picked up the phone right away. And what actually happened was this was a civil lawsuit. It was from the California Realtors Association with suing Beverly Hills over a very specific project. And the judge, Judge Kin, KIN, was very frustrated with Beverly Hills because they were delaying things and Judge Kin imposed sanctions against Beverly Hills by saying, you are no longer allowed to issue permits on anything except new housing. That would actually include hot water heaters and he immediately stayed his order. Now, since Beverly Hills, by the way, according to Michael Forbes, not a single permit was ever stalled or delayed, not actually none even came in before it was stalled, before it was stayed. And so there's been some misinformation and I understand that I don't, you know, it's hard to find this information unless you take the time to speak with these people personally. But I think the Beverly Hills experience is important because it's been pointed out to us that we don't want to be like them and actually it had no issue whatsoever. Since that time, Beverly Hills is now in compliance. They actually have their housing element is approved and so I said, so what happened to that stay? He said it's moot. It doesn't matter anymore because we have an approved thing, we're in compliance. So there is nothing else that's left to do. So as I said earlier, and I'm going to try to wrap up my remarks because there's no need to lay the inevitable here, I said that not a single speaker spoke in favor of a development site. And that's not entirely accurate. Actually, one speaker did discuss the positive aspects of one site, and that speaker was me. I spoke in favor of using Canyada College. I don't know if you'll recall, but I mentioned five items that I wanted to do, reduce the density at two of the sites, the two town owned sites, to something more reasonable, like three, four, five units. But I also said that, can you know how to college was uniquely suitable for this? It's a, it's actually a pretty good site. It's flat. It's a buildable. It has sewer, electric, water, gas, utilities, tons of parking, great roads, lots of resources and services. It's got a library of school, childcare, recreation, a state of-art gym, transportation, librarian school. Doesn't sound a lot like high-road, doesn't sound a lot like Brimundo. Easy access to Jefferson, easy access to the 280. And no, I don't like the specific location on their parcel that they picked before the people on Gaudisha are raising their eyebrows at me. I don't support the location they have, but Cognata College is 131 acres. They should be able to find a location on that that does an impact woodside neighbors or just as importantly, Redwood City neighbors either. I don't wanna treat Redwood City like I think parts of Woodside are treating District 4. And so this is not a NIMBY issue for me. I'm willing to take them all. I think Kenyatta wrote, I'm sorry, Kenyatta College is an absolutely appropriate site. And to the extent we can locate a site there, we're not going to make a change now, we're not changing the schedule. But to the extent we could find a location on that 131 acres to locate these, you would have my undying support. After a recent meeting, one council member shouted at me in the parking lot, well, don't you want a housing element? And I said, yes, I do, indeed I do, but not this one. I don't think this one is fair or reasonable and it places the town's entire burden on a small fragile neighborhood. And that's not right, that's not how we do things in Woodside. I don't think that's very neighborly. And I don't like to criticize or reject anyone's plan. I think you may know that of me by now without offering an alternative. And so I proposed alternatives. I actually proposed them twice. I did want it the last meeting. I had listed that five point alternative plan. And it was very quickly dismissed without any discussion. It's too late. I was told that ship is sailed. And you know, maybe that's true. It is too late. But we could have held hearings at any time during the prior 18 months when we were holding such important meetings on such weighty issues as our flag policy, paying our town council members, defending a non-existent plan to disband our volunteer committees or meeting to approve the holding of this in the November election. Those we do, in fact, we devoted entire meetings to those single agenda items. But the housing element we hadn't met on it since January 31st, 2023. And so I think that, and by the way, I did ask for those meetings. I asked for them in writing. I actually checked my emails. I did it at least eight or nine times. I just stopped looking after that. And every member of the town council was copied on those emails. But they were denied. They were not brought to light. And I think that that was a mistake. Because instead what we did was I think the most egregious thing of all. And in that we crammed all of these contentious, consequential issues into a single agenda item. We actually held a single public hearing to adopt the housing element, to change the general plan, to adopt the objective design standards, and to approve an, what was it like, a 200-page environmental impact report, and to rezone for properties. In the past, each of these items would be devoted to an entire meeting. I mean, if we completed those in a three-hour meeting, I think we would consider that an accomplishment. Instead, we took all of these issues and put them in a single agenda item. And so it's no wonder that it was a six-hour meeting that ran till one o'clock in the morning where we actually had to vote to extend the our time constraints and extend the meeting. At 1 a.m. it became pretty clear that we were out of time and energy and gas and we told everyone to go home. And many of our friends and neighbors who came to speak and sat in those chairs for six hours without having their subject come up so they could come up and speak. This is after they did all the planning, put together their thoughts, put together their notes in some cases, put together presentations. They never got a chance, they sacrificed that evening. They planned for babysitters for their kids and they came here and they did not get a chance to even speak, they had to come back a week later to do that. I think that was absurdly unreasonable and a very bad way to treat. In fact, it was one of the worst public hearings I've ever witnessed and I've seen quite a few over my 25 years here. It was upsetting, it was frustrating, and I actually saw some friends and neighbors leave this meeting in tears. That's not an overstatement. I apologize to them for that. That's not the way we should be treating them. It was wrong and our citizens I think deserve better. But here we are. And this is going to happen, whether we like it or not. Your objections don't really matter. They've never been addressed. I mean, when you bring up that, there's too much... I haven't heard anybody say, well, you know, we're gonna mitigate the traffic or the slope. We're gonna figure out a way to do that. We're not talking about the merits. We're talking about Sacramento. And we could probably discover a den of pandabars on this site where some forgotten nuclear waste dump there. And I'm sure we'd still hear what about the builders remedy. So no, I'm unable to make the required findings and I'm going to be voting no on the high road rezoning and I will spare you and won't repeat this message for the next one of this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Gold. I'm going to refute your no public support comment because there were at least two people, one who spoke in favor of high road and another who spoke in favor of Ramundo at the microphone. And that doesn't account for the private conversations from people who do support it, but are afraid of the abuse that they would get from their neighbors from speaking in public. So, you know, we could go down the list, but I think when you say nobody spoke in favor of them, there were, and one was Rob Hollister, who doesn't live in, he lives in your district, but not near high road, and another who lives in the glens who's in your district who both stood up in public and quite bravely in front of 10X, a number of people in this room and said, I think these are sites that we have to have and we have to have multi-family at them. So. There. I'll also just say I appreciate the council's willingness to adopt additional resolutions around second Egress and around owner occupied and welcoming the next generation of which I'd residents through ownership and because of the support of the council on those resolutions, I will be voting yes. On this measure. Jay think made it better. Yeah, I guess the only thing I can say that has not already been said at many meetings, which is this is beginning of a very long process that will have significant public input from people in this room, other neighborhoods, including town council and staff and that all concerns have been heard and all concerns will continue to be heard. So I am in favor. I'm also in favor. I mean, we've been over this topic. We know additional new information has been received. That would change my vote. I think what I'm struggling a little bit with is, you know, Paul, you're definitely a zealous advocate. But I think, you know, you weren't on the council for a large portion of time when the housing, this, this cycle of the housing element was kicked off when other persons were looked at. I think that sometimes context and history is neglected in the way that you present some of the information. So to make sweeping statements that there have been process or fairness issues or that to draw conclusions around no one speaking you know, speaking out in favor or etc. I think it's not always an accurate representation of the history of this issue. So I'll leave it there. Any other council member deliberations. All right, with that, I would entertain a vote on the high road. Sorry, yes, I'd like a motion. You want me to make a motion? I'll move that we decline it. That would you second that I'm not going to. To decline it. I'll move. Yeah, I will move that we adopt. The amendment to the zoning map designation for APN 06-9-170-450, high road parcel from open space for preservation of natural resources to MF. I'm going to look to Gene to make sure I got that correct before we start. Second. Council member Brown is recused. Council member Dom Kowski. Council member Fluet. Yes. Councilmember Gold. No. Councilmember Shaw. Yes. Mayor Wal. Yes. The motion passes four yeses. One no one recusal. All right. meeting now that Councilmember Brown is back in attendance. We're going to move on to the topic of the rezoning of the remaining parcels. That's the Kinyada College overlay, 773 Kinyada and Rai Mundo. Jean, do you have anything to add? No, just to say that we're available for any questions here at the staff table. Thank you. OK. I'm just got a message from somebody saying they're trying to join the webinar is still open to it. It's going. We have people in the room. Yes. All right. Yeah, no problem. Okay. I'm looking down the table this way. Council member dump. I'll see you when it kicks off. Yeah, I. Yeah, the, the, the issue around second, Egris and the letter from the Fire Marshal and just interpreting that it's a little bit of a two sletter at some level. So what is she saying? So let me give you a little context to the letter and then I'll tell you what she's saying in the letter. So at a staff level we started to hear real concerns being expressed by residents that the property on Ramondo was out of compliance with the fire code as currently built out and there was concern expressed about that. And there was also a concern that was being expressed as staff that no additional development of any sort could occur in that neighborhood unless a second access road was provided. And so we reached out to the fire department because we were being advised that those two thoughts came from conversations that may have occurred with some officials at the fire department. And what we were advised and what is indicated in the letter is that neither one of those statements is true. What the fire code, the particular section of fire code that was being referred to comes in a section of the fire code that deals with the development of subdivisions. And what it indicates is if someone is proposing a project that has more than 30 units and those are going to be placed on one parcel, then that particular section of the fire code says that you are going to have to provide a second access road or you are going to have to put sprinklers in your entire project. So the statement that the neighborhood has currently exists is in violation of the fire code is incorrect and the statement that no further building can occur in that neighborhood is incorrect. And this code section would apply only if you have somebody who is proposing a development with 30 or more units. And that's what the letter says. Okay. The other one I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Late into the evening when we were doing the Kinyata College, a 120-foot setback was laid down on one of the overlays. Did we receive any feedback from Kinyata College around whether that creates a buildable issue anyway on that site? I'm not, I don't not I don't have it. They didn't nobody nobody looked into it after 120 foot setback and then just and to clarify for the records that the council passed 110 foot 110. But my and I just to clarify but I'm not I don't believe the town manager has had any further conversations. Okay. Okay, that's it for the moment. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Okay. Council Member Shaw. Council Member Gold. So if I understand it correctly, are you saying your position that a second access route is not required or the remando site. I'm just interpreting, I'm just telling you how the fire code section is being interpreted by the fire marshal. That a second, but, but in, in the resolution that you adopted for the zoning, it specifically instructed staff to explore a second axis. Got it. And that actually was what I was leading to because I thought we asked for it and regardless of that position and a question for sage. Is there a second road there? I know that there's that trail that runs up the long defense line at the continuation of running me that runs all the way up the 280 all the way down to the canyotta road where crosses under the freeway. But is that an access route? I don't know if it is wrong. I'm not sure. It's outside the town's jurisdiction. I'm just not sure if it's designated for any fire access road or not. Yeah, it's like a trail of some sort. OK, that's it. Thank you. OK, no questions from me either. We're going to open up the public comment period. Any public comment in the room? Hi, I'm Sue. I live on Ramando. The California State and Woodside Fire Codes limit the number of dwellings on a single fire apparatus road to 30. Runnymead, Ramando and Marva Oaks constitutes a single fire apparatus road already at the legal limit of dwellings. So the next 17 dwellings will exceed the limit by an additional 17. Attempts to get around this by any means other than finding direct support for it in the fire code is at best irrationalization and not legally sustainable. There are already statements made by influential people that are in fact opinions contrary to enforce the code. The fire official has the authority, which is limited, to interpret the code. Such interpretations shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code, and shall not waive the requirements of the code. If applications are nonconforming, the fire code official shall not issue a permit, but shall return the application to the applicant with a refusal to issue the permit. If the permit does not comply with the fire code, the permit isn't... Sorry, the fire code official is authorized to revoke a permit issued under the provision of this code where it is found in violation of this code. Thank you. Appreciate it. If a permit slips through, it is still a liability and remains invalid and to resolve by compliance. For the past two years, we residents have voiced our concerns about our health and safety. Our street borders huddock park, Golden Gate, and San Francisco watershed, which encompasses thousands of acres of fire fuel. Evacuation is critical for us. I can imagine there's a lot of pressure to favor developing the Ramundah site over the health and safety of us citizens. The fire code official is bound to interpret the code, and that interpretation shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of the code and shall not waive the requirements provided for in the code. Section D107, one or two family developments, isn't that what we on Ramando, Rani Mehta, Marva Oaks are a residential development. We may be an older existing residential development and if we are not a residential development, then what are we? We're not commercial, not agricultural. We are a residential development. The FireCode D107 specifically states, developments of one or two family dwellings, or the number of dwellings exceeds 30, shall be provided with two separate and approved fire access roads. It would be incorrect to conclude since the Ramando parcel is planned for 17 new dwellings, which is under the 30 that the existing fire apparatus access road, runny made Ramando and Marba Oaks is adequate. That interpretation implies that the neighbor across the street could also build up to 30 dwellings, as could the neighbor next door and the neighbor next door. Where would that lead us? This clearly contradicts the intent of the fair code, which limits the number of dwellings to 30 on a single fire apparatus access road. The addition of 17 new dwellings, in addition to the 30 existing dwellings on this single fire apparatus access road would violate the fire code and to comply would require a separate fire apparatus access road in addition to the existing runnymead remando and marva oaks fire apparatus access road safety must come first. The health and safety of the 80 or more residents living and working among, along Runnymead, Ramando, Marva Oaks is of utmost importance. Just because the town is eager to develop this site does not justify putting our lives at risk, especially in the event of a wildfire. We rely on the fire code to safeguard our health and safety. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Sue. So I do know that the town staff and the town attorney have looked really closely at this issue when it was raised over the last couple days. So I do want to turn it back over to Jean or town attorney. I think you kind of already answered the questions related to this, but if you could kind of reiterate the town's interpretation of section D107.1 and how that relates to the need or not need for an additional fire access road. Sure, and I know that Mrs. Politi doesn't agree with this. She and I have had long conversation about this, but the way that we interpret and the way that the fire district is interpreting this code section is that it indicates when you have a one-in-two family development that involves 30 or more units that will be placed on a single property. That is when this section is triggered requiring a second access. But as Council Member Gold just pointed out, and as Council Member Dumkhowski indicated, the Council has directed that a second access road be looked at as part of this project, even though this code section, fire code section does not require it. Okay, thank you. That makes it very clear. May I just... I'll roll quick. My husband,'t here. May you use his three minutes if that's appropriate. You mentioned 30 or more units. The fire code states dwellings. I'm aware of the fire marshal's letter. I interpret it to mean if you're going to build on that Ramondo site, if you have 30 or more units, you need a second access road. Well, she and I have gone back and she just sent me an email right now. She has not yet defined the code for us that backs up her assertion. She mentioned yes, that site, 30 units or more requires the second access road. I'm saying, Remundo Runny-Meet Marva-Ox, we are living in a residential development. And the fire code states, we are requiring a second-ass access road. The minute you put number 31 on our road, so this new development will require a second access road. And she has yet to back that up with code. She's talked to some officials and they talked about a subdivision, parcel subdivision. They talked about a neighborhood. Nowhere have I found yet in the fire code those words. And I've asked for her to cite the source and. And sorry and just to be clear when you say she and her you're referring to. To her and is a very the fire marshal I've asked her to fight to cite the code. If I'm wrong, please prove me wrong and I'll accept that I'm wrong. But right now she and I are still going back and forth. I think she's under a tremendous, my personal feeling. I know that that site backs the fire shed. I've asked if you all have looked at an access road for the fire shed. I spoke to two managers. One is the land manager. He said it's virtually impossible to get a road through there. So you guys know that. We know this. So I know it's very tough. you guys have you back against the wall and you're trying to make this work. But the far code officials and there are two have the responsibility the code states that it has to obey the code. And at this point, I would suggest that letter were not finished yet. We're not it. It's not gospel. Thank you. OK. Thank you, Sue. Yes, Council Member Cha. Right. So I mean, under that interpret, well, I can save it for deliberation. Yeah, sounds good. All right, I'm seeing Thalia and Steve's hand up in the Zoom room, so we're gonna go to you. Can you hear me? Yep, we can hear you. This is Steve Lubin. I have two comments and one is the area that's designated for reviewoning at 7773, Kniata is based on an unapproved subdivision map. I think that's appropriate. As I think it would be more appropriate to use the rectangle in the housing element that using the area from the subdivision map implies some prejudice towards approving subdivision that has not yet been approved. So I'd ask you to change that. The other issue is the objective design standards. And I think the discussion at 1 o'clock in the morning about Kinyana College illustrated how poorly considered these are. I think it's time to get a group of architects who worked in town to work on these, on revising these standards, much like the town got a committee to work on the residential design standards, which are excellent. One of the issues on Kinyana College, one council member said, well, the gym is so big anyway, you know, what more harm can be done. The gym is a great distance from the freeway from the edge of the fill bank that is very visible and that if you're going to be, you know, discussing this, there should have been sightline studies on this site to figure out what high climates were appropriate. There were also a lot of kind of stylistic issues in the residential design guides, which I think don't really address our issues. Thank you. Thank you Steve, just Just taking I think you were just making commentary there but were there any questions that you wanted answered? I'm not making questions. I'm asking you to revise the area that's zoned at 773 canyada and I'm asking you to form a committee to revise the subjective design standards. Okay, thank you, Steve. Going back into the room, is there any public comment in the room? Right, Mr. Hughes. So here we are again. Most of you know me, but for anybody on the Zoom who doesn't know me, I'm John Hughes. I bought our land on Mark Oaks in 2006, 18 years ago. So I'm not a new resident here. We built our home, trusting that everything would remain much the same and much the same as Woodside did from 50 years ago when I was in grad school here in law school and business school. And then I left, went to New York, practice law and Wall Street for 40 years, and retired to Woodside to raise my family. I have a younger wife. And I lived at 524, more a road. That was really good in those days. I just wanted to say, you know, I I bring a little bit of history to it. Also, it's an introduction to what I'm going to say about the, um, uh, the fire code. Um, being a lawyer, I researched the thing. I, uh, one of your comments that wasn't mentioned in the meeting about, uh, John, can you direct your commentary to the council? Oh, yes, excuse I um one of the town councils comments was that what she didn't mention was that this only applies to new that this portion of the fire code only applies to buildings to be constructed or buildings to be permitted. So that's another argument for you. But I also read this thing, read some of the judicial interpretations, read other kinds of laws. You know, this is a complicated issue. This is not something that you're going to be able to resolve internally in my view. It is complicated. Just another issue. We were talking here about access. We're not concerned about access. We're not concerned about access. We're concerned about egress. We're concerned about people fleeing from danger. We're not concerned about getting the fire trucks up there. That comes under cal fire and they're airborne units and things like that. This whole fire codes part D is concerned with access. There are detailed instructions on how to build your access roads to accommodate a 75,000 pound fire engine. That's not what we're asking for. We're asking for people to be able to run away. And for safety. And this should be looked at further. And so I would then like to revert to something that you mayor wall proposed and several of my neighbors took note of it applies to high road and Raymondo and that the members of this committee include a member of the community. So that the community at least feels that maybe it had a voice in determining its future determining its safety, the safety of its families, its animals, everybody. So that we establish a committee, definitely with a staff member too, definitely with one or two people from the neighborhood, town council member if you would consider, and any other that you would consider. So I just like to ask you, are you still in favor of establishing such a committee on a timely basis because we have to get started on this, the RFP has to go out and developers have to have to be talked to. And I'm not suggesting that the committee write all the details of the RFP, but it ought to be able to weigh in on the details of the RFP, is it going to require egress? Is it going to require oner occupancy? Is it going to require a sewer? Is it going to, all of these things have to be set forth initially in the RFP. So it has to be done now or within, you know, by the time the new council has seen it. And so may I ask, is this still the opinion of the council? If, if, when you go around, if you could just say committee, yes, committee, no, that would, that would help me and maybe some of my neighbors. Yeah, I mean, I can start. So I, I definitely can't take credit for the committee idea. I think it is something, I think it's a good idea. It's something that we should definitely look into, whether I could say for sure right now, like whether I would 100% support, I think it's something that I'd like sage and the staff to look into and then advise the council on how that would work. I think it's a little unorthodox to establish committee to then weigh in on the RRP process, but definitely interested in understanding more about how that would work. And once I had more details than I could say at year nay, whether or not something that I could support. And the committee would look into this issue on egress also, yeah, that would in my view. But that's in the terms of reference. Yeah, question maybe. So on the topic of e egress just maybe bouncing that topic over to sage. I mean, that's something that most certainly would be addressed. In connection with any development on on this site. Isn't that right? Yes, I mean any development will have to meet all requirements of the code and then further than just requirements for the language of the resolution or the ordinances and other resolutions. That the town will explore looking at additional egress as part of development of those sides. standards. It says right there, these are minimum standards to guide local jurisdictions in the formulation of any code provisions that might be greater than these. It doesn't the fire code doesn't permit us to establish a way for our neighbors to flee. It doesn't permit us. I mean prohibit us from doing so. So anyway, anybody else on the committee? Anybody else on the council like to? John, we were, Mr. Hughes, we were discussing this earlier with High Road and wondering if it should be codified or not. And I think where we ended up with is at least the three of us that are going forward of four of us, I apologize to you. Now that you're in the room, I don't mean to. Would at least, you know, it's almost a promise that that's something we're going to look into doing now. What is that charter look like? I think those are all, and what is the authority and so forth. But and then certainly there was a big discussion around this, you know, being a very public process, of course. But I am in I believe others are in support of community being installed in a steering committee is how we phrased it earlier. Whatever. Whatever. The name whatever. I'll be ready to call it. The function matter, the, uh, the terms of reference matter. Uh, I'd ask you to keep us informed. Uh, by this, we just don't let it die quietly. The staff says always is too complicated. You say, yeah, it's too complicated. Let us at least know so we know what, what, uh, we know to go to option B, option C, whatever. Anyway, thank you for your attention. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. All right, I'm seeing Maggie Maas hand up in the Zoom room. So we'll go over to Maggie. Yes, hi, good evening. I would just like to say that what I remember when you approved this, this site the last time it was with the proviso that there be a second access. And so I'm confused about why there's a question about this now. Thanks. Okay, thank you, Nugget. Sage, can you kind of give context on the second access topic and provide a summary of where we're at on that? Sure. The actual code language, so the planning commission added some language about ensuring that it meets the fire requirements. So that was done. No changes were made to the ordinance at the first reading. So that was introduced. And now it's at the second reading. And then the council added language that the town of Woodside further their acknowledges the broader evacuation concerns associated with single egress site at APN 072041 040 options as well as related to roadway and infrastructure needs near or adjacent to this parcel. And so these are all things that need to be explored as part of development on the site. Maggie, does it answer your question? No, it does not. My understanding is that it was approved with a proviso that there be a second egress. So that's incorrect. So I think. Oh, yeah. It was it was a direction to staff to look. I stand corrected. Thank you. Okay. Any. So I still see Thalia and Steve's hand up in the zoom room. Am I correct that maybe. Thalia wants to speak now? Excuse me. I'm sorry. So I still see Thalia and Steve's hand up in the zoom room. Am I correct that maybe Thalia wants to speak now? Excuse me. This is Steve again. Do you hear me? Yep. Okay. I just wanted to add that, you know, along with the objective design standards that what Kim had brought up about about grading and slopes, I think think all things that are appropriate to be reconsidered. And I just wanted to be sure that you understood that that was included in my request to reevaluate the objective design standards. It doesn't, that would not slow down your rezoning or your movie heading. Other things that I think we could greatly improve what has been done in that regard. Okay, thank you, Steve. Anybody in the room for a public comment? Hi, Kim Hanson, Ray Mundo. Mayor Walg, you had said that if there was new information for the high road topic, you said if there was, you didn't have new information that would allow you to change your vote, I saw a den of radioactive pandas on Ray Mundo on the way here. So the combination of that and the fire code should be exactly what you all need to change your vote. Seriously, I've been here with y'all for two years, two very long years. It's been a heartbreaking experience, it's been a frustrating experience. I mean, some of you we've known each other since our kids were barely potty trained. It's been personally really difficult. I'm not going to go through some of the logic reasons why I think that you shouldn't develop the Rai Mundo site, why you shouldn't adopt the multifamily zoning standards. You know, this whole process, the attorneys are the only ones who are getting rich. Mr. Francois, you saw on your consent calendar his firm received over $15,000 in one month. We, I kind of say why don't we let the state take over our zoning? Why don't we let them take over our planning department? We would probably save money. We wouldn't have to hire all the attorneys. I don't think that the state would propose such a ludicrous project on Remundo. We probably would, even with fines, we probably would save some money. This exercise for the past couple years, when we've talked about some of the housing advocates in town, they haven't said site specific they support this. They've said they want multifamily housing in their neighborhood, in the glens off of Kinyada. And what hasn't happened in this process is there hasn't been a contingency plan. You all have picked a couple sites and as Mr. Fluit was quoted in the Almanac, I think that you all feel like you've minimized it. You feel like you've inflicted the least amount of harm on Woodside and I would correct that because personally you have inflicted harm on a smaller number of your constituents, not on woodside. There are people in woodside who want to be part of this process, who want to be able to either say yes or no how multifamily housing affects them. And to my knowledge, there has not been a parallel tract where you all have looked at other types of solutions to this problem. And I think that that has been a failure. It has also been a failure in what you've done to the small number of families, our safety, our retirement, and the safety and the living situation for future residents of these multifamily sites. I think that has been not a win. You've been successful in identifying sites that aren't near any of your homes. In all of these meetings, the people that show up are the citizens who live in closest proximity to these sites. And I feel like you all have not included other people in this. If you included others, they might be up here. They might be not having time with their family. They might be watching problems to with their family, they might be watching problems to get their homeowners insurance renewed, they might be thinking about how are they going to get out in the course of a fire. It's, I don't know, I don't know how to not repeat myself with the logical arguments that we've made about our dissatisfaction, about what you, what facts that you all have decided to pick. But I think this process has been horrible. I think it's been really awful. And I am looking at my, I'm looking at my list. And the only other thing I would say is that you know the loss of open space, the precedent that you all are setting, this is your legacy, it's an awful one and I really I really hope the Radio Act of Pandas and the fire codes is enough that you'll change your mind and vote against Raymonda. Thank you. Thank you, Kim. I'm not seeing any hands up in the Zoom room, any other further public comment in the room? Yep, can you please approach the mic and introduce yourself again? I'm Sue Paletti, I live under a bando and Mayor, thank you from the bottom of my heart for letting me speak one more time. It's obviously a very important issue for me. Reading the code, it says, development of one or two family dwellings, where the number of dwellings exceeds 30. It doesn't say new development. It doesn't say old developments, existing developments. It says developments. It doesn't say parcel. It doesn't say neighborhood. So I believe that we are a development. Our neighborhood is a development. It's old. It's existing. And it exceeds 30 units. We've got 30 dwellings. Forgive me, per seing units. We have 30 dwellings on our road. If we add more, we're increasing that number and we will need a second access road. Let's throw this out for a moment and say, we're not talking about that. Let's just say we have 30 units, 30 dwellings on our road, and we're going to add 17 more on this parcel. As long as they're under 30, we don't have a need for another road. But the next neighbor is going to add 29, and the next neighbor, we could, in theory, have 900 dwellings on this one road. Would you approve that? Yes or no? Also, would you please ask the attorney to read that passage again about the parcel. how many units would require? Right Sue, keep it directed to me. How many units would you require a second access road? Please just read that one more time for me. Okay, so I'm just going to summarize what I think is happening here, which is Sue, I think you have one interpretation of the fire code and our town attorney has a different interpretation and that the fire marshal shares one interpretation of the fire code, and our town attorney has a different interpretation and that the fire marshal shares the interpretation of the fire code as our town attorney. So I think having a different interpretation, Sue is fine, but I think our town attorney has now made the point a number of times what for legal and professional opinion is with regards to the interpretation of the fire code. So I think you're more than you are free to disagree. My point is I heard on the Remundo parcel more than 30 unit dwellings would require a second access road. Is that what you said? Yes or no? Is that what I heard? So maybe questioned foraging. Is your interpretation being characterized correctly? What the code section says, sorry, the code section says is if there is a new development that proposes more than 30 units on a particular parcel, that would trigger this code section saying you need to put in a second access road. And the Fire Marshalls letter says this section, we're talking about the same section of the Fire Code, D107, states that subdivisions with more than 30 dwellings shall have more than one fire apparatus access road into that development. This code section would only apply if this single parcel were to have 30 or more one or two family units being built upon it. And I heard that that was citing code D107. Are we putting single family dwellings on this parcel or are we putting multi family dwellings on this parcel? We're not doing either. We're rez doing either. We're re-zoning that parcel. But you're re-zoning it for multi-family? No specific project is before the town. I'm not asking about that. Are we re-zoning it for multi-family? Yes or no? Correct. Okay. Now, multi-family has a different fire code. You might want to look at that because the 30 or more units does not apply to multi-family. Therefore, we've got an inconsistency here. So I'm suggesting I don't think this fire code issue is a closed book right now. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Sue. Any further comments in the room? All right. I'm not seeing any further comments in the Zoom room. So last call for public comment. All right. We're going to close the public comment period and start council deliberations. Anybody want to volunteer to go first? I'll go first. Thank you. You put that works. So there are. Sorry, sorry. Relative attractiveness issues with each of the town on sites, particularly relative to every other potential property a developer could take on throughout the county. I just want to acknowledge that the concentration issues in certain neighborhoods is a real concern with the plan. And I know we're all, I suspect we are all looking forward to in the town center plan in terms of sort of next steps for development as needed. The remundo site obviously has real hurdles with it in terms of lack of sewer and not close to downtown and issues with the egress and so forth. There is a lot to work through. I think as I said, I really appreciate the council was willing to include language to look into second EGRIS concerns and owner occupied. I also think it's really important for us to consider where we're gonna be investing our CIP. I think can't make these judgments about where to put density without thinking about investing in the neighborhoods that could potentially be impacted by density. So I'm looking forward to that discussion too in the coming period. Sort of outside of those issues, I did bring up concerns over the 35 foot slope issue last go around. I don't think I want to take that on tonight, but I'm very open to taking that on next year and revisiting. There's some inconsistencies in the code if we're going to allow it for multifamily and not allow it for single family. I think there's some things we have to fix there. So I'm more than happy to carry that water next year. I think I'll just maybe leave it saying we all wear two hats, one as a fiduciary of the town, and one to represent the voices of our district. And so that's on my mind as we enter the vote. Thank you, Council Member Domkowski, Council Member Brown. Yeah, I guess my, my feeling number one, just to address the question or the concern about open space. I just point out there's a lot of open space throughout the town, what's that for one? And secondly, we're right behind, we're going to know there's a lot of open space throughout the town of Woodside for one and secondly we're right behind or moon though there's thousands and thousands of acres so I'm not concerned about the open space issue. I am concerned about the fire access. I would like us to do what we said we were going to do which is let's explore it further with the fire department, perhaps with different possible alternatives or how we could put 16 units of some kind in there. I am aware that there are certain ways we can put 16 units that don't even have any vehicles into that location. So special needs, they don't drive. So we'll get to have 16 units that don't drive. I mean, that's a pretty one-spot-sale solution. But I want to look at others as well. But as far as locations that are appropriate for what we're being asked to do, I think remundles as good as any we have, given the flatness, the topography, and the things that we can do that we know can be done. And I'm also looking at, we know we're gonna have to bring sewer over. If we have to build a road, we have to build our own. And I think that those are the things that we need to be looking really hard at, but we don't look at it until we know that we have a go and a state to do anything. So it's kind of, it's comes first chicken of the egg. So my, my thing is, let's continue to move forward with where we are on Ramundo and evaluate further on the, the laxas. Councilmember Shaw? I'm going to pick up on the community involvement side of that. And I would absolutely, I'm not sure where that begins, whether it's at the RFP process or somewhere along the line, but I would be obviously in favor of that. But in addressing community involvement and Steve's comments earlier, we can revise the design standards after we approve the housing element. And we can reopen or revise the multi-family rectangle at 7773, right? The dimensions of it, that correct or we locked in on what's on the? Yes, you can but that would require some additional modification to the zoning that you're establishing but it's not it's not impossible No, it is not impossible and as the design standards, yes, you can revisit those okay No, well again, I think you think Brian brought it up and rightly so, or Kim brought it up initially, which is the 35% slope. And what was the other? I had it circled on my thing. That's so many grading. Yeah, I completely agree that a little unfair to restrict single family to grading requirements and slope and then just pull the standards off for the others. In terms of the question about, and we've been around this tree, but I'm going to go around it one more time because I've had to live this now for coming on three years. We explored dozens of sites around the town and just while listening I was scribbling down the list. We looked at the Portola Valley area at family farm, at equestrian sites. I called one of, you know, when you talk about, oh, you're not doing this in your own neighborhood, we have a very large piece of property across from our lower portion of our property on Mount and the Home Road. And I had a conversation with the owner there and it got completely like, no, go away. We absolutely looked in the town center, and you know, Stephen Thalia will well remember because they were part of the changing of the requirements within the town center on height limitations, particularly along Woodside Road. We looked up at Skyline. I met on multiple occasions with Councilmember Brown, former commissioner. London. Yeah, Craig London and Kevin Bryant with Stanford looking at multiple properties that we might be able to annex and build on. We had meetings with the Menlo Country Club about putting in workforce housing. We talked to mutual friend of Brian and I over on all of Hill as to whether or not they would be willing to do multi-family. And we did look at all the other town-owned sites, Cite Hill, the Joan Olson Preserve, the Kylia Questrian Center, and for the private properties, we were handed a big fat no. And on some of the other ideas we had around doing, zoning overlays, or town-owned sites, the state rejected them outright as being non-viable or unlikely to be done. So it's hard to hear that you guys didn't do your homework and you didn't look at this stuff. I know we did. The last thing that I wanted to address on the fire code exception is sure. This will come down to, if there's an RFP and suddenly, it looks like a building permit application is going to go in, the fire marshal is going to have to weigh in. I haven't, you know, I will give full credit to Miss Poletti. I rarely do you find somebody that shows up at town council who has done as much homework into the minutiae of stuff that she has. You know, looking at D107, the one thing that hasn't been brought up is, yeah, it's a one sentence thing about one or two family dwellings where the number of dwellings exceeds 30. But right below that is the exception. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units accessed from a single public or private fire apparatus access road and all the dwelling units accessed from a single public or private fire apparatus access road and all the dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with. So there are exceptions there that would not negate building on the site. And if we accepted the thing that the entire neighborhood was a site, that would mean that not a single person could build an ADU on their property. And if I was one of those people, I'd say, well, look, there's an exception right there. In terms of multi-family, that's, I think, the 106-init addresses developments of 100 and 200 dwelling units. So again, the attorneys can sort this one out when the time is appropriate. We landed here where we landed. I acknowledge all of the issues that are raised around ingress and egress and open space, etc. But it's pretty hard to find flat acreage in woodside. And I think that this is a developable site and I would be in favor of it. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Gold. A couple of points I'd like to make and just emphasize some of the things that I heard. I'm in agreement with Steve Lubin's suggestion about the 35% about the grade rating slope and his suggestion to revisit the objective design standards and specifically about the sight lines on Kinyata College site. And I think that we're not going to do that tonight that that's important. I think that the public has pointed out some clear oversights. I mean, with all that we did in those momentous meetings, I think that we clearly overlooked a few things and I think that that slope and grading issue is certainly one of them. And I think Steve Lubin and I think, if I'm not mistaken, I think Steve Patrick made the same point. Interesting that architects made it, maybe even value made it as well, that the objective design standards certainly left something to be desired. So I think we should revisit those not to night, necessarily. This steering committee that Mr. Hughes brought up, I think, is a good one. And by the way, I stand corrected if it was, in fact, Council Member Flueh, who said I'm full attribution to him. I think it is a great idea, but I did want to point out that I don't think the intention of that steering committee is to revisit all the issues that we've wrestled with here over the past couple of years. It is essentially a scoping and I think that the town attorney Referred to it as a steering committee that that's sort normally how it's done is kind of scoping and not to revisit these concerns, but how do we move forward with these two sites? the disposition of the land the owner occupied versus a rental unit. I mean how are we going to identify? Developers and that sort of thing? And I think that, and the RFP process, and I think that that's worthwhile. And I think it has to be some combination of council elected officials, staff, maybe from planning commission, I don't know, and members of the local community to steer that forward. I mean, it'd be nice to get that's a I could imagine a really complex task that may take quite a bit of time to get done. And I think that I'd certainly like to have that and then we can have a public hearing and kind of air it out and see where we are on it. So I do view it that way. I just didn't want to misrepresent what a steering committee does at least in my own mind. Ms. Hanson mentioned that was very clever, that we should turn over our planning to part, building and planning to the state, and we'd save some money even with the $10,000 on the fine well played. But I think it just shows you that some of these things are overblown. I mean, our building and planning isn't gonna stop. I'm not suggesting we do that. I think that that would be a breach of our fiduciary responsibility. And I'm not advocating for it. But I think that the sky won't fall either way. We're not going to do that clearly. But I think that some of the penalties that we might and suffer and air quotes are somewhat overblown because I'm not so sure the state could do anything worse than some of the things that we're doing here. And it doesn't, you know, just because the state takes over your building and planning, not that they are, not that they're advocating it, that doesn't mean we're gonna have skyscrapers built on, you know, in Hutter Park. We're still at the mercy of the same individual landowners who don't wanna do things. And we're one of those being the town. I'll end it there, thank you. I give it a really brief. I concur with Councilmember Dumbkowski Brown. Shaw, I forget your framerate name there. Actually, I want to thank Councilmember Shaw for every signing the size that we did look at. I think that is something that maybe we should have mentioned more and maybe even at every meeting the dozens of sites that were on the table that were looked at. The hard work that you and Councilmember Brown and Councilmember Dumpkowski and our planning commissioner did on the ground to convince people that maybe their property would be viable. And yeah, we looked as far as guideline up to Kaithill, Kanjada Corn, or Kanjada College. This was not something we took lightly and we looked at every single available option before we landed on these sites. I don't think that could be emphasized enough. I'm comfortable with our town councils and Fire Marshall's interpretation of the fire code. And I am again in full support of having a citizen involved, what's called a steering committee for now, we brought forward in the beginning of 2025. Favorite? Okay, thank you, Council Member Floyd. So I'd like to say I agree with comments from Council Novosha and Council Member Floyd and Council member Dom Kowski. I take my fiduciary obligations to the town regarding comply with state law really seriously. And I just fully disagree with some of the comments that that have been made tonight around not taking the potential penalties seriously. I think that would be a real disservice to the town. not taking the potential penalties seriously. I think that would be a real disservice to the town. And I think this council, for the most part, has taken, compliant with state law really seriously. And so that was a really important part of this process. And there was a suggestion earlier that the sites that are on our housing element and there being rezoned aren't near any of the council member homes. And I think I really have to take issue with what's implied there. There was a very rigorous process around looking for available sites that I think counts on number shot at a really good job of sort of summarizing all of the hard work that went into finding the sites that ended up on our housing element. And I think one of the four issues here is that there was really limited options. We live in a small town, none of the private property owners that were approached were interested in developing their land for multi-family housing. We introduced a lot of, and explored a lot of different ideas that were outright rejected. I refer to the missing middle that we explored. And so, you know, with very limited rules in our tool belt, we did the best that we could. And you know, that leads me into, you know, I am looking forward to really getting to work on our talent center plan because I think there are opportunities to give us more options. I think we'll be looking at the restrictions that are currently applicable to the town center. And so, I think that might see how that plays out, but that might change the calculus here looking forward to the next housing cycle. I, on the suggestion around community involvement in future development efforts for these sites, I'm fully supportive of that. Whether it plays out in becoming a steering committee or in whatever form I think communicating as Mr. Hughes asked, keeping residents informed, involved, aware of what's happening, 100%, I think that's gonna be a really important part of the process. And I know I'm definitely committed to that. And I would imagine that my fellow council members are as well. And that's it, members are as well. And that's it. Those are my comments. So I do support the rezoning that are on the agenda tonight. Any further council member deliberations? Maybe just to statement that whatever is about to happen doesn't mean we stop trying to do better for everybody. Keep exploring possible sites. I know there's some of that going on right now behind the scenes. And perhaps we can find a way to do better than than where we are. Okay. With that, I would entertain a motion. I move that we adopt ordinances that would amend municipal code chapter 153 zoning to add new multifamily zoning district development standards and changes to existing standards for the multifamily residential development overlay zone MFRD that can get a college. Men the zoning map designation for APN 072-041-0404 O Remundo dry parcel from open space to MF. I'm in the zoning map designation for portion of APN 068-100-22773 can yada road. I'm suburban residential to MF and I'm in the zoning map designation for portions of Cognitive Colleges campus APN 068-320-330-410 from SRMFRD to multifamily residential zone. All right, he's nodding in approval. Okay. Check him out. Council member Brown. Yes. Council member Don Kowski. I think to acknowledge the stresses and the advocacy of the impacted citizens of my district, I will vote no. Council member fluid. Yes. Council member gold. No. Council member Shaw. Yes. The motion. Wow. Council member wall. Oh, I'm sorry. Air wall. I'm sorry. Yes. The motion passes four yeses two noes. All right, maybe just pausing for a moment. This has been a long and really hard process. And it's not over yet. I think, you know, looting to some of the comments that were just made. I think all of us here really, you know, we want to continue the dialogue with the residents near the parcels that have been re-zoned. You know, I think Council Member Dumpk, whose DMChouse, you alluded to the fact that, you know, if, you know, other options become available, we will certainly be looking at that. And so you know before just jumping into the next item, I just wanted to make those comments. All right, we're going to move on to new business agenda item B, which is a, it's not actually not new public hearing related to the approval of a final map for a too lot land division and acceptance of a restricted covenant related to 980 good Disha drive. Say, are you taking this one? Oh, Sarah, sorry. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Wall and Council members. So I'd like to just give a brief overview of the project at 988, Goodeisha Drive. So tonight, the council will be reviewing the final map. In December of 2022 the Planning Commission approved a tentative map for a two-lot land division. Two appeals were filed against the Planning Commission decision. And so then in February of 2023 the town council denied the appeals upholding the planning commission decision and approved the tentative map. The applicant has now submitted their final map and the council shall determine if the final map conforms with the approved tentative map and conditions of approval. So the staff report outlines all of the conditions of approval of the tentative map and how the project, the final map implies. So staff is recommending approval of the final map and restrictive covenant. If the council approves the final map, the applicant will work with the staff to obtain necessary signatures, and the final map and restrictive covenant will be recorded at the San Mateo County recorder's office. So that concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Sarah. Any council member questions for staff? I see council member Shaw wanting to jump in. Sorry, just. Preapologies just because it's been a fun evening yet once again, so I'm not taking out my frustration on you guys. But if this thing started all the way back in 2020, it's been four years. Is there an explanation as to why this is taken so long to percolate through the system? I mean, typically it's waiting on the applicant to respond. What I would say is in terms of process, it's kind of a three step process. So the conceptual map process started in 2020 and so that involves going through rounds of review with various committees. And so that process takes a little bit of time, but really the tentative map is where a lot of the time on the project was spent. And there's an environmental review part of it which took six times to do that document and there was kind of a delay because it was an issue with the water service. The Redwood City was the water serviceer and it had to get transferred over to Cal water and that just a lot of time a lot of the time for the tentative map so I think that's most that's why took a long time. That's fine again I apologize I'm kind of want to go yell at trees for a while and that's in my experience serving the town, it typically comes down to either and primarily in sage el naut his head that we're on a shot clock to return around documents, but the applicant is not by and large. So, hearing that two water agencies kind of slowed things down. It's great, because normally people are emailing us angry. Why is my project taking so long? So, I apologize. Thank you. I had a question in this. It's may not be relevant to what they're asking for here, but have we looked at all at the impact of adding any additional capacity in terms of housing in that neighborhood? Because I'm really concerned about what's that road? It's very narrow and I can't, it's hard for me to conceive of any more housing going into that area. And if we're splitting a lot, is that going to result in more housing that's going to impact the roadway? Normally I'm against housing, I mean, the floor housing, but this is the case where I worry about it because the road can't be widened. And what we can do. Right. So it was part of the tentative map review is looking at creating, it's creating a new lot and zoning would allow for one single family dwelling and at least one ADU. So that was part of the consideration in the tentative map review and the environmental document. So that's just one house, one ADU. Yes. No. Well, there's no proposed development now, but yes, the zoning would allow one single family unit and I believe one ADU and maybe one J. I get that. Thank you. I was a member of Don Kalski. Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry, back to Council Member Shaw's coming about four years ago. I'm just trying to jog my memory, but I believe one of the concerns here was a drainage issue. If we go back four years or five years here, was there any, has there been any further work on mitigating that concern from one of the neighbors? Here at the time. I'll do my best answer. So with any proposal for development, the engineering department will have to review and make sure that they're meeting the minimum requirements for drainage. So it's something that yeah, there were concerns about from the neighbors, but it's something that is part of our review. And so when we get those technical details for a proposed project, they're reviewed by staff. So they would have to be in compliance with the minimum requirements. This is the split, not the project. Okay. Can I just ask a quick follow question related to the drainage topic? So yeah, as I think we included a drainage master plan in the CIP that did receive some funding. And so it's my understanding, please, if I'm wrong, that the town and your department is actually looking at the drainage in this neighborhood as part of that master plan, is that right? Absolutely. And thank you for bringing that up. So we are going to look at that, not only that neighborhood, but kind of a wholesale, townwide drainage master plan and address any deficiencies that the study shows us. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. I'm sorry. Council member Shaw. All right. Council member Gold. I'm good. Council member Flut. I have just one question. So. Sorry. Let me find my notes here. Yeah, so Sarah, could you the conditions of approval that basically said that the applicant had to prepare these CCNRs, which would outline all of the mitigation measures that were adopted in the MMRP, which was the part of the mitigated negative declaration. So the restricted covenant is basically it just outlines all those mitigation measures and it gets recorded with the county. So it's recorded on the property. Just to follow up, the primary reason is it tracks for any current or future staff as well as current or future property owners that these will be items that have to be implemented during any future development. Okay, yeah, thank you for that context. I have no further questions. Anybody else? Any of my fellow council members have any questions? Council member cold. Following up on that, how would they be removed? How could they be changed? Security. There was a trick of covenant. Yeah. I'm not sure if you're going to be in the room. I'm not sure if you're going to be in the room. I'm not sure if you're going to be in the room. I'm not sure if you're going to be in the room. I'm not sure if you're going to be in the room. I'm not sure if you're going to be in the room. I'm not sure if you're going to be in the Zoom room. Any public comment in the room? Okay, I'll hand up Maggie Ma. Yes, hi, first of all, I want to thank the council members that remembered that there was a clear direction to establish a comprehensive drainage plan for this area subsequent to the approval of this lot division. purpose in speaking tonight is that it's it's very much needed and I since there's an effort to have drainage considered townwide I would like to advocate for there being for this area being a priority given the topography and the lack of attention that has been paid to this area in this regard and the significant developments that have occurred in this area, I would like to ask that this be placed as a priority. So that, as you know, I was one of the appellants to the approval of this project and I would like very much to advocate for this to be a priority. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Maggie. Maybe a question for Yaz on that topic. Can you kind of describe how your what approach you're taking for the drainage master plan, how certain areas might be prioritized, and kind of what we can expect in terms of next steps on that. Sure. So the drainage study is going to look at different areas obviously because every area in town has different characteristics. So we would look at it differently and it's a process that at least at this study side of things will almost come together within the framework of the study, within the three or four months of the study. That's just to identify the deficiencies and defects I make recommendations for CIPs to improve drainage. When we get to the implementation stage, which would be the second part, that's when we can really look at prioritization in terms of implementing the CIPs. The first part is really to identify the issues and develop solutions for them for further implementation. Okay. When can we expect that study to happen. Right now, we will probably start the RFP process right now. And we're getting proposals, hopefully, by the consultants before the end of the year. And it would probably take about two to three months to complete this study. So I would say my best guess would be around first quarter of the 2024, which is a very good time because that would be the rainy season and that would be the time to actually do the study. So that would be the time that we would expect by the buyer before the end of the first quarter in 2025 to get the results. Okay. And then when would implementation start? Then we would work on the budget and depending on the type of CIPs that would be recommended by the study, you would have to work with the city manager to develop those individual budgets for the CIPs on presented to the council. May I say something in additional? Thank you. Yes. Can you hear me? Yep. Now, you go ahead. You can. I'd like to make a request that the study be conducted in conjunction with the town engineer that the the study be conducted by engineers that are not involved with current projects in this area, that they be independent and objective in their findings. Maybe a follow-up question to Gina. I'm not sure we could, well, question, would it be possible to limit the RFP process? I mean, how would we determine whether or not an engineer is involved in the area? It's always been a waste. Would it be allowed to eliminate certain engineering firms based on their involvement in the town. I would suggest that it would be a conflict of interest for people that are involved in projects to be also involved in a study that has such an impact of this area. Okay, noted question for Jean. I think we can take that common into consideration as a draft request for proposals. Okay, Maggie, did you hear we can take that suggestion under consideration? I did. Thank you. I asked a question. Let's say as the fire marshal been asked to evaluate just how does a fired engine get all the way to the top of the Disha? Well, there's two ways to excite up Jefferson and GoDisha. The project went through the fire district, the concept map stage and the tentative map stage. So they were required to be involved in both steps. Okay, thank you. All right, back to public comment. Any further public comment in the room? Not seeing any takers. And I'm not seeing any hands up in the zoom room. So last call for our one attendee in the room. And those in the zoom room not seeing any takers. So we're going to we're going to close public comment and move on to council member deliberations. Anybody like to go first? Okay. Yeah, I'll just in full deference to everybody on the call. I think from a process point of view that's involved appeals that have gone through the planning commission and been denied and reviewed and so forth. I think it's been very thorough. It's certainly been going on for a long time. We're aware of the concerns. They're part of the institutional knowledge on the board as you heard. And I think as we've also heard, they're being prioritized and they're on everybody's radar screen. You know, I would just say listen in light of the prior topic on the agenda tonight with targeted density that is severe. You know, looking at a lot split for single family homes with A to use is a relative welcome site. So maybe I'll just leave it at that and and I'll hand it off. That's a number, Brown. Yeah, my only concern is I don't want to overbuild, which is I want to add buildings. I've got very, very narrow roads. I'm concerned about by our access to get people out if they need to. Councilman Begold. That's a number for it. No real. I'm another than I guess I want to think that planning commissioners for being a look at this multiple times. And I have the same reaction, which I thought we looked at this in 2018. I guess we did. So no, I think we can make our findings and I'm in favor. Yeah, I agree. I think we can make the findings here. And we'll come out and make as you know, I appreciate Maggie Maas comments, I think, you know, definitely looking forward to the drainage study going out. And hope that we can move into an implementation phase in 2025. So that's the only comment that I have. Would anybody like to make a motion on this agenda item B? All right, I would move that we adopt the resolution of the town council approving the final parcel map or land division 2023 dash zero zero one. I can keep going. Land division to divide one 4.9 acre, nine six acre lot into two lots, property located at 98, Kodisha Drive. Thank you. Council member Brown. Yes. Council member Dumbkowski. Yes. Council member Fluet. Yes. Council member Gold. Yes. Council member Bashar. Yes. Air wall. Yes. Motion passes. 6-0. All right. That concludes our public hearing. We're going to move into reports and I've been turned over to Melissa to give us our volunteer committee updates. Thank you. So I'll start off with a few and then I'll move to sage to give an update on Kinetic corners. So the Circulation Committee reviewed an application for an organized group ride by the American Diabetes Association this Saturday and they approved it correct. They approved it. So I don't believe there's any road closures. Okay. The recreation committee is working on hosting a cars and coffee event in late October early November out here in front of town hall. I don't have a date yet, but more information will be up on the town's website when they pick a date. And the volunteerism committee has been planning the yearly thank you party for the town's volunteers. Invitations were mailed out today and the event will will be on Friday, October 25th at 4 p.m. And I will turn it over to Sage to give an update on the, oh, yes. Oh, the volunteer event will be outside here as we did last year. We'll be outside in front of town hall and Independence Hall. October 25th. Hey. Yes, thank you. and the attendance hall. October 25th. Yes, thank you. Thank you. So given that project at Kaniotic Corners has gone through four. What's committees this month? I'll report out on that. So on September 12th, the trails committee reviewed the proposed project project to Kaniotic corners and just for larger context. Those who may not be familiar in listing, there's a project proposal to expand the parking lot at the Kaniotic corners commercial center and add to outdoor dining parklets. That project was reviewed by the Trails Committee. They had two recommendations. One was to leave the existing Questory and Trail easement as is through the site as well as for the project to include Improvement safety improvements to the trails that surround the site. So there's a trail along Kinyata Road and a trail along Woodside Road on that board of the site. And so they were looking for improvements to those two trails. The, on September 11th, the Environment and Open Space Committee conducted their hearing and they rejected the removal or modification to any of the Open Space easement. The Circulation Committee reviewed it and they expressed that the project could negatively impact the same circulation through Woodside. They also noted that, well, and also in a little different than the Trails Committee, they recommended that the equestrian trail only easement on the site through the site also be extended to pedestrians. And they also recommended improvements to the trails that board the site. And then the ASRB reviewed the project last night. They recommended the continuance of the project for additional items to be addressed by the applicant. Yeah, I said in both of those meetings, very lively. I had a, my impression sage is that a lot of the people participating didn't really know much about the easements, particularly how wide they were, was it the pedestrian and horses, or was it just a question, bicycles included or not included, and how safe would it all be if we tried to do combinations of people, can you can you get it any more specifically through what that is? So the site currently has an equestrian easement through the site. And it there is an informal pathway that is not located entirely within that easement. So it's just the equestrian is the only the one that goes around the outside. So there's one that goes just through through the site, but along the edge of it. And that's along the northern edge and through the creed. And it's of it. And that's it. Along the northern edge and through the trees. And it's a normal equestrian only size. That's correct. It's 15 wide. And so there was that discussion. Then there's a discussion of the typically in practice that equestrians and pedestrians can share. Sorry, trails without any significant conflict. Whereas it's not advisable generally to have bicycles and equestrian share trails as where bikes can more easily spook horses, as well as as we know with new technology and the e-bikes and some of that, that could be more of that scary. Okay. There was some concern about being able to make the turn as you come down the hill. Did you see that as a big concern? I think it's just something that will be adjusted as part of the project. There's ample room and the slopes aren't significant out there. Okay, and have we had a legal evaluation gene of the pathway through the middle? Right now that's the informal path that's been created over the years. Is that literally a legal pathway. They're using it, but it's not in the easement. That's correct. What does that mean? Is it still legal? Or is it there's theoretically illegal for the property owner? I want to answer this correctly. There are easements on the property, and then there are people accessing areas I want to answer this correctly. There are easements on the property, and then there are people accessing areas of the property where there are no easements. Correct. But is that, is that, I mean, that question came up in one of the meetings. Is it legal to go theoretically to go through the middle or could the owner of the property, the Robert's family say, this is my property, that they're putting this illegal path through. It's private property, and if there are no public easements in that area, the property owner would choose to indicate that those are not areas that are bird divine easement. Okay, and the other question is the pathway around the edge of the outer road that then turns. How much work would be involved in bringing that up to code? That's yet to be seen in something that the applicant will need to provide as part of their project. Now would probably have to also include bicycles. It could yes. Yes. Like it's look at the feasibility of bike. Multi use on the excuses. Something that could be looked at. Okay, and we also know how often that pathway through is being used by horses. I do not have any doubt on that. You know, you're talking about the one that cuts across the. No, no, just either the question or either way gets used a lot of day of the horse. Yeah, I get that people crossing. Yeah, I just wonder how much is it an issue? I can see the walking and the bike kids, reason bikes. I don't know how much horses use that, that's all. Yeah, all this stuff will be brought up at the Planning Commission in town council. We do want to be a little careful of a little too far into the item without it being a agenda. I was just going to say, I think, I think we can give it our update, but I think these are all really great questions. I think you can explore them directly. I just want to have a pleasure with the planning commission. That's all. Could I ask one for the discussion? I'll see. Scheduling? Yes, please do. What is this doing to the ability to bring this before council before the election recess? We need to talk with the applicant further to see how they'd like to proceed with the project. So if they want to go back to the ASRB, if they, it's something we need to discuss further. Tendatively, we still have the schedule, we have the project scheduled for planning commission review on October 9th. And tentatively, we have scheduled for October 22nd on the town council. If there's need for further ASRB review, we'll see if we can weave that in. Okay. Thank you. All right, any further volunteer committee updates? I don't think so, right? Okay, moving on to mayor and council member communications. Are there any council member communications? Looks like we've got them and council member communications. Are there any council member communications looks like we've got them from council member Gold? Got a couple. One I attended a department of emergency management meeting, it's the OES Office of Emergency Services. It's now got a different name. And we revised the joint powers agreement. Sounds important. And it was unanimously changed by the members of the council, including me. But it's gotta come before the town council first and we were hoping to get it done before. It's gotta come to all the cities and towns in San Mateo County for approval by them, us. And they would like to have a meeting that was approved by the town council. I'm going to have a detail county for approval by them. They would like to have that done before the election if possible. There's a little time emergency to it. I did speak with the town manager about it and he's going to I mentioned this to Council Member Brown. There was a pretty big presentation by Sandra Furpo of DEM about an outreach related to seniors, which I thought meshed very well with one of the projects that Council Member Brown is going to discuss. I discussed with her today and I want to put it in as part of the senior program that I've mentioned. We're going to start putting together. She had mentioned that there may be other resources within the medical of San Mateo County, which she said they actually have an office of aging services or something like that. And she said, a lot of this work may have been done. I don't want to step on anything that Council member Brown is doing because I really respected and appreciated. But there are some information there. They were interested in your project as well. So I just thought that that might be useful. And the last thing I wanted to mention is our sheriff's captain. I'm not going to wait into the controversy surrounding what's going on at the sheriff's department. But nevertheless, Captain Math Fox, our guy is now the acting assistant sheriff, San Mateo County reporting directly to the sheriff, Christina Corpus, but I just wanted to, that's a pretty big kudo to Math Fox. And after Mark Myers, our previous captain has been named the chief of San Carlos. So he's not, I mean, this is so we, what side is a pretty, what kept Christina before that? Yeah. So we are the launching point. Woodside is the spot man. You want to be in you want to go up in the world. That's it. But I just wanted to thank I personally already congratulated Matt Fox, but I think it's quite a other in his cap that he's now the assistant acting assistant sheriff. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Council member Gold, you stole my thunder on the update for the from related to our sheriff's office in our captain. I'd definitely not going to wait into what we've been all been seeing in the press, but I didn't want to read a statement just to make sure that everybody on the council and the public was kind of up to speed on what's happening. So, San Mateo County Sheriff, Christina Corpus recently announced some personnel changes, including the promotion the Bureau Captain overseeing the town of Woodside. Rest assured acting assistant sheriff Fox will continue to oversee police services for Woodside until a new a new bureau captain is announced. Once a new bureau captain is named acting assistant sheriff Fox will ensure a smooth transition to keep continuity of operations and exceed the expectations of the residents of Woodside. So definitely want to emphasize that there is no impact to police services with this recent announcement while acting assistant Sheriff Fox was not able to be here tonight. I would like to congratulate him on his next chapter and I look forward to continuing to work with him to ensure the safety of our community. All right. And then my only other update is just a reminder that we have our town can count the number staff party on October 10th and it's going to be hosted at the Firehouse Beastro, which leads me into my closing for tonight. So the Firehouse Beastro is the adorable little red building located at 2991 Woodside Road, which as the name suggests, was the location of Woodside's first firehouse. And it was originally called station 1. Station 1 is a historical building that at different points in time has been a dry cleaners, a bakery, an ice cream carler, and a series of restaurants. It's also been the home to a few colorful Woodside characters, including the original fire crew, which was composed of Vern Kelly, who also owned the peanut farm. This was a popular watering hole in the 1970s and 80s, the corner of Canyada and Glenwood, and it's now a private residence. Also, boots O'Neill. I couldn't find any info on him, but I assume from his name that he was an interesting character. And Chief John Volpion, who was the chief for an impressive 45 years. And I would encourage you to go online and Google Chief John, because there's a really interesting interview by a woman named Dorothy from 1971. And it provides an oral history of the Woodside Fire Department. So with that, we'll close tonight's meeting.